`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MEDIATEK LTD. AND MEDIATEK, INC., and
`ARM LTD. AND ARM, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
`AND ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 22, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT BENSON, ESQUIRE
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`2050 Main Street
`Suite 1100
`Irvine, California 92614-82256
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. HIGGINS, ESQUIRE
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`WILLIAM A. MEUNIER, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL B. WEINGER, ESQUIRE
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, January
`
`22, 2019, commencing at 1:29 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. This
`is the oral hearing in some consolidated cases, Mediatek Limited and
`Mediatek, Inc. and Arm Limited and Arm, Inc. versus Advanced Micro
`Devices and ATI Technologies, IPRs 2018-00101, -102, -1148 and -1149.
`Beginning with the Petitioner, would the parties please introduce
`themselves.
`MR. HIGGINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Chris Higgins on
`behalf of the Mediatek Petitioners. With me is Robert Benson who will be
`doing the argument today. And also with us is Kevin Anderson on behalf of
`the Arm Petitioners in the joint IPRs.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Thank you. Patent Owner?
`MR. MEUNIER: Good afternoon. I'm Bill Meunier here for the
`Patent Owners from Mintz, Levin. Also with me is Dan Weinger and Adam
`Rizk.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Thank you.
`All right. Well, welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`I've given -- each party has been allocated 75 minutes of total argument
`time. Petitioner will go first to present its case on its challenges to
`patentability and on any motions the Petitioner might have pending.
`Thereafter, we'll hear from the Patent Owner on its opposition to the
`Petitioners' case, and I think there was an error in the Trial Order. There is a
`Motion to Amend pending, I believe, so we'll hear on that as well, right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`MR. MEUNIER: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. All right. So we'll hear on the
`Motion to Amend.
`You can each reserve time. We'll then -- the Petitioner can
`respond or have a rebuttal to the opposition to its case and respond to the
`Motion to Amend with whatever time it reserves. And, finally, the Patent
`Owner will get a brief sur-rebuttal for the amount of time it has reserved.
`Okay. Everybody, prepared to proceed?
`All right. Well, then let's begin with the Petitioner. And what I'm
`going to do is I'm going to set the clock to 75 minutes and just let it count
`down. And when you're done, you'll know how much time you have left.
`MR. BENSON: Thank you, Your Honors. We have hard copies
`of the Petitioners' exhibits if Your Honors would like a hard copy.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Yes, please. Oh, and speaking of that, let
`me mention that Judge Korniczky is participating remotely, so make sure
`that whenever you're referring to any document or any exhibit or
`demonstrative that you identify it by number so he can find it and follow it.
`MR. BENSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. HIGGINS: May I approach, Your Honor?
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Please. All right. You can begin.
`MR. BENSON: Thank you, Your Honors. Robert Benson of
`Orrick on behalf of the Petitioners Mediatek in the 101 and 102 IPRs.
`The overarching primary dispute remaining between the parties
`relates to the issue of whether a claimed unified shader is disclosed in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`prior art and, in particular, in the processing elements of Rich in the 101 IPR
`and the programmable shading unit of Collodi in the 102 IPR.
`I will spend the bulk of the argument this afternoon addressing that
`issue and, in particular, addressing the evidence that a unified shader is
`disclosed by those references under any of the proposed constructions in
`these proceedings. And I will begin particularly with addressing the
`disclosure of a unified shader under the Board's preliminary construction in
`its Institution Decisions and where the parties have remaining disputes on
`that issue.
`I will then talk about the claim construction issues that have been
`raised by the parties. I will then skip ahead to the last section of slides,
`which address the contingent Motion to Amend. And in connection with
`that, the fact that texture coordinate shading, even under Patent Owner's
`definition, is also disclosed by Rich and Collodi and other prior art and I will
`address that in the context of the Motion to Amend. Lastly, we will touch on
`some of the issues regarding the combinations.
`Moving to slide 8, this is the Board's preliminary construction. In
`their response, Patent Owner raised two issues under the preliminary
`construction. One was whether the prior art disclosed a programmable
`processor and the second was whether it receives packets from a rasterizer.
`In the Sur-Replies, Patent Owner raised two additional issues. One
`was a definition of packets that was first introduced in the Sur-Reply and
`whether or not that has been shown and, secondly, whether a texture unit has
`been shown that the texture request is being issued to. The evidence that is
`unrebutted in the proceedings shows that those elements are also disclosed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`and that evidence was submitted with our Reply and so I will go over that
`shortly.
`
`The first issue is programability. There really isn't a dispute in the
`Collodi reference -- this is slide 9 -- in the 102 IPR. Collodi discloses a
`standard programmable shading unit as it is called in the reference. The
`only argument raised by Patent Owner regarding the programability of
`Collodi is that it does not, according to Patent Owner, is not programmable
`to perform texture coordinate shading under their definition. Since that is
`not part of the Board's construction, I will address that in the later portion.
`Slide 11. As to the processing elements in Rich, Rich discloses
`"the operations are programmable and determined by a set of
`microinstructions," and that is very much parallel to the type of
`programability disclosed in the '506 patent.
`Slide 12. The issue raised by Patent Owner here is simply that the
`processing elements in Rich implement a SIMD architecture, meaning all of
`the processing elements are executing the same instruction at the same time.
`There's nothing in the '506 patent which restricts programability to
`processing elements that are independently programmable as Dr. Wolfe
`contends, for example, if there are multiple unified shaders that they all have
`to be independently programmable relative to one another. That's not in the
`'506 patent. They have not cited anything in the '506 patent to support that
`type of narrow definition of programability and so --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I'm sorry to interrupt, I know we're going
`to get to the issue of incorporation by reference of the '133 patent as well,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`but is there anything in the '133 patent that Patent Owner has cited as
`disclosed in that?
`MR. BENSON: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BENSON: The next two issues under the Board's preliminary
`construction, the first relates to whether the unified shader receives a packet
`from a rasterizer. And in the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner brought in a
`definition of packet, "a data bundle containing texture coordinate and color
`information for one or more pixels." That is actually the ITC's construction
`of packet in the context of the '133 patent where packet is a claimed term.
`The packet is not a claimed term in the '506 patent. Nevertheless, the
`unrebutted evidence here shows that it does. Each of the unified shaders in
`Collodi and Rich do receive packets from a rasterizer under that definition.
`Slide 14. For the 102 IPR, Collodi discloses that the rasterizer
`"provides interpolated vertex values for each pixel." This is shown in Figure
`1 and is also recited in paragraphs 14 to 15 of Collodi and that is received by
`the programmable shading unit.
`Slide 15. Collodi also states in paragraph 15 that the rasterizer is
`one whose operation is well-known to those skilled in the art. Dr. Pfister
`testified that one of ordinary skill would understand that the interpolated
`vertex values received from a rasterizer would include interpolated color and
`texture coordinates. That is the standard information that a rasterizer
`produces and that testimony is not rebutted in this proceeding.
`Slide 16. Dr. Wolfe's testimony does not mention packets
`anywhere. He does not offer an opinion as to whether Collodi discloses that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`its programmable shading unit receives packets from a rasterizer, so Dr.
`Pfister's testimony on this issue is unrebutted.
`Slide 17. Patent Owner has raised two issues on this clause as to
`the processing elements in Rich. First, whether Petitioner has shown that
`separate processing elements are doing rasterization and color shading and
`texture shading. Assuming that those have to be separate elements, the
`evidence shows that they are. And the second issue, again, is whether
`packets are received under this narrow construction.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So let me ask you this because I think in
`your Petitioner Reply, if I remember correctly, I think that you indicated that
`both the Petitioner and the Patent Owner were of one mind as to our claim
`construction that there were two parts of it that were -- I think the word
`might have been optional, and one of those parts was through -- that through
`an interface receive packets from a rasterizer and has at least one
`ALU/memory pair. I assume that the ALU/memory pair is there because we
`saw that as the pipeline configuration. It must have an ALU/memory --
`MR. BENSON: That's not in dispute.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: That's not in dispute. So it's the rasterizer
`part that was in dispute.
`MR. BENSON: Yes.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And you've talked about this a couple
`of -- you've spent a little bit of time on it now. But is it your contention and
`is it the Patent Owner's contention as well that the rasterizers -- and I know
`the word rasterizer does not appear in Claim 1. It says that you receive the
`geometry and the back end of the chip is configured to receive the geometry
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`and process the geometry, so the geometry need not be in packets. Is that
`really what we're saying here?
`MR. BENSON: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, I'd like to skip ahead
`for a moment to slide 28 and it is not slide 28. That is slide 28. These are
`the limitations that are part of the Board's preliminary construction that both
`Patent Owner and Petitioner have agreed need not be part of the construction
`of the unified shader. It is the position of both parties that these particular
`limitations should not be imported into the construction.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I'm a little confused, though, as to the
`ALU/memory pair and the memory. I mean, the fact of the matter is that it
`outputs values to a frame buffer. As you read Claim 1, it's a chip. It's a
`graphics chip that has a back end. None of this -- none of the rest of the
`claim seems to deal much with the front end.
`It has a back end and so you have -- and wherein each of the back
`end has -- let me see, back end of the graphics chip configured to receive the
`geometry, process the geometry into one or more pixels to be placed in a
`frame buffer. And then we say each of the back end graphics chips
`comprises multiple parallel pipelines, and then we say wherein each of the
`parallel pipelines further comprises a unified shader that is programmable to
`perform.
`So a pipeline would seem to be -- the concept of a pipeline would
`seem to be incorporated into the unified shader. It says wherein each of the
`parallel pipelines comprises a unified shader. Part of the issue that's been, I
`think, difficult for everybody in this case is all anybody is talking about is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`function and the claim is drawn to a chip with a shader. So I need some
`structure to work with here.
`MR. BENSON: Thank you, Your Honor. So let me go through
`each of these elements perhaps separately. Certainly column 6 of the '506
`patent talks about the unified shader receiving rasterized values. So that I
`think would be fair to put into the construction. The word packets, however,
`only appears in the latter part of the specification after 9:28 to 34, which
`says the rest of it is optional details basically.
`The term ALU/memory pair is also in that later part of the
`specification. Certainly the unified shader would require access to memory
`and computational units. But whether or not there have to be ALU/memory
`pairs, column 1 dash -- column 10, lines 1 through 3, actually states further it
`can be appreciated that other types of equivalent physical memory
`implementation can be used as well. So it's really the pair that is at issue
`there.
`
`And a separate issue comes up -- this is slide 30 -- rasterizer and
`texture unit are components in Dependent Claim 7. And so whether those
`should be imported into the definition of unified shader is an issue we
`contend that it should not be and, in fact, Patent Owner did not dispute
`Dependent Claim 7 in their response.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I can appreciate the claim differentiation
`argument. Okay.
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Excuse me, counsel. So you were saying
`that you disagree with the phrase at least one ALU/memory pair and you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`said you didn't like the term pair. You agree that it has to be at least one
`ALU memory?
`MR. BENSON: I would say that the unified shader certainly
`requires computational units, such as an ALU, and that it also requires
`access to memory.
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BENSON: Okay. Moving back to slide 17 hitting -- I'll go to
`slide 18. Quickly on the remaining elements for Rich on whether or not
`there are separate processing elements doing rasterization and texture
`shading or texture operations, Dr. Pfister has testified that, in fact, there are
`separate processing elements.
`If you look at Rich at column 9:40 to 10:5, after rasterization it
`actually talks about the contributions, which is the Rich term for the -- it
`actually defines it as the characteristics of a pixel, I believe is what it says.
`So the contributions it says are scattered throughout the processing element
`array and are assigned two processing elements for further processing, the
`color shading and the texture shading.
`And Dr. Pfister has testified that that indicates that the processing
`elements doing rasterization and color shading/texture shading are distinct.
`There is no contrary testimony in this proceeding. Again, Dr. Wolfe has not
`offered any testimony pertaining to rasterization performed by Rich.
`Slide 19. On the packets issue, again, Dr. Pfister has testified that
`a person of ordinary skill would understand contributions to include
`interpolated pixel and texture coordinate values. In fact, Dr. Wolfe's
`testimony on what a conventional rasterizer does is consistent with that, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`Dr. Pfister's testimony is unrebutted on that issue as Dr. Wolfe has no
`testimony that mentions packets or is addressed to it.
`And, finally, the third issue under the Board's preliminary
`construction involves texture unit. Again, as Your Honor pointed out, it's
`the contention of both parties that that component should not be imported
`into the construction of unified shader since it's part of Dependent Claim 7.
`Nevertheless, we will address this issue very briefly.
`In terms of Collodi in the 102 IPR, slide 21, Dr. Pfister has
`testified the programmable shader in Collodi -- it's called the programmable
`shading unit -- can be programmed both to issue a texture request to a
`texture unit or write receive texture values to a memory, and that is also
`cited in our Reply at pages 11 to 12. And the support in Collodi is that the
`programmable shading unit conducts texture map lookups that is operatively
`connected to texture memory, communicates with texture memory and has
`local memory registers to store the received values.
`Slide 22. Again, this is not rebutted by Dr. Wolfe who does not
`address texture unit or mention it in his testimony.
`Finally with respect to Rich, slide 23, Rich repeatedly discloses --
`we have quotes on the slide here -- processing elements 32 requesting
`texture map data, PEs 32 communicating their texture block data requests, a
`texture fetch is initiated and so on. Dr. Wolfe takes the position that the
`central control unit, not the processing elements, issues the requests. But as
`Dr. Pfister has pointed out, Rich clearly discloses the processing elements
`initiating the requests. Whether the central control unit assists in some way
`does not take away from that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`And, finally, Dr. Pfister also explains that in the context of Rich
`that the texture requests would be received by a texture unit and that
`information is being returned by the texture unit. That testimony is also
`unrebutted. Slide 24.
`And, finally, as well as Collodi on slide 25, Dr. Pfister further
`testified that the processing elements in Rich write receive texture values to
`a memory. That is also his testimony with respect to the programmable
`shading unit of Collodi, and this is also cited in our Reply.
`So this takes us back to claim construction issues, and so I'll skip
`ahead for a moment. Actually let me just go through quickly, we've already
`covered, I think, all of the structural issues, so I don't need to go back over
`those.
`
`If we take away those structural issues, the Petitioner has proposed
`a construction of a processing mechanism, which is borrowed from the
`Board's preliminary construction, that can be programmed to adjust the color
`of a pixel, which was the Board's construction of color shading. And then in
`terms of the construction of texture address shading, we propose issue a
`texture request or receive texture information in response to that request.
`That is basically a texture lookup. That is the only type of texture operation
`that is disclosed in the '506 patent.
`And so this bring us to the primary dispute. I'm now on slide 32,
`and that is whether or not texture coordinate shading, as Patent Owner has
`defined it, meaning modification of texture coordinates is a requirement of
`the unified shader in the '506 patent. We agree with the Board's Institution
`Decision that that is not a requirement of the unified shader of the '506
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`patent, and the Board has a pretty extensive analysis of that issue in its
`Institution Decisions, so I'm not repeating that here today, but I would like to
`raise several additional points.
`And the first is slide 33. The Board observed in its Institution
`Decisions that Dr. Wolfe in defining texture coordinate shading and in
`arguing that texture coordinate shader is distinct from texture address shader,
`Dr. Wolfe did not cite to any independent authoritative source. That remains
`the case today. Throughout this proceeding Dr. Wolfe has not cited to
`anything other than himself for the definition of texture coordinate shading
`or that it is somehow the requirement of a unified shader or texture address
`shading.
`Slide 34. This an interesting point in my view. About four years
`into the prosecution of the '506 patent, the Patent Applicant submitted a
`substitute specification and in this substitution brought over into the spec of
`the '506 patent what is basically columns 5 through 11 of the '133 patent as
`issued. All of that does not include any of the texture coordinate shading
`disclosures in the '133 patent.
`In the '133 patent all of the references to texture coordinate shading
`are in columns 2 and 3 and the Patent Applicant intentionally did not bring
`any of that over when submitting the substitute specification for the '506
`which, again, reflects the Patent Applicant's intent to not be covering or
`certainly not limiting its unified shader to texture coordinate shading in the
`'506. It is our speculation that the substitute specification, the purpose of it
`might have been that they realized the potential error with the incorporation
`by reference issue and were trying to remedy it in this way.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`And that brings us to that issue on slide number 35. And candidly
`we spotted this issue when we were looking at the written description
`requirements in opposition to the Contingent Motion to Amend brought by
`the Patent Owner. And in that context, we realized that the application for
`the '133 patent was filed a couple of weeks after the application for the '506
`patent.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I wish I realized that sooner, too. It's one
`of those things -- it's one of those little things that you can -- it's hard to
`notice.
`
`MR. BENSON: The dates weren't too far apart. And, of course,
`the '133 patent could not be part of the written disclosure or part of the
`written description of the '506 because it did not yet exist when the
`application for the '506 was filed.
`Now, Patent Owner has argued in response in their Sur-Reply that
`a co-pending '946 application, which was the parent of the '133, that that's
`what they intended to incorporate by reference and so that should somehow
`save this issue. And yet if you look at the original disclosure of the '506
`patent and we copied it here, it actually doesn't refer to the '946 application,
`which they certainly could have done. Instead, it refers to serial number
`XXXXX and it has a date in the future filed December XX, 2003.
`So no matter what standard you apply, a reasonable examiner,
`POSA, etcetera, clearly there's an intent here not to refer to a co-pending
`application. So I don't see how the '946, which was later abandoned and
`never referenced in the '506 patent, can somehow resolve this issue.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`There's a separate issue under 37 CFR 1.57(c), because the '133
`patent did not issue until after the '506 patent issued and its application was
`designated not to be published. And so if the material is deemed essential,
`then there's another reason under the regulations why the '133 patent could
`not be incorporated by reference.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: The '133 patent has on its face that it's a
`continuation of an application filed eight days before this one, the
`application that led to this one I think, November 18th. This one was -- the
`application that led to this patent, the '506 patent, was filed on November
`26th. Is there anything of significance there, anything we should be
`concerned about?
`MR. BENSON: I don't think so, Your Honor, based on what I
`explained earlier, which was now they have said that a reasonable examiner
`standard applies to interpreting the incorporation by reference at the time of
`the initial disclosure. The case they cite suggests that it's a POSA standard.
`But either way given the fact that they explicitly referred to an application
`without a number and a filing date in the future, it is difficult to say that they
`were incorporating by reference that parent.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So when -- because I haven't looked this
`up, when was the actual incorporation by reference done? I mean, they must
`have had to amend in order to put the correct date and application number in.
`Do you know when that was?
`MR. BENSON: We do. My colleague will take a quick look and
`I'll get that back to you. I believe it was four or five years into the
`prosecution.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. So then my next question to you
`
`is --
`
`MR. BENSON: 2008, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: 2008. That's a fairly significant time. It's
`about five years. So my next question to you is, if it's new matter, when did
`it become new matter and that was being incorporated into the patent
`specification, when the patent -- when the '506 was filed or when the actual
`amendment was made to incorporate the actual subject matter?
`MR. BENSON: Well, I think the case law we have cited, Your
`Honor, in our briefing says that you determine written description support as
`of the date of the filing.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So there would have been no written
`description support as of the date of the filing and so the -- it would have
`been incorporated by reference five years later and, therefore, it would have
`been new matter five years -- that that was being incorporated five years
`later.
`
`MR. BENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. All right. I just want to make sure
`I understand your position on it.
`MR. BENSON: The last issue on slide 36 is -- was also pointed
`out in our Reply and it's simply that Zhu, the parent of Rubinstein, which is
`incorporated by reference into Rubinstein and has the same shader engine,
`during prosecution the Patent Applicant actually referred to Zhu as doing
`pixel color processing and texture address shading.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`
`Now, the argument was that they were being done in separate
`hardware blocks, but they did say that texture address shading as a function
`was being performed. Again, it's just another indication of the changing
`position of Patent Owner on this texture address shading issue with the
`texture coordinate shading issue we're dealing with now having come up
`during recent litigation.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: At any point is there in either the '506
`patent or the '133 patent, for that matter, a specific definition of texture
`shading, texture coordinate shading, texture address shading?
`MR. BENSON: I would say the answer is no, but with a slight
`caveat. Texture shading, I think the answer is no. Texture address shading,
`the answer is no. That's in the '506 patent. Now, the '506 patent in five or
`six places does talk about issuing texture requests and doing texture lookups
`and that is the only type of texture operation that is described in the '506
`patent and, therefore, we have argued that it would be error to limit texture
`address shading to something narrower than that, like texture coordinate
`shading.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. So let me explain where I'm
`getting the question from.
`MR. BENSON: Sure.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I believe the claim just has texture
`shading, right?
`MR. BENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. So it doesn't say texture address
`shading, texture coordinate shading. The '506 patent I think in column 6, if
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00101 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-00102 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01148 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`IPR2018-01149 (Patent 7,633,506 B1)
`
`I've got this right somewhere down at the bottom of column 6, it talks about
`a unified shader. And somewhere around line -- beginning around line 53, it
`says the unified shader performs both color shading and texture address
`shading. The conventional distinction between shading operations, i.e.,
`color texture map and coordinate texture map with color shading operation
`and texture address operation is not handled by the use of separate shaders.
`In this way any operation, be it for color shading or texture shading, may
`loop back into the shader and be combined with any other operation.
`So I've got here in this particular little eight lines that I just read a
`reference to texture address shading and a texture address operation and
`texture shading, and so I'm trying to get a sense -- and I believe that if I'm
`correct, again, that mention of texture address shading is the only mention of
`texture address shading that appears in the '506 patent. I may be wrong, but
`I think that's the only one. So I'm just trying to get a sense as to what the
`Petitioner's position is as to what all this means.
`MR. BENSON: So texture I believe the same paragraph you were
`reading from also refers to a traditional texture address shader.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Maybe it does.
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
