`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: March 20, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., and
`VADATA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`
`On March 13, 2019, Judges Deshpande, Arbes, and Zado held a
`
`conference call with Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and
`
`VADATA, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`(“Patent Owner”). Petitioner requested the conference call to seek
`
`authorization to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`
`address Patent Owner’s construction of the claim term “data prefetch unit.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s request.
`
`Petitioner does not propose a construction for “data prefetch unit” in
`
`the Petition. See, e.g., Paper 1, 6–8 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). However,
`
`Petitioner provides the parties’ proposed constructions in a district court
`
`proceeding. Id. In that proceeding, Petitioner stated the term “data prefetch
`
`unit” does not need construction, and that it is part of a larger phrase that is
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph, and also is indefinite. Id. at 6–
`
`7. Patent Owner proposed the term should be construed as “a functional unit
`
`that retireives computational data needed to complete the algorithm
`
`instantiated on the reconfigurable processor during processing.” Id. at 6. In
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes a
`
`construction that differs from the construction it proposed in district court.
`
`Paper 20 (“Preliminary Response” or “Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner
`
`proposes to construe the term to mean “a functional unit that moves data
`
`between members of a memory hierarchy. The movement may be as simple
`
`as a copy, or as complex as an indirect indexed strided copy into a unit stride
`
`memory.” Id. at 16.
`
`
`
`“A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary
`
`response in accordance with [37 C.F.R.] §§42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`request must make a showing of good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). After
`
`considering the parties’ arguments during the call, we are not persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has shown good cause to file a reply. Petitioner has not shown
`
`that it could not have foreseen Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which
`
`is taken directly from the specification of the challenged patent, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,149,867 B2. See Ex. 1001, 5:18, 5:40–43 (“1. Definitions: . . . Data
`
`prefetch Unit—is a functional unit that moves data between members of a
`
`memory hierarchy. The movement may be as simple as a copy, or as
`
`complex as an indirect indexed strided copy into a unit stride memory.”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply is denied.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Hadden
`dhadden-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`Saina Shamilov
`sshamilov-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Alfonso Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`Joseph DePumpo
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`