`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 24
`Entered: June 9, 2020
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request on Rehearing of
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00130
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and VADATA, Inc.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) seek rehearing (Paper 23, “Request” or “Req.
`Reh’g”) of our Decision Denying Inter Pates Review (Paper 22, “Decision”
`or “Dec.”). According to Petitioner, the sole reason for our denial was based
`on the erroneous finding that the Petition (Paper 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) did
`not specify how the prior art references—Lange and Zhong—each teach a
`“data prefetch unit” as properly construed. Req. Reh’g 2.
`We have considered Petitioner’s Request, but for the reasons that
`follow, we decline to modify our Decision.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the
`decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in
`a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. “When rehearing on petition, a
`panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(d).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The Petition did not propose any construction of the claim term “data
`prefetch unit,” as recited in challenged independent claims 1, 9, and 13.
`Pet. 6–7. Rather, the Petition identified the constructions proposed by the
`parties in district court proceedings in which Petitioner argued the term is
`indefinite. Id. The Petition asserted that because indefiniteness cannot be
`raised in an inter partes review, the Board should adopt the construction
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00130
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`proposed by Patent Owner in district court—i.e., “a functional unit that
`retrieves computational data needed to complete the algorithm instantiated
`on the reconfigurable processor during processing” (hereinafter, the
`“proposed district court construction”). Id. at 6. Petitioner provided no
`argument or evidence to support this construction, which we rejected in the
`Decision because it is contrary to the express definition provided in the
`specification of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,867 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’867 patent”).
`Dec. 9–10. The ’867 patent specification expressly defines “data prefetch
`unit” under the heading “Definitions” as follows:
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 5:18, 5:40–43. The ’867 patent defines “memory hierarchy” as “a
`collection of memories.” Id. at 5:39. In accordance with the express
`definition set forth in the patent specification, we construed “data prefetch
`unit” as “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,” wherein a
`“memory hierarchy” is “a collection of memories.” Dec. 10.
`The Petition applied only the proposed district court construction in
`arguing that the prior art references—Lange and Zhong—each teach a “data
`prefetch unit,” and failed to assert that these references teach a “data
`prefetch unit” as the term is defined in the ’867 patent. Dec. 15–19. Prior to
`the Decision, Petitioner sought leave to file a reply in order to address the
`express definition of “data prefetch unit” set forth in the ’867 patent
`specification. Paper 21, 2–3. We denied Petitioner’s request, explaining
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00130
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`that Petitioner had not shown that it could not have foreseen, and addressed
`in the Petition, a construction “taken directly from the specification of the
`challenged patent.” Id. at 3.
`In the Decision, we explained the Petition must specify with
`particularity where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.
`Dec. 16 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(5);
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In
`an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”)). We found that
`in applying the proposed district court construction of “data prefetch unit,”
`the Petition did not “specify with particularity how [either] Lange [or
`Zhong] teaches a memory hierarchy, and moving data between members of
`a memory hierarchy, as required under our interpretation” of “data prefetch
`unit.” Id. at 16, 19. We acknowledged that the Petition identified a first
`memory and a second memory, as recited in the claims, but found that the
`Petition fell short of specifying that these memories comprise a memory
`hierarchy or explaining why that would be the case. Id. at 16–20. We
`explained that in so doing, Petitioner improperly placed the burden on the
`Board to ascertain how the prior art allegedly reads on the challenged
`claims. Id. at 17, 19.
`In the Request, Petitioner argues our Decision was erroneous for two
`reasons: 1) the Petition explicitly described both Lange and Zhong as being
`directed to improving the movement of data within “memory hierarchies,”
`and 2) our construction of “data prefetch unit” did not add any requirements
`that were not already in the claims. Req. Reh’g 2–5.
`As to the first reason, Petitioner identifies where the Petition quoted:
`a) Lange as “seek[ing] to improve the performance of ‘memory hierarchies’
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00130
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`using ‘techniques such as pre-fetching and streaming,’” and b) Zhong as
`disclosing “implementing prefetching in ‘configurable memory hierarchies’
`to improve application memory behavior.” Req. Reh’g 2–3 (citing Pet. 8–9,
`11) (emphases omitted). These quotes do not persuade us to alter our
`Decision. These quotes did not appear in Petitioner’s analysis of how the
`prior art reads on the claims, but instead appeared in an “Overview of the
`Prior Art.” Pet. 8–9, 11. Moreover, the Petition did not tie these quotes to
`the language of the claims or specify how either Lange or Zhong teach a
`“data prefetch unit” that moves data between memories of a memory
`hierarchy. Id. at 8–9, 11, 17–19, 48–50. It was insufficient for Petitioner to
`broadly cite to and/or quote the prior art references, without specifying its
`assertion as to what in Lange and Zhong comprises memory hierarchies and
`how the alleged “data prefetch unit” in each reference moves data between
`members of an asserted memory hierarchy. Accordingly, we are not
`persuaded that we overlooked these teachings of Lange and Zhong because
`Petitioner did not adequately present these teachings.
`The Request also cites to language in the Petition relating to claim 11,
`which does not recite a “data prefetch unit,” but rather recites a “data access
`unit.” Req. Reh’g 3 (citing Pet. 36). The Petition asserted Lange discloses
`and/or renders obvious a reconfigurable processor that includes a
`computational unit coupled to a “data access unit.” Pet. 35. Petitioner
`argued that the ’867 patent defines a “data access unit” as a “functional unit
`that accesses a component of a memory hierarchy, and delivers data directly
`to computational logic.” Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:44–46). Petitioner
`further argued that front-end interfaces in Lange “access a component of a
`memory hierarchy”—i.e., streaming ports access FIFO memories and
`caching ports access BlockSelectRAM. Id. at 36. This argument in the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00130
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`Petition regarding claim 11 does not persuade us to alter out Decision. First,
`claim 11 does not recite the claim limitation at issue, namely a “data
`prefetch unit.” Second, the two memories identified by Petitioner as being
`components of a memory hierarchy—i.e., FIFO memories and
`BlockSelectRAM accessed by front-end ports—were both asserted by
`Petitioner to be, alternatively, the “first memory” in claim 1. Id. at 15–17.
`However, the memory that Petitioner asserted to be the “second memory” in
`claim 1 is neither the FIFO memories nor BlockSelectRAM. Petitioner
`instead identified SRAM and/or DRAM accessed by the MARC core back-
`end ports. Id. at 21. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 11
`did not adequately identify, with regard to a “data prefetch unit,” what
`Petitioner asserted to be the memory hierarchy. It is not clear whether
`Petitioner considered: 1) FIFO memories and BlockSelectRAM, 2) the
`combination of FIFO memories and/or BlockSelectRAM and SRAM and/or
`DRAM, or 3) some other combination of memories, to form the memory
`hierarchy between which data members are moved by the “data prefetch
`unit.” Nor did the Petition adequately explain how Lange teaches a “data
`prefetch unit” moving data between members of a memory hierarchy.
`As to Petitioner’s argument in the Request that our construction of
`“data prefetch unit” did not add any requirements that were not already in
`the claims, Petitioner introduces a new argument that the components in
`Lange and Zhong asserted in the Petition to be a “first memory” and a
`“second memory” form a “memory hierarchy.” Req. Reh’g 3–4. However,
`Petitioner did not make this argument in the Petition. It is improper for
`Petitioner, at this stage, to introduce this new argument.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00130
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`After considering Petitioner’s arguments for rehearing, we determine
`Petitioner has not shown that the Decision denying institution of inter partes
`review should be modified.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`7
`
`