`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case PGR2020-00260
`
`Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER VENKAT KONDA’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................ 1
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .......................................................... 4
`
`A. The Board’s Decision Rested on Clearly Erroneous Fact Findings based on
`Misrepresentations and Errors by Dr. Baker in His Declaration; the Board
`Misapprehended That “integrated networks” Means “interconnection networks”;
`the Board Overlooked Dr. Konda’s Declaration. .......................................................... 4
`
`B. The Board’s Decision Rested on Clearly Erroneous Fact Findings. ............................ 6
`
`C. The Board’s Decision is Based on an Erroneous Conclusion of Law. ......................... 9
`
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`In response to the Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`entered August 3, 2020, (Paper 22, hereinafter “Decision”) and pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(c), Patent Owner Venkat Konda (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`respectfully requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) reconsider
`
`its decision granting institution for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,269,523 (“the ‘523 patent”).
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Decision ordered review on three grounds: (1) the published PCT
`
`Application No. WO 2008/109765 (“the ‘756 PCT”) anticipates Claims 1, 16, 20-
`
`22 and 32; (2) the ‘756 PCT renders Obvious Claims 15 and 17; and (3) the ‘756
`
`PCT in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,940,308 (“Wong”) renders Obvious Claims 18
`
`and 47. Specifically the Board’s Decision relied on three key factors:
`
`a)
`
`At this preliminary stage, the Board is not persuaded that Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony should be disregarded;
`
`b)
`
`Relying on Dr. Baker’s testimony the Board determined “that
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`that the challenged claims in the ‘523 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the
`
`May 25, 2007 filing date of Provisional Application No. 60/940,394 (“the ‘394
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`provisional”), or the May 22, 2008 filing date of the PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US2008/064605 (“the ‘605 PCT”);
`
`c)
`
`The Board stated that once the ‘756 PCT was published on September
`
`12, 2008, the ‘394 provisional that is incorporated by reference therein became
`
`open to the public for inspection as of September 12, 2008.
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board reconsider its decision to institute inter
`
`partes review as to all three grounds on the following bases:
`
`a)
`
`In light of Dr. Baker’s misrepresentations in his declaration as shown
`
`in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (“Motion”), Dr. Baker’s testimony is
`
`inadmissible. Dr. Baker does not qualify as a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`(“POSITA”) as to the “pertinent art” relating to the subject matter claimed in the
`
`‘523 Patent. Moreover, the Board overlooked Patent Owner’s declaration given
`
`under the penalty of perjury in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary response
`
`(paper 8). Also, this motion is supported by the Declaration of Professor Vipin
`
`Chaudhary, Ph.D., Endowed Kranzusch Professor and Inaugural Chair,
`
`Department of Computer and Data Sciences, Case School of Engineering, Case
`
`Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (“Dr. Chaudhary”) (Exhibit 2025)
`
`and Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Chaudhary (Exhibit 2026) which addresses the
`
`Board’s misapprehension in its Decision that “integrated networks” is a relevant
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`field, whereas “integrated circuits” and “interconnection networks” is the
`
`“pertinent art” and there is no such field as “integrated networks”;
`
`b)
`
`In light of the misrepresentations and errors in Dr. Baker’s
`
`declaration, Dr. Chaudhary’s declaration establishes that the challenged claims in
`
`the ‘523 patent are entitled to the benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the
`
`‘394 provisional;
`
`c)
`
`The Board erred in finding the ‘394 provisional incorporated by
`
`reference in the ‘756 PCT became open to the public for inspection (i.e., the
`
`application alone and not the entire file history) on September 12, 2008 pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c) without a power to inspect, i.e.,
`
`the permission of Patent Owner;
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner requests that no trial be instituted as to the ‘523
`
`patent.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A request for rehearing “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 reply.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71 (d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, the panel will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c). “An abuse of discretion
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`occurs where the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact
`
`findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board
`
`could rationally base its decision.” Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334
`
`F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Here, the Board abused its discretion in
`
`instituting inter partes review in this case.
`
`IV. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. The Board’s Decision Rested on Clearly Erroneous Fact Findings based on
`Misrepresentations and Errors by Dr. Baker in His Declaration; the Board
`Misapprehended That “integrated networks” Means “interconnection
`networks”; the Board Overlooked Dr. Konda’s Declaration.
`
`In Patent Owner’s Preliminary response, Patent Owner argued, based on
`
`support in Patent Owner Venkat Konda’s Declaration under the penalty of perjury
`
`(Exhibit 2001), that Dr. Baker’s Declaration in support of the Petition presented a
`
`flawed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (Paper 8 at 6 – 15). It is
`
`apparent that the Decision did not consider (or did not give appropriate weight to)
`
`Venkat Konda’s Declaration and that the Board completely relied on Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony in the Decision.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits the Board misapprehended that
`
`“integrated networks” is a relevant field in its Decision (Paper 22 at 7). To the
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`contrary, “integrated circuits” and “interconnection networks” are the relevant
`
`fields. Patent owner submits that there is no such field as “integrated networks”.
`
`Specifically Patent Owner’s preliminary response pointed out that Petitioner
`
`defined “networks” as a relevant field for a POSITA, whereas Dr. Baker in his
`
`declaration stated his expertise is in “memory devices” (Paper 8 at 6). Therefore,
`
`Dr. Baker does not qualify as a POSITA, and his declaration is inadmissible.
`
`In the opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony in PGR proceedings with respect to a related patent (Exhibit 2018),
`
`Petitioner further misrepresented Dr. Baker’s qualifications in the “pertinent art”
`
`(Exhibit 2021 at 6-8). In the Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s testimony, Patent Owner outlined
`
`the misrepresentations in Dr. Baker’s Declaration in those PGR Proceedings
`
`(Exhibit 2022 at 4-5).
`
`Concurrently, Patent Owner is filing his Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony in the present IPR case in view of the misrepresentations in Dr. Baker’s
`
`Declaration in support of the Petition in this case (Paper 25). Furthermore Patent
`
`Owner submits that “interconnection networks” is the relevant field as to the ‘523
`
`patent and not memory devices. Dr. Baker misrepresented that he has expertise in
`
`“networks” in his declaration (Exhibit 1002). More importantly Dr. Baker has no
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`qualifications in the “pertinent field” since he has no expertise in interconnection
`
`networks (Paper 25).
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to reconsider Venkat Konda’s
`
`testimony submitted under the penalty of perjury with Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Exhibit 2001) and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 25),
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition that is due in 10 days and Patent Owner’s Reply to
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition that is due 5 days later. This motion is also supported by
`
`Prof. Vipin Chaudhary Ph.D.’s (“Dr. Chaudhary’s”) Declaration (Exhibit 2025).
`
`B. The Board’s Decision Rested on Clearly Erroneous Fact Findings.
`
`Due to Dr. Baker’s lack of qualifications in the “pertinent art”, the Board
`
`overlooked Dr. Baker’s errors sin the Petition. Relying on Dr. Baker’s testimony,
`
`the Board found that the challenged claims in the ‘523 patent are not entitled to the
`
`benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394 provisional or the May 22, 2008
`
`filing date of the ‘605 PCT.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to reconsider the Decision that
`
`the challenged claims in the ‘523 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the May
`
`25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394 provisional or the May 22, 2008 filing date of the
`
`‘605 PCT. The Board overlooked Dr. Baker’s errors and Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments submitted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary response (Paper 8, 15-28) as it
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`appears the Board did not consider Venkat Konda’s Declaration submitted under
`
`penalty of perjury (Exhibit 2001).
`
`More specifically, Patent Owner requests the Board to reconsider the
`
`Decision regarding the named inventor being in possession of the subject
`
`matter recited in claim 1 of the ‘523 patent, particularly with respect to “said
`
`routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated
`
`circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y, where
`
`y≧1”, for the following reasons which are also supported by Dr. Chaudhary’s
`
`Declaration (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶30-39):
`
`Since the ’523 patent discloses VLSI layouts of fully connected generalized
`
`multi-stage networks, including a butterfly fat tree network, for broadcast, unicast,
`
`and multicast connections using only horizontal and vertical links, a POSITA
`
`would have had an understanding at the time of the invention claimed in the ‘523
`
`patent of a fully connected butterfly fat tree network, as disclosed in the ‘523
`
`patent, having
`
` stages in a row (or block), where N is the number of inputs
`
`or outputs. Accordingly, for example, there will be one stage when there is one
`
`block as illustrated in FIG. 2A1-3 of the priority applications (Ex. 1007, 7:10-21;
`
`Ex. 1026, 4:4-15. A POSITA would have understood that when there is one
`
`block there are no forward connecting links and no backward connecting links as
`Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`log
`
`N2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`illustrated in FIG. 2A3 of the ‘523 patent, which is the smallest butterfly fat tree
`
`network (Exhibit 2025 at ¶31).
`
`Since claim 1 first recites stages and switches and subsequently recites
`
`forward connecting links and backward connecting links, a POSITA would
`
`understand that a plurality of forward connecting links are connected from a stage
`
`when there is an immediate succeeding stage and a plurality of backward
`
`connecting links are connected from a stage when there is an immediate preceding
`
`stage. A POSITA would also understand that a plurality of forward connecting
`
`links are not connected from a stage when there is no immediate succeeding stage
`
`and a plurality of backward connecting links are not connected from a stage when
`
`there is no immediate preceding stage. (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶32-34)
`
`A POSITA would understand that the first stage of a butterfly fat tree
`
`network has no preceding stage, and so no backward connecting links are
`
`connected from the first stage. A POSITA would also understand that the last
`
`stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no succeeding stage, and so no forward
`
`connecting links are connected from the last stage. Therefore, a POSITA would
`
`understand that when there is one stage in a butterfly fat tree network as illustrated
`
`in FIG. 2A1-3 of the priority applications, it is the first stage as well as the last
`
`stage. Furthermore, the one stage has neither a preceding stage nor a succeeding
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`stage, and so no forward connecting links are connected from the stage and no
`
`backward connecting links are connected from the stage. Such an understanding
`
`for a POSITA is straight forward. Accordingly no experimentation is needed to
`
`understand, let alone undue experimentation. (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶35-37)
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA reviewing the ‘605 PCT and the ‘394
`
`Provisional would have understood that the named inventor was in
`
`possession of the subject matter recited in claim 1, particularly with respect to
`
`“said routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-
`
`integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of
`
`y, where y≧1” and that the ‘523 patent is entitled to the benefit of the May 25,
`
`2007 filing date of the ‘394 Provisional (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶38-39).
`
`For this reason alone, Patent Owner requests the Board reconsider Grounds
`
`1, 2, and 3 in the Petition, and decline to institute inter partes Review of the‘523
`
`Patent.
`
`C. The Board’s Decision is Based on an Erroneous Conclusion of Law.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c), the
`
`application of the then pending ‘394 Provisional was not available for public
`
`inspection without a power to inspect, i.e., the permission of Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`On December 26, 2018, Patent Owner visited the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) File Information Unit, Suite 3A20, 2800, South
`
`Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22206 (“FIU”). The officials at the FIU confirmed
`
`that without a power to inspect under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c), the public cannot
`
`obtain access to a pending application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1) as stated in
`
`Section IV.B of Paper 8 at 40-44. The officials at the FIU provided the following
`
`information:
`
`1) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iv), (Unpublished abandoned applications
`
`(including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon.),
`
`abandoned applications can be accessed by the public without written
`
`permission of the applicant using USPTO form PTO/SB/68 (Exhibit
`
`20271).
`
`2) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iii) (Published pending applications), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(v) (Unpublished pending applications (including
`
`provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.14(a)(1)(vi) (Unpublished pending applications (including provisional
`
`applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified)
`
`
`1 Exhibit 2027 contains a copy of PTO/SB/68 available at the time
`
`(December 26, 2018) and also a copy available as of the filing of this motion.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`all apply to pending applications (For all these three scenarios, the
`
`USPTO does not provide a form like PTO/SB/68) and are available to the
`
`public only with a power to inspect, specifically:
`
`a) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iii) Published pending applications: a
`
`copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or
`
`a specific document in the file of a pending published application may
`
`be provided if the applicant grants a power to inspect.
`
`b) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(v) (Unpublished pending applications
`
`(including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed): A copy
`
`of file contents of an unpublished pending application, the
`
`application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending
`
`application may be provided if the applicant grants a power to inspect.
`
`c) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) (Unpublished pending applications
`
`(including provisional applications) that are incorporated by
`
`reference or otherwise identified): a copy of the application as
`
`originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be
`
`provided if the applicant grants a power to inspect. (Only this section
`
`is applicable to the current IPR).
`
`3) Furthermore, the middle box of the page on form PTO/SB/68 (Exhibit
`
`2027) also mentions the same in 2) above about the pending applications
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`that are identified and also clearly states: “A member of the public,
`
`acting without a power to inspect, cannot order applications
`
`maintained in the IFW system through the FIU.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`In Summary, Patent Owner, as confirmed by the FIU, respectfully submits that
`
`access to a copy of the ‘394 provisional originally filed, i.e., the application itself,
`
`was not available to the public under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and (c) for any
`
`period after the ‘756 PCT was published on September 12, 2008, because Patent
`
`Owner never gave permission to anyone, and no access was granted under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.14(i). Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to
`
`reconsider the Decision that the disclosure of the ’394 Provisional was prior art as
`
`of September 12, 2008 when the ’756 PCT was published.
`
`For this additional reason alone, Patent Owner requests that the Board deny
`
`Grounds 1, 2, and 3 in the Petition, and decline to institute inter partes review of
`
`the ‘523 Patent.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests that the Board deny
`
`Grounds 1, 2, and 3 in the Petition, and decline to institute inter partes review of
`
`the ‘523 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`Date: August 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24, Patent Owner certifies that the Request for
`
`Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), filed August 10, 2020, contains 12 pages.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`Certificates - Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`PO’s Request for Rehearing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 10, 2020, the foregoing
`
`Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) and all associated exhibits were
`
`served electronically via e-mail in their entirety on the following counsel of record
`
`for Petitioner by email to PH-FlexLogix-Konda-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Lead counsel:
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224),
`Backup counsel:
`1. Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`2. Paul M. Anderson (Reg. No. 39,896)
`3. Quadeer A. Ahmed (Reg. No. 60,835).
`
`
`Service information:
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005,
`Tel.: 202.551.1700,
`Fax: 202.551.1705,
`Email: PH-FlexLogix-Konda-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2020
`
`
`
`Certificates - Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`
`