UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,003,553
`
`Page 1 of 97
`
`FLEX LOGIX EXHIBIT 1046
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Lawsuit(s) .................................................................................... 3
`
`Related Applications ................................................................... 3
`
`Concurrently filed petitions ........................................................ 4
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 4
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 5
`
`IV. TIME FOR FILING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.202 .......................................... 5
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ..................... 5
`
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 5
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 5
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 6
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`The ’553 Patent ..................................................................................... 7
`
`B. Material Incorporated by Reference in the ’553 Patent ...................... 12
`
`IX. PGR ELIGIBILITY ....................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`The Two Pre-AIA Applications Do Not Support Switches
`Configurable By a Flip Flop (Claim 9) ............................................... 18
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`B.
`
`The Two Pre-AIA Applications Do Not Support Claims 1, 2, 4,
`11, 12, and 14 ...................................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 22
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 26
`
`Claims 11, 12, and 14 ............................................................... 29
`
`C. AIA Applicability ................................................................................ 30
`
`X.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 31
`
`XI. EARLIEST EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE ’553 PATENT ............. 32
`
`XII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 32
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-20 Are Indefinite ................................................ 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 ........................................... 47
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-20 Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`Requirement ........................................................................................ 59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 60
`
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 71
`
`Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 ........................................... 72
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-20 Fail to Satisfy the Enablement
`Requirement ........................................................................................ 82
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................82
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................16
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co.,
`927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................83
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ..............................................................15, 17, 59, 65
`
`Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1274 Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................85
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).........................................................................................12, 13
`
`D Three Enters., LLC v. Sunmodo Corp.,
`890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................13, 14, 18
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................65
`
`Fiers v. Revel,
`984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993)................................................................................................65
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S,
`108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................82
`
`In re Gosteli,
`872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..........................................................................................16, 17
`
`Grunenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC,
`PGR2018-00001, Paper 17 (May 1, 2018) ..............................................................................16
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed Cir. 2005)...........................................................................................16, 65
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................................15, 16, 17
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc.,
`166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................82
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................32
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc.,
`IPR2017-01408, 2018 WL 6318050 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) ..............................................13, 14
`
`Nippon Suisan Kaisha Ltd. v. Pronova Biopharma Norge AS,
`PGR2017-00033, Paper 37 (January 16, 2019) .......................................................................33
`
`In re Packard
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................32, 33
`
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`881 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .........................................................................31, 32
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................16, 17
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC,
`694 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper 11 (August
`14, 2015). A ............................................................................................................................31
`
`Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................15
`
`Turbocare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Electric
`Co.,
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................60
`
`US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC,
`PGR2015–00019, Paper 54 (Dec. 28, 2016)............................................................................86
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................83
`
`Wyeth v. Abbott Labs.,
`No. 08-1021 (JAP), 2012 WL 175023 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2012), aff’d sub nom.
`Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................83
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) .........................................................................................................6, 32, 34, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1 .........................................................................................................................59
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).............................16
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................................................31
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ...........................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a).......................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ex. 1003 Curriculum Vitae of Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ex. 1004 File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`Ex. 1005 File History of U.S. Application No. 14/199,168
`
`Ex. 1006 Application Body As Filed of PCT Application No. PCT/US12/53814
`
`Ex. 1007 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/531,615
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,308 (“Wong”)
`
`Ex. 1009 PCT Publication No. WO 2008/109756 A1 (“Konda ’756 PCT”)
`
`Ex. 1010 As-filed Disclosure of U.S. Provisional Application 60/984,724
`(Excerpt from File History of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/984,724 (Ex. 1039))
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 8,270,400
`
`Ex. 1012 PCT Application No. PCTUS0856064
`
`Ex. 1013 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/905,526
`
`Ex. 1014 File History of U.S. Provisional Application. No. 60/940,383
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 8,170,040
`
`Ex. 1016 PCT Application No. PCT/US08/64603
`
`Ex. 1017 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,387
`
`Ex. 1018 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,390
`
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Patent No. 8,363,649
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`Ex. 1020 PCT Application No. PCT/U08/64604
`
`Ex. 1021 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,389
`
`Ex. 1022 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,391
`
`Ex. 1023 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,392
`
`Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`Ex. 1025 PCT Application No. PCT/US08/64605
`
`Ex. 1026 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,394
`
`Ex. 1027 U.S. Pat. No. 8,898,611
`
`Ex. 1028 PCT Application No. PCT/US10/52984
`
`Ex. 1029 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/252,603
`
`Ex. 1030 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/252,609
`
`Ex. 1031 File History of U.S. Application No. 14/329,876
`
`Ex. 1032 U.S. Patent No. 9,509,634
`
`Ex. 1033 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/846,083
`
`Ex. 1034 File History of U.S. Application No. 12/601,275
`
`Ex. 1035 U.S. Patent No. 9,374,322
`
`Ex. 1036 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1037 File History of U.S. Application No. 15/884,911
`
`Ex. 1038 File History of U.S. Application No. 15/859,726
`
`Ex. 1039 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/984,724
`
`Ex. 1040 U.S. Patent No. 3,358,269
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests post grant review
`
`(“PGR”) of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553 (“the ’553 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001), which, according to PTO records, is assigned to Konda Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “PO”). For the reasons below and accompanying evidence,
`
`including the declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (Ex. 1002), the challenged claims
`
`should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`For one, all of the claims in the ’553 patent are indefinite. In addition to the
`
`lack of clarity injected by many claim terms that do not appear anywhere in the
`
`specification outside of the claims, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would not have been able to determine the scope of any of claims 1-20 with
`
`reasonable certainty because of several substantial antecedent basis issues that
`
`infect the claims.1
`
`Claims 1-20 are also invalid for lack of written description support. There
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioner is concurrently filing additional petitions for PGR of the ’553 patent
`
`demonstrating that, to the extent the claims can be understood, the claims are also
`
`unpatentable over the prior art, including Patent Owner’s own previously-filed
`
`patent applications. The additional petitions are being filed out of an abundance of
`
`caution because of the statutory estoppel provisions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 9 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`are many claim features that are not supported by the disclosure of the ’553 patent
`
`or the disclosures of any of its alleged priority applications. As demonstrated
`
`below, PO relies on “optional” claim language (e.g., “zero or more cross links” and
`
`characteristics that “may or may not” exist) to stretch the claims in an attempt to
`
`cover subject matter not disclosed. While the recitation of such features as
`
`apparently “optional” renders them meaningless for invalidity and infringement
`
`purposes, such features still must be supported by the written description such that
`
`a POSITA would have understood that the named inventor had possession of an
`
`invention that includes such features. But PO cannot show support for the overly-
`
`broad claims. Indeed, the disconnect between the claims and specification of the
`
`’553 patent makes clear that a POSITA would not have understood the named
`
`inventor to have had possession of what is recited in the claims.
`
`Furthermore, because of the lack of direction and guidance to implement the
`
`claimed invention, including the absence of any working examples, and the amount
`
`of experimentation required, a POSITA would not have been able to make and use
`
`the claimed invention without undue experimentation, thus rendering the claims
`
`invalid for lack of enablement.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. as the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`1.
`
`Lawsuit(s)
`
`PO has asserted the ’553 patent against Petitioner in Konda Technologies
`
`Inc. v. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK (N.D. Cal.). PO
`
`has also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,269,523 (“the ’523 patent”), 8,898,611 (“the
`
`’611 patent”), 9,529,958 (“the ’958 patent”), and 10,050,904 (“the ’904 patent”) in
`
`the foregoing district court litigation.
`
`2.
`
`Related Applications
`
`The ’553 patent is related to several patents and/or patent applications, as
`
`shown in the purported priority chain below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 11 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`3.
`
`Concurrently filed petitions
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two other petitions for PGR of certain claims
`
`
`
`of the ’553 patent.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224), and Backup counsel are
`
`(1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Paul M. Anderson (Reg. No. 39,896),
`
`and (3) Quadeer A. Ahmed (Reg. No. 60,835). Service information is Paul
`
`Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700,
`
`Fax:
`
`202.551.1705,
`
`email:
`
`PH-FlexLogix-Konda-PGR@paulhastings.com.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge all fees due at any time during this
`
`proceeding, including filing fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. TIME FOR FILING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.202
`
`The ’553 patent issued on June 19, 2018, and this Petition is being timely
`
`filed no later than the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the ’553
`
`patent.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’553 patent is available for PGR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting PGR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`As discussed below in Section IX, the ’553 patent is eligible for PGR
`
`because it has at least one claim that is not entitled to a pre-AIA filing date.
`
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 1-20 (“challenged claims”)
`
`of the ’553 patent, and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 13 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
`
`failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`named inventor regards as the invention.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
`
`failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
`
`failing to satisfy the enablement requirement.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’553 patent would have had a master’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a similar field, and at least two to three years of experience with
`
`integrated circuits and networks. (Ex. 1002, ¶18.) 2 More education can
`
`supplement practical experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’553 patent generally relates to switching networks that can be used to
`
`route signals between logic blocks included on an integrated circuit device such as
`
`an FPGA. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶20-50.)
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’553 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-13; Ex. 1003.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`A. The ’553 Patent
`
`The ’553 patent, which matured from the U.S. Application No. 15/140,470
`
`(“the ’470 application”), acknowledges that multi-stage hierarchical networks were
`
`known and used in many applications at the time of the alleged invention, such as
`
`in “FPGA routing of hardware designs.” (Ex. 1001, 2:66-3:1, 4:47-48.) The ’553
`
`patent states that known VLSI (very large scale integration) layouts for integrated
`
`circuits with such networks, such as the Benes network disclosed by Wong (Ex.
`
`1008) are “inefficient and complicated.” (Id., 3:2-4, 3:30-36.) For instance, the
`
`’553 patent contends that prior art network layouts “require large area to
`
`implement the switches on the chip, large number of wires, longer wires, with
`
`increased power consumption, increased latency of the signal which effect the
`
`maximum clock speed of operation.” (Id., 3:43-48; Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-32 (citing Ex.
`
`1040).)
`
`The ’553 patent alleges to disclose “[s]ignificantly optimized multi-stage
`
`networks, useful in wide target applications” where the “optimized multi-stage
`
`networks in each block employ several rings of stages of switches with inlet and
`
`outlet links.” (Ex. 1001, 3:58-67 (emphasis added).) As discussed below, PO
`
`touted this concept of “rings” in the ’553 patent family as an important distinction
`
`over PO’s earlier patent applications, and, not surprisingly, the claims in the
`
`applications to which the ’553 patent claims priority (and the originally filed
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 15 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`claims in the ’470 application itself) all include the “ring” concept. However,
`
`these “rings”—which (i) the ’553 patent describes as an important aspect of the
`
`alleged optimizations to the prior art multi-stage hierarchical networks, and (ii) PO
`
`touted as an important distinction over PO’s other applications—are not recited in
`
`the claims of the ’553 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶33-38.)
`
`First, the ’553 patent’s disclosure emphasizes “rings.” Each of figures 1-15
`
`of the ’553 patent illustrates, describes, or relates to the use of “rings” in a “multi-
`
`stage hierarchical network.” (Ex. 1002, ¶33 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:42-6:22, FIGs. 1-
`
`15, 8:56-9:3, 33:26-48).) Annotated figure 1 of the ’553 patent below shows two
`
`such “rings”:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 16 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG.1 (annotated); Ex. 1002, ¶38.) Similarly, the figures that depict
`
`example “stages” in the ’553 patent are described as illustrating portions of a
`
`“ring.” (Ex. 1001, 4:56-5:3, 5:32-6:6, FIGs. 2A-2E, 9A-11C.)
`
`Second, during prosecution of U.S. Application No. 14/199,168 (“the ’168
`
`application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,374,322 (“the ’322 patent”) (see
`
`supra Section II.B.2), PO explicitly defined “rings” and argued that the inclusion
`
`of such rings was a “key difference[]” with respect to PO’s earlier alleged
`
`inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 8,898,611 (“the ’611 patent”).
`
`Current application discloses stages in rings where
`
`forward connecting links are feedback into backward
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 17 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`connecting links through one or more multiplexers and
`
`also backward connecting links are feedback
`
`into
`
`forward connecting
`
`links
`
`through one or more
`
`multiplexers, where US Patent No. 8,898,611 discloses
`
`folded and butterfly fat tree networks where in each stage
`
`only forward connecting
`
`links are feedback
`
`into
`
`backward connecting links. . . . This is one of the key
`
`differences in the current invention which allows the total
`
`number of stages to be made small to route the same
`
`hardware circuit benchmark.
`
`(Ex. 1005, 97-98 (emphases added).)
`
`The ring concept disclosed in the current application is
`
`not a true ring, the term ring is used in the current
`
`invention since in each stage backward connecting links
`
`are feedback to forward connecting links and vice versa
`
`as opposed to only a U-turn in original multi-stage
`
`networks.
`
`(Id., 101; see also Ex. 1001, 2:33-38; Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-42.)
`
`The claims of the ’322 patent all include this “ring” concept. (Ex. 1035,
`
`47:42-51:3.) Similarly, all of the claims of PCT Application No. PCT/US12/53814
`
`(“the ’814 PCT application”) to which the ’168 application claims priority also
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 18 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`include this “ring” concept. (Ex. 1006, 79-82 (1:3-4:23).)3.) Indeed, the originally
`
`filed claims in the ’470 application also include “rings” (Ex. 1004, 286-292) and
`
`further include specific limitations consistent with the definition PO provided for a
`
`“ring” during prosecution of the ’168 application. (Id., 287 (82:13-18)4; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶39-41.)
`
`But in contrast to the originally filed claims in the ’470 application, the
`
`issued claims in the ’322 patent, and the claims in the 814 PCT application, new
`
`claims 21-40 that were added by amendment during prosecution of the ’470
`
`application and that issued as claims 1-20 in the ’553 patent do not include
`
`“rings.” (Ex. 1004, 77-84.)5 In other words, issued claims 1-20 of the ’553 patent
`
`
` 3
`
` The ’814 PCT application as filed had errors in pagination such that the section
`
`that includes the claims restarts the pagination at page 1. Therefore, citations to
`
`the ’814 PCT application include both a page number for the exhibit as well as the
`
`page and line numbers printed on the page identified within the exhibit.
`
`4 When appropriate, citations to the as-filed ’470 application include page and line
`
`numbers corresponding to the application.
`
`5 While the Examiner noted in an Interview Summary that the newly presented
`
`claims would be reviewed for their compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, the claims
`
`were subsequently allowed without any further rejections. (Ex. 1004, 51, 25-32.)
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 19 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`are missing a feature that is not only highlighted in the specification as an alleged
`
`fundamental point of novelty, but was in fact touted by PO as a “key difference[]”
`
`between the disclosure of the ’553 patent family and another patent family
`
`belonging to PO. (Ex. 1002, ¶42.)
`
`B. Material Incorporated by Reference in the ’553 Patent
`
`The ’553 patent attempts to incorporate by reference a list of more than 20
`
`patents and patent applications. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-2:62; Ex. 1002, ¶37 (citing Exs.
`
`1011-1034).) However, the incorporations by reference of these patents and
`
`applications provide no “detailed particularity [regarding] what specific material”
`
`they incorporate and do not “clearly indicate where that material is found” in the
`
`patents and applications. Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F. 3d 1365, 1376
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 881 F.3d 894, 906-07
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must
`
`identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and
`
`clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.”) (internal
`
`citations and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, even when material is properly
`
`incorporated, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description
`
`
`
`The issued claims, however, do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112. (See infra Section XII.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 20 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in
`
`the art, would lead one to speculate as to the modifications that the inventor might
`
`have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” D Three Enters., LLC v. Sunmodo Corp.,
`
`890 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted).
`
`The ’553 patent simply identifies several patents and patent applications and
`
`states that the material is incorporated in its entirety without specifying any
`
`particular portions of the documents as being relevant. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-2:62) Cook
`
`Biotech Inc., 460 F. 3d at 1376; see also Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness
`
`Inc., IPR2017-01408, 2018 WL 6318050, at *20 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) (allowing
`
`incorporation by reference where the incorporating language provided detail
`
`regarding what was disclosed in the incorporated by reference). Moreover, many,
`
`if not all, of those incorporated patents and applications also incorporate by
`
`reference other patents and applications. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 5-6; Ex. 1006, 1-3
`
`(1:5-3:6).) Without providing sufficient particularity such that a POSITA would
`
`recognize what is being incorporated by reference, the material incorporated by
`
`reference cannot be relied upon to remedy defects in the ’553 patent, such as lack
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 21 of 97
`
`

`

`
`of written description of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §112, as
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`discussed below.6
`
`Indeed, any such reliance would impermissibly require a POSITA to look at
`
`the different embodiments disclosed in the various patents and make unspecified
`
`combinations of elements without any guidance as to what should be combined or
`
`how such combinations should be accomplished. D Three Enters., LLC, 890 F.3d
`
`at 1050. Patentees’ attempts to show written description support by relying on an
`
`unspecified combination of teachings from incorporated material and the
`
`disclosure of the patent have repeatedly been rejected. Nautilus, Inc., IPR2017-
`
`01408, 2018 WL 6318050 at *20-23 (rejecting PO’s attempt to combine teachings
`
`from incorporated reference with disclosure of patent-at-issue in an effort to show
`
`written description support for disputed claim limitation, noting that “obviousness
`
`
` 6
`
` Elsewhere in the specification, the ’553 patent describes certain prior art multi-
`
`stage networks disclosed in U.S. patents that were previously incorporated by
`
`reference. (Ex. 1001, 7:32-8:19.) But that portion of the specification simply
`
`notes that the alleged “optimization” techniques disclosed in the ’553 patent may
`
`be implemented in certain prior art multi-stage networks, i.e., it does not rely on
`
`any concepts disclosed in the referenced U.S. patents for purposes of supporting
`
`the disclosure of the ’553 patent. (Id., 7:32-37.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 22 of 97
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`is not the standard for written description”); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech.,
`
`LLC, 694 F. App’x 794, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming Board’s finding that
`
`claims lack written description support and stating that “[t]o the extent that Purdue
`
`contends that a person of skill in the art would isolate and combine aspects from
`
`various embodiments in the specifications (including patents incorporated by
`
`reference involving a different drug) to obtain the claimed invention [for written
`
`description support], Purdue relies upon the wrong test.”); see also Lockwood v.
`
`Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is not sufficient for
`
`purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when
`
`combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to
`
`modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.”);
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
`
`banc); Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1027
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2011).
`
`Therefore, in light of the lack of particularity provided by the limited
`
`description of the material incorporated by reference in the ’553 patent, the patents