Case IPR2020-00985
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`AMD criticizes Patent Owner’s discretionary analysis as “misleading” with
`
`respect to the substantial similarity of Wada—AMD’s primary reference—and
`
`Cowles—a reference that the Patent Office considered during prosecution of the
`
`’134 Patent. (Preliminary Reply, 3.) Specifically, AMD mischaracterizes Wada in
`
`exactly the same manner as in its Petition, and incorrectly assumes that a description
`
`of Wada’s “‘data burst output’ as ‘uninterrupted’” (Preliminary Reply, 2) applies to
`
`individual bursts instead of the periods in between bursts. But AMD is mistaken on
`
`both accounts: Wada does not disclose uninterrupted individual data bursts and
`
`Wada is substantially similar to Cowles. Therefore, the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion and deny the Petition.
`
`AMD incorrectly asserts that Wada “does not limit its teaching [to preventing
`
`interruptions in between bursts] and describes its ‘data burst output’ as
`
`‘uninterrupted.’” (Preliminary Reply, 2.) But when Wada describes data burst
`
`outputs and increasing data throughput, it does so in the context of preventing “a
`
`data-free period (an interruption in the flow of data output) [which] is bound to
`
`occur between two burst outputs.” (Ex-1005, 5:50-51; POPR, 31.) All of Wada’s
`
`disclosures, including its first and second embodiments and the portion cited by
`
`AMD, are thus directed towards preventing interruptions in between bursts by
`
`providing multiple “output registers” such that one output register outputs data at the
`
`same time as other output registers retain new data:
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`“The SRAM practiced as the second embodiment includes three or
`more output registers. . . . Of the three output registers, the first
`register is used to retain fixedly the data read from a specific row of
`memory cells frequently accessed. The second and third output
`registers are employed to carry out the uninterrupted burst output of
`data discussed in connection with the first embodiment.” (Ex-1005,
`16:11-25.)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Wada merely discloses an architecture that prevents interruptions in
`
`between bursts, but is silent as to preventing interruptions of bursts. (Ex-1005, 5:43-
`
`53, POPR, 30.) And Wada’s burst procedure may be terminated when the advance
`
`signal ADV is not High (Ex-1005, 2:55-60; POPR, 30), just as Cowles’ burst
`
`procedure may be terminated when the WE* signal is High. (Ex-1004, ¶0112.)
`
`As such, Wada’s identified problem and alleged technical solutions are
`
`substantially similar to those of Cowles’s “continuous burst” device, which accesses
`
`a “second row of memory while bursting data out of a first row.” (Ex-1004, ¶¶0107-
`
`0108; POPR, 24-25.) AMD’s assertion that these similarities “have nothing to do
`
`with the ‘non-interruptible’ claim element Patentee relied upon to gain allowance”
`
`(Preliminary Reply, 1) is incorrect. While discussing Cowles, the Applicant
`
`confirmed that Cowles’ continuous burst architecture, which nevertheless permits
`
`termination of bursts (Ex-1004, ¶0172), “has little or nothing to do with whether a
`
`‘burst’ can be interrupted.” (Ex-1004, ¶¶0107-0108; POPR, 12-13, 24-28.) That
`
`criticism of Cowles applies equally to Wada because Wada’s prohibition against
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`intra-burst interruptions is identical in purpose and operation to the equivalent
`
`feature of Cowles.
`
`AMD’s reliance on its alternative grounds based on Wada and Barrett fares
`
`no better. Barrett does not cure Wada’s deficiencies because Barrett is directed
`
`towards external data transfers, not generation of internal address signals. (Ex-1010,
`
`4:18-32; POPR, 43.) As such, even the combination of Wada and Barrett fails to
`
`disclose generating a predetermined number of internal address signals without
`
`interruption. (POPR, 42-43.) And Wada and Barrett are directed towards
`
`incompatible goals: Wada seeks to prevent interruptions in between bursts (Ex-
`
`1005, 5:43-53), while Barrett ensures pauses in between bursts (Ex-1010, Abstract,
`
`3:12-22). (POPR, 44-45.) AMD mischaracterizes Barrett’s disclosure: Barrett
`
`addresses the alleged prior art issue of “allowing a pause at any point” (2:39-40) by
`
`allowing “pausing only at pre-determined, fixed intervals of n data transfer cycles.”
`
`(Ex-1010, 3:8-9.) In short, Barrett does not cure Wada’s deficiencies, nor does the
`
`combination of Barrett with Wada provide any disclosure meaningfully different
`
`from that of Cowles.
`
`Because Wada is substantially similar to art the Office already considered,
`
`and because AMD’s Preliminary Reply continues to mischaracterize Wada, the
`
`Board should respectfully exercise its discretion and deny the Petition.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`Dated: October 2, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Theodoros Konstantakopoulos/
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos (Reg.
`No. 74,155)
`tkonstantakopoulos@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: 212-351-3400
`Facsimile: 212-351-3401
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Monterey Research, LLC
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00985
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on October 2,
`
`2020, a complete copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record for
`Petitioner by filing this document through PTAB E2E and by sending this document
`via electronic mail to the following addresses:
`
`Ryan K. Yagura (Reg. No. 47,191)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: 213-430-6000
`ryagura@omm.com
`
`Vincent Zhou (Reg. No. 63,366)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: 213-430-6000
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`OMMAMDMONTEREY@omm.com
`
`Dated: October 2, 2020
`
`Nicholas J. Whilt (Reg. No. 72,081)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: 213-430-6000
`nwhilt@omm.com
`
`Brian M. Cook (Reg. No. 59,356)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: 213-430-6000
`bcook@omm.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Theodoros Konstantakopoulos/
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos (Reg. No.
`74,155)
`tkonstantakopoulos@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: 212-351-3400
`Facsimile: 212-351-3401
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Monterey Research, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
