Paper 21
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`PETITIONER
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`______________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW NO. IPR2020-01492
`PATENT 6,651,134
`______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`PETITIONER
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`______________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW NO. IPR2020-01492
`PATENT 6,651,134
`______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE BOARD SHOULD CREDIT HIS REASONED ANALYSIS .............. 4
`SCHAEFER DISCLOSES A BURST THAT IS NON-
`INTERRUPTIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF GENERATION
`OF INTERNAL ADDRESSES ...................................................................... 7
`A.
`PO Does Not Dispute that Schaefer Discloses at Least a Portion
`of a Fixed Length Burst With AUTO-PRECHARGE is Non-
`Interruptible .......................................................................................... 7
`Schaefer’s Plain Language is Clear ...................................................... 8
`PO’s Interpretation is Contrary to Schaefer’s Plain Language
`and Assumes an Undesirable and Unexplained Configuration ............ 9
`PO Cannot Negate Schaefer’s Anticipating Disclosure by
`Pointing to Schaefer’s Purported Goals ............................................. 11
`Schaefer Does Not Link Discussion of Interrupt Commands for
`a Different Type of Burst to the Mapped Burst with Auto-
`Precharge ............................................................................................ 12
`It is undisputed that fixed length bursts do not need to support
`
`user burst interrupt commands to function ............................... 13
`No credible evidence supports PO’s assertion that burst
`termination commands “appl[y] to all disclosed bursts” .......... 13
`IV. PO RAISES NO OTHER CHALLENGES TO THE GROUNDS OF
`INVALIDITY ............................................................................................... 15
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 16
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`102926210.4
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Shorthand
`Description
`’134 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`Omitted
`
`Omitted
`’134 File History Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`Omitted
`Fujioka
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,149
`Tiede
`U.S. Patent No. 5,900,021
`
`Omitted
`Lysinger
`U.S. Patent No. 5,784,331
`
`Omitted
`U.S.I.T.C Claim
`Order 29 Construing Claims, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`Construction
`792, U.S.I.T.C (February 9, 2012)
`Order
`N.D. Cal Claim
`Construction
`Order
`Commission
`Opinion
`Lowrey
`Murphy
`Murphy CV
`Schaefer
`Cypress
`Whitepaper
`Cypress
`Response
`
`Order Construing Claims, Cypress
`Semiconductor Corp. v. GSU Tech., Inc., 13-cv-
`02013-JST (N.D. Cal.) (July 29, 2014)
`Commission Opinion, Inv. No. 337-TA-792,
`U.S.I.T.C. (June 28, 2013)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,360,992
`Declaration of Robert Murphy
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Murphy
`U.S. Patent No. 5,600,605
`Cypress Semiconductor, Understanding Burst
`Modes in Synchronous SRAMs (June 30, 1999)
`Complainant Cypress Semiconductor
`Corporation's Response to Respondents' Petition
`for Review of the Remand Initial Determination
`on Validity and Enforceability (April 3, 2013)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,729,504
`- iii -
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Cowles
`
`1020
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`Exhibit
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`Baker et al, CMOS Circuit Design, Layout, and
`CMOS Circuit
`Simulation (First Ed. 1998)
`Design
`Monterey FAC First Amended Complaint in Monterey Research,
`LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et. al, No. 19-
`cv-2083-CFC (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2020)
`IPR2020-00985 Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2020-
`00985, Paper 1, filed May 26, 2020.
`Original Complaint in Monterey Research, LLC
`v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et. al, No. 19-cv-
`2083-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2019)
`QC Summons Returned Summons in Monterey Research, LLC
`v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et. al, No. 19-cv-
`2083-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2019)
`Original Complaint in Monterey Research, LLC
`v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 19-cv-
`2149-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2019)
`AMD Summons Returned Summons in Monterey Research, LLC
`v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 19-cv-
`2149-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2019)
`Declaration for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Brett
`A. McKean Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`August 17, 2021 Deposition Transcript of Dr.
`Michael Brogioli
`
`McKean
`Declaration
`Brogioli
`Deposition
`
`QC Original
`Complaint
`
`AMD Original
`Complaint
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`PO’s challenges to the Petition are limited. PO challenges a single claim
`
`element across all grounds: “wherein said generation of said predetermined number
`
`of internal address signals is non-interruptible.” And for that element, PO does not
`
`dispute the key facts.
`
`While quibbling that Schaefer does not use the actual term “non-
`
`interruptible,” PO concedes that Schaefer’s language—“[t]he user is not allowed to
`
`issue another command until the precharged time (tRP) is completed” (EX1017,
`
`7:42-441)—discloses a “prohibition on user commands.” POR, 44. Therefore,
`
`PO’s only dispute relates to the period over which this “prohibition on user
`
`commands” applies.
`
`Petitioner’s expert Mr. Murphy provides several pages of detailed analysis
`
`explaining why a POSITA would understand Schaefer’s plain language to bar user
`
`commands from after T2 up to T9 as shown in annotated FIG. 4 below and why a
`
`POSITA would understand such a system is the most practical design choice,
`
`consistent with Schaefer’s plain language. EX1015, ¶¶78-84. This analysis goes
`
`unaddressed in the POR.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`“The user is not allowed to issue another command
`until the precharged time (tRP) is completed.”
`
`
`
`EX1017, Fig. 4 (annotated).
`
`The POR fails to explain why Petitioner’s analysis of the plain language is
`
`wrong. Indeed, PO’s expert Dr. Brogioli concedes that there is no other user
`
`(external) command from T2 to T9 other than the command issued at T2 and that
`
`the operation at T6 that PO alleges starts the prohibition period is an internal
`
`operation that is not based on an issued user command. EX1029, 43:5-44:16. Thus,
`
`the plain language of Schaefer describing the prohibition of issuance of “another”
`
`user command could only refer to the user command at T2 as the start of the period
`
`of “prohibition on user commands.” EX1017, 7:42-44; see also EX1029, 27:17-
`
`28:12.
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`Further, PO’s arguments about what Schaefer could have disclosed do not
`
`override—and are contrary to—what Schaefer actually disclosed. First, PO argues
`
`that Schaefer could have allowed interrupts from T2 to T6 while still meeting an
`
`unrelated goal Schaefer discusses. But PO fails to explain how the disclosed AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE functionality (even if not the main goal of Schaefer) would operate
`
`under its proposed modification.
`
`Second, PO asserts that Schaefer discloses commands to interrupt a burst,
`
`therefore supporting PO’s interpretation. But Dr. Brogioli concedes Schaefer does
`
`not explicitly disclose any such command for the type of burst actually mapped: a
`
`fixed-length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE. EX1029, 34:8-23, 36:5-37:12,
`
`38:17-39:8. Rather PO, points only to Schaefer disclosing user interrupt commands
`
`for a “full page” burst (which is not fixed length, but continues indefinitely until
`
`interrupted) without AUTO-PRECHARGE. EX1029, 34:8-23, 36:5-37:12. PO
`
`provides no basis to read Schaefer’s description of user interrupt commands for this
`
`separate mode as applying to the mapping mode. PO incorrectly states Mr. Murphy
`
`agrees that user interrupt commands apply to all burst modes, but he does not and
`
`PO’s block quote indicates he does not. Correcting that representation, Dr. Brogioli
`
`provides only a conclusory assertion contradicted by the admitted differences
`
`between the modes.
`
`Accordingly, Claims 1-7 and 9-21 of the ’134 Patent are invalid.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD CREDIT MR. MURPHY’S REASONED
`ANALYSIS
`Mr. Murphy’s credentials are beyond reproach. After obtaining a Bachelor of
`
`Science Degree in Electrical Engineering in 1974 from Drexel University, in
`
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`in 1976 from the University of California, Los Angeles, Mr. Murphy began a career
`
`in the semiconductor industry that spanned over forty-five years. EX1015, ¶¶3-4,
`
`EX1016. Much of Mr. Murphy’s industry experience relates to the design of high
`
`speed, high complexity semiconductor products, including SRAM (Static Random
`
`Access Memory) and DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory). Id., ¶¶5-12.
`
`This includes early work with National Semiconductor Corporation where he was
`
`integrally involved designing pseudo-static DRAM using the same manufacturing
`
`processes and circuitry as typical DRAM as well as work with Silicon Graphics Inc.,
`
`where he also involved in re-designing RAM. Id., ¶6.
`
`Throughout his career, Mr. Murphy also worked on design and development
`
`of memory control circuitry, memory addressing schemes and related circuitry, and
`
`memory data input and data output paths. Id., ¶¶5, 7. Mr. Murphy was also
`
`responsible for designing, testing, and establishing SRAM production lines,
`
`including four transistor (4T) cell 4K SRAM products. Id., ¶7. As a result of his
`
`extensive memory design and development experience, Mr. Murphy achieved key
`
`technology roles within companies, including Design Manager, Chief Technical
`102926210.4
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`Contributor, and Director of Engineering, where he led engineering teams and
`
`specialized contractors in developing and designing circuitry to implement high
`
`performance memory, output drivers, and electrostatic discharge (ESD) devices. Id.,
`
`¶¶8-11. To this day, Mr. Murphy continues to design, develop, and license high
`
`performance memory building blocks for semi-custom and ASIC designs. Id., ¶12.
`
`More importantly, Mr. Murphy utilizes that experience to provide extensive,
`
`reasoned analysis. In particular, Mr. Murphy provides extensive explanations of the
`
`“design choices” a chip designer would consider in designing a burst operation,
`
`which is particularly relevant to a POSITA’s interpretation of Schaefer. EX1015,
`
`¶¶41-43, 78-84. PO was free to attack this analysis, but did not.
`
`PO spends six pages arguing that “the Board should accord little or no weight
`
`to Mr. Murphy’s Declaration” because Mr. Murphy sponsored two different levels
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as both applicable to the ’134 Patent. POR at 23-29. PO
`
`fails to explain how Mr. Murphy’s current opinion regarding a POSITA with lower
`
`experience requirements (as compared to his opinion in a prior matter) impacts his
`
`analysis in this proceeding. As to level of ordinary skill, PO agrees with and applies
`
`the proposed level of ordinary skill Mr. Murphy presents in this proceeding. POR,
`
`21-22. Rather than sponsoring a higher level of ordinary skill, which would have
`
`benefitted Qualcomm in discussing a POSITA’s greater understanding and
`
`interpretation of the prior art, Mr. Murphy’s proposed a level of ordinary skill simply
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`repeats AMD’s proposed lower “level of ordinary skill” in IPR2020-00985 for the
`
`convenience of the Board. Compare Petition, 14 with IPR2020-00985 Institution
`
`Decision (Paper 13), 7. Further, PO offers no explanation why Mr. Murphy’s
`
`analysis is flawed based on a lower level of ordinary skill.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Murphy’s reasoned analysis stands in contrast to Dr. Brogioli’s
`
`conclusory testimony as discussed below. And, while Dr. Brogioli is certainly an
`
`expert in many areas and at the level of a POSITA or higher for many patents, his
`
`conclusory testimony should be given less weight here in view of the fact that he has
`
`limited relevant experience in this area. Indeed, Dr. Brogioli was not a POSITA at
`
`the time of filing of the ’134 Patent—under the agreed lower level—without
`
`counting “experience” overlapping with his undergraduate studies. EX1029, 47:18-
`
`48:7. Further, Dr. Brogioli did not then, and does not today, have the key experience
`
`of Mr. Murphy including memory chip design experience or even memory controller
`
`programming experience upon which to base his opinion. EX1029, 15:1-9, 16:20-
`
`25. Dr. Brogioli’s experience is limited to higher-level software in the CPU that
`
`simply relies on the built-in memory components. He has never designed these
`
`circuits himself. Id. Finally, the levels of detail and explanation of their respective
`
`opinions speaks for itself; for the reasons explained below, Mr. Murphy’s
`
`explanation is fully supported by the reference itself and fully reasoned analysis.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`III. SCHAEFER DISCLOSES A BURST THAT IS NON-INTERRUPTIBLE
`FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF GENERATION OF INTERNAL
`ADDRESSES
`A.
`PO Does Not Dispute that Schaefer Discloses at Least a Portion of
`a Fixed Length Burst With AUTO-PRECHARGE is Non-
`Interruptible
`The parties agree that Schaefer’s language “[t]he user is not allowed to issue
`
`another command until the precharged time (tRP) is completed” (EX1017, 7:42-44)
`
`conveys non-interruptibility. Specifically, PO confirms that Schaefer discloses
`
`“prohibiting additional user commands” during at least a portion of a fixed length
`
`burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE, quoting the language above. POR, 44 (quoting
`
`EX1017, 7:43-48).
`
`While the parties disagree on the starting point of the prohibition, PO does not
`
`dispute that when “the precharged time (tRP) is completed,” the generation of internal
`
`address signals used to identify the address locations for the corresponding data
`
`output has necessarily completed (meeting the ending point required by the claim
`
`language). EX1015, ¶97. The only dispute between the parties is whether this
`
`prohibition is limited to “during tRP,” as PO asserts, or from the issuance of the user
`
`command at T2, as Petitioner asserts. That is, PO asserts that the prohibition is
`
`limited to the time highlighted in green below, while Petitioner asserts the
`
`prohibition begins when the user issues the burst command at T2.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`“The user is not allowed to issue another command
`until the precharged time (tRP) is completed.”
`
`
`
`EX1017, Fig. 4 (annotated).
`
`B.
`Schaefer’s Plain Language is Clear
`The plain language of Schaefer states that when “using the AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE command feature,” “[t]he user is not allowed to issue another
`
`command until the precharged time (tRP) is completed.” EX1017, 7:38-44. The
`
`language and syntax of this passage describe a period beginning at T2. The passage
`
`references tRP solely in defining the end of the prohibition period, using the term
`
`“until,” not “during.” Id. For the beginning of the period, the passage references
`
`“another” user command, which a POSITA would have understood to refer to the
`
`user command that starts the burst. EX1015, ¶82. Dr. Brogioli concedes that the
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`only user (external) command shown in FIG. 4 from T2 through T9 is the READ
`
`with AUTO-PRECHARGE issued at T2. EX1029, 43:5-44:16.
`
`PO offers no direct rebuttal to this passage, but instead cites to later passages.
`
`POR, 44-45 (citing EX1015, 7:45-57). These later passages describe, from an
`
`internal operations perspective, when “selected bank memory array must not be
`
`accessed” and “cannot be accessed.” EX1015, 7:45-57. They do not address, from
`
`an external perspective, when a user is not allowed to issue commands. As Mr.
`
`Murphy explains, “a device could have been designed to allow interruption during
`
`the read portion of the read with auto-precharge, but that is not what Schaefer
`
`discloses.” EX1015, ¶83.
`
`C.
`
`PO’s Interpretation is Contrary to Schaefer’s Plain Language and
`Assumes an Undesirable and Unexplained Configuration
`A POSITA would not interpret Schaefer’s language, as PO urges, to permit
`
`user interrupts from T2 to T6 in a fixed length READ with AUTO-PRECHARGE
`
`burst not only because it is contrary to the plain language but also because the
`
`proposed configuration makes little sense. Mr. Murphy explains that “there are
`
`reasons Schaefer did not propose” permitting interrupts from T2 to T6, including
`
`that “[a]llowing such interrupts would have been more costly (more circuitry) and
`
`may have detrimentally impacted the speed of operation.” Id., ¶83; see also id.,
`
`¶¶41-43, 78-84.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`PO points out that Mr. Murphy explained that interrupting bursts is
`
`advantageous, but this does not help PO explain its interpretation of Schaefer’s
`
`description of a fixed length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE. POR, 34-36.
`
`Specifically, Mr. Murphy explains that “[t]erminating, or interrupting, a burst allows
`
`the user to create a burst of an arbitrary length” and a user may, for example, create
`
`a read burst of length six by issuing a command for a burst of length eight and then
`
`terminating after six outputs. EX1015, ¶41. But this advantage could be achieved
`
`using the existing burst without AUTO-PRECHARGE commands.
`
`Designing burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE operations to also permit
`
`interrupts would provide no additional functionality and would have numerous
`
`downsides. First, as discussed above, “[a]llowing such interrupts would have been
`
`more costly (more circuitry) and may have detrimentally impacted the speed of
`
`operation.” Id., ¶83. Second, allowing interrupts before the internal PRECHARGE
`
`operation automatically begins would negate the stated advantage of AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE. Schaefer explains that “[b]y using the AUTO-PRECHARGE
`
`command feature, a manual PRECHARGE command does not need to be issued”
`
`and, instead, “the precharge is initiated at the earliest, valid stage within a burst
`
`cycle.” EX1017, 7:38 43. If such a burst were terminated prior to that “earliest,
`
`valid stage with a burst cycle,” which Schaefer explains is after the reads or writes
`
`are complete, then the benefit of AUTO-PRECHARGE would not be obtained. Id.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`Thus, a POSITA’s understanding of Schaefer’s plain language would be
`
`confirmed by the fact that PO’s contrary interpretation advocates for an
`
`implementation that would be “costly” and negate the very purpose of supporting
`
`fixed length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE.
`
`D.
`
`PO Cannot Negate Schaefer’s Anticipating Disclosure by Pointing
`to Schaefer’s Purported Goals
`PO argues that Schaefer should not be interpreted as disclosing non-
`
`interruptible bursts because it is “directed to prevented wasted cycles between
`
`bursts.” E.g., POR, 32-34. But the disclosure of a reference for purposes of
`
`anticipation analysis is not limited to specific advances to which the reference may
`
`be “directed.” See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983) (“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the
`
`subject matter of the patent teaches . . . . It is only necessary that the claims under
`
`attack, as construed by the court, ‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference.”),
`
`overruled in part on other grounds, SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775
`
`F.2d 1107, 1125, 227 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
`
`Schaefer’s separate disclosure of circuitry for reducing time between bursts
`
`sheds no light on how a POSITA would interpret Schaefer’s unrelated disclosure of
`
`a fixed length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE. The portion of Schaefer the POR
`
`quotes begins with “[i]n either a READ command or WRITE command with either
`
`a PRECHARGE command [i.e., without AUTO-PRECHARGE] or an AUTO-
`102926210.4
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`PRECHARGE command …,” making clear this passage says nothing specific to
`
`AUTO-PRECHARGE functionality. POR, 33 (quoting EX1017, 9:16-21).
`
`E.
`
`Schaefer Does Not Link Discussion of Interrupt Commands for a
`Different Type of Burst to the Mapped Burst with Auto-Precharge
`PO does not identify any disclosure in Schaefer describing burst termination
`
`commands for a fixed-length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE. POR, 30-31.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Brogioli admits that Schaefer does not include any such disclosure.
`
`EX1029, 34:8-23, 36:5-37:12, 38:17-39:8. The sole portion of Schaefer that PO
`
`relies upon discloses user interrupt commands in the specific context of a “full page”
`
`(not fixed) burst without AUTO-PRECHARGE. POR, 30-31. (citing EX1017, 5:15-
`
`19; 5:59-62).
`
`These passages therefore do not support PO’s arguments for interpreting
`
`Schaefer’s disclosure of a fixed length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE. Further,
`
`PO provides no reasoned basis explaining why a POSITA would read these passages
`
`specific user interrupt commands for a full page (not fixed) burst without AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE disclosure to also apply to a fixed length burst with AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE. As discussed in Section III.B above, permitting interrupts in a burst
`
`with AUTO-PRECHARGE would negate
`
`the purpose of using AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE. And, as discussed below, the differences between “full page” and
`
`“fixed length” bursts further contradict an assumption that Schaefer’s passages
`
`would apply to all burst types.
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`It is undisputed that fixed length bursts do not need to support
`user burst interrupt commands to function
`Schaefer discloses fixed length bursts of fixed lengths of 2, 4, and 8, as well
`
`
`
`as a fundamentally-different burst type known as “full page.” EX1017, 6:1-3. It is
`
`undisputed that fixed-length bursts, including the length 4 read burst with AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE depicted in Schaefer’s FIG. 4, conclude on their own without need
`
`for an additional external user command. EX1029, 36:5-18. In contrast, a full page
`
`burst continues indefinitely until the user issues an external command to interrupt
`
`the burst. EX1017, 5:15-19; EX1029, 36:5-18. Accordingly, as PO states: “burst
`
`termination options are required for stopping full-page bursts, unlike fixed length
`
`bursts, which stop at the end of the burst length if not interrupted earlier.” POR, 32
`
`(citing EX2006, ¶104) (emphasis of “required” in original). That is, there is no
`
`requirement that a given memory device support “burst termination options” through
`
`use of user (external) commands for a particular fixed length burst type. There is
`
`therefore no basis to assume that user burst termination commands described for
`
`full-page bursts apply to all fixed length bursts.
`
`
`
`No credible evidence supports PO’s assertion that burst
`termination commands “appl[y] to all disclosed bursts”
`PO’s attempts to link Schaefer’s discussion of user burst termination
`
`commands for full page bursts without AUTO-PRECHARGE to fixed length bursts
`
`with AUTO-PRECHARGE are limited and without merit.
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`First, the POR inaccurately asserts that “Mr. Murphy agrees” that “a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the BURST TERMINATION, PRECHARGE, and
`
`READ or WRITE command options for interrupting bursts would apply to all of
`
`Schaefer’s disclosed bursts.” POR, 31. The block quotes that follow contradict
`
`PO’s characterization. Id., 31. Specifically, Mr. Murphy agreed that burst
`
`termination commands would apply only “for the bursts that don’t include an auto-
`
`precharge.” EX2009, 118:14-22. The only relevant question here is whether
`
`Schaefer’s disclosure of user interrupt commands apply to a fixed length burst with
`
`AUTO-PRECHARGE. Consistent with his deposition testimony, Mr. Murphy
`
`explains in detail why commands for interrupting bursts do NOT apply to Schaefer’s
`
`fixed length bursts with auto-precharge:
`
`Unlike Cowles, Schaefer doesn’t provide for a way to terminate a
`READ with AUTO-PRECHARGE burst operation. Schaefer mentions
`burst termination only with reference to a “full page” burst that “will
`wrap around and continually restart the ‘burst’ operation until a BURST
`TERMINATION command or PRECHARGE command is indicated by
`command controller 28 or until interrupted with another burst
`operation.” EX1017, 5:15-20. This mode is unrelated to the fixed
`length (2, 4, or 8) bursts with auto-precharge that are the subject of
`this claim mapping.
`EX1015, ¶100. Thus, Mr. Murphy’s testimony does not support and, in fact, rebuts
`
`PO’s position. See also id., ¶43 (further explaining that Schaefer’s fixed length (2,
`
`4, or 8) bursts with AUTO-PRECHARGE are not interruptible).
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`Second, the POR cites to Dr. Brogioli, but Dr. Brogioli’s opinion in
`
`Paragraphs 102 through 104 is a word-for-word copy of the corresponding POR
`
`text—not expert analysis. Compare POR, 30-31 with EX2006, ¶¶102-104. Dr.
`
`Brogioli’s conclusory opinion sits in sharp contrast to Mr. Murphy’s reasoned
`
`explanation. EX1015, ¶¶41-43, 78-84. Accordingly, PO fails to provide any
`
`support, other than conclusory unsupported opinions by Dr. Borogioli, that link
`
`Schaefer’s discussion of full-page burst termination commands to fixed length bursts
`
`with AUTO-PRECHARGE.
`
`IV. PO RAISES NO OTHER CHALLENGES TO THE GROUNDS OF
`INVALIDITY
`PO raises no other challenges to the Petition. PO raises no challenge to
`
`Ground 1A other than the element “wherein said generation of said predetermined
`
`number of internal address signals is non-interruptible.” POR, 29-52. Nor does PO
`
`raise any independent challenge to Grounds 1B, 2A, or 2B. Id., 52-54.
`
`Further, PO has abandoned the prior patent owner’s assertion that
`
`“predetermined” / “fixed” means occurring prior to initialization / power up (e.g., at
`
`manufacturing of the circuit). See Institution Decision, 8 (citing POPR, 13-14);
`
`POR, 22-23 (raising no claim construction for these terms). And, PO does not
`
`dispute that Schaefer’s disclosure of setting a burst length using a mode register
`
`meets the “predetermined” / “fixed” claim elements. POR, 29-52. Accordingly,
`
`Grounds 1B and 2B need not be reached.
`102926210.4
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, Claims 1-7 and 9-21 of the ’134 Patent are invalid.
`
`Dated: September 8, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`/Eagle H. Robinson/
`Eagle H. Robinson
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i), the undersigned certifies that this Paper—
`
`exclusive of the table of contents, certificate of service, and this certificate of word
`
`count—includes 3,168 words.
`
`/Eagle H. Robinson/
`Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361)
`
`
`
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01492
`Patent 6,651,134
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on September 8, 2021, a complete copy of this Petition’s Reply and
`
`Exhibit 1029 were served on Patent Owner via email (by consent) to:
`
`TKonstantakopoulos@desmaraisllp.com
`JMcDavit@desmaraisllp.com
`JMalz@desmaraisllp.com
`MWueste@desmaraisllp.com
`RThorne@desmaraisllp.com
`YHa@desmaraisllp.com
`CDorman@desmaraisllp.com
`
`
`
`/Eagle H. Robinson/
`Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361)
`
`102926210.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
