Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURREPLY
`
`
`
`
`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
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURREPLY
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
`Schaefer Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said Generation Of Said
`Predetermined Number Of Internal Address Signals Is Non-
`interruptible” ....................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Schaefer Prohibition On User Commands During The
`PRECHARGE Command Operation Period Does Not Disclose
`Non-Interruptibility Of Bursts ...................................................... 3
`Schaefer’s Plain Language Is Clear That Issuing Another
`Command Is Only Prohibited During The PRECHARGE Time
`(tRP)........................................................................................... 4
`PO’s Interpretation Is Consistent with Schaefer’s Plain
`Language ................................................................................... 7
`D. A POSITA Would Have Understood Schaefer’s Disclosure Of
`Circuitry For Reducing Time Between Bursts To Apply to The
`AUTO-PRECHARGE Command ............................................... 13
`Schaefer Discloses Burst Termination Commands For a Fixed-
`Length Burst With AUTO-PRECHARGE. ................................... 15
`1.
`Fixed Length Bursts of 2, 4, And 8 Cycles Can Be
`Interrupted ...................................................................... 18
`2. Mr. Murphy Admitted That Fixed Bursts Without
`AUTO-PRECHARGE Can Be Terminated.......................... 18
`III. Mr. Murphy’s Declaration Should Be Given Little Or No Weight ............ 19
`A. Dr. Brogioli Was A POSITA At The Time Of Filing Of The
`’134 Patent............................................................................... 19
`IV. Conclusion........................................................................................ 20
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Monterey’s First Amended Complaint in Monterey Research, LLC v.
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., C.A. No. 19-cv-2149-CFC, Dkt. 16
`(D. Del. Feb. 5, 2020)
`Scheduling Order in Monterey Research, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et
`al, C.A. No. 19-2083-NIQA-LAS (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2020); Monterey
`Research, LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp. et al, C.A. No. 19-2090-NIQA-
`LAS (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2020); Monterey Research, LLC v. Advanced
`Micro Devices, Inc., C.A. No. 19-cv-2149-NIQA-LAS (D. Del. Oct.
`1, 2020); Monterey Research, LLC v. STMicroelectronics N.V. et al,
`C.A. No. 20-0089-NIQA-LAS (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2020); Monterey
`Research, LLC v. Marvell Tech. Grp. Ltd., et al, C.A. No. 20-0158-
`NIQA-LAS (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2020)
`Qualcomm’s Answer, Counterclaims and Defenses to the First
`Amended Complaint in Monterey Research, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc.
`et al, C.A. No. 19-2083-NIQA-LAS, Dkt. 22 (D. Del. Feb. 28, 2020)
`December 29, 2020 Email fr. USPTO Trials
`Declaration In Support Of Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC’s
`Unopposed Motion For Admission Pro Hac Vice Of Michael A.
`Wueste
`Declaration Of Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D.
`Curriculum Vitae Of Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Robert Murphy In Support of Defendant GSI
`Technology, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Cypress
`Semiconductor Corp. v. GSI Tech., Inc., Case Nos. 3:13-cv-02013,
`4:13-cv-03757 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2014)
`May 18, 2021 Deposition Transcript of Robert Murphy
`
`All citations to specific pages of exhibits follow the pagination added to those
`
`exhibits per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(i).
`
`All emphases are added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`This paper includes color illustrations and should be viewed in color.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`Introduction
`I.
`
`Neither Petitioner’s (“Qualcomm’s”) original Petition evidence nor the new
`
`Reply evidence demonstrate that U.S. Patent No. 5,600,605 to Schaefer (“Schaefer”)
`
`discloses a memory that provides a non-interruptible burst, as required by all
`
`challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 (“the ’134 Patent”- Ex-1001).
`
`Even Mr. Murphy, Qualcomm’s expert, admits that Schaefer discloses
`
`interrupting bursts before a burst has been completed using a variety of burst
`
`termination options. For example, Mr. Murphy admitted that Schaefer discloses a
`
`BURST TERMINATE command, a PRECHARGE command, or a new READ or
`
`WRITE command. See e.g., Ex-2009, 118:14-22.
`
`Because Qualcomm cannot dispute Schaefer’s explicit teaching of multiple
`
`options for interrupting a burst before completion, Qualcomm instead manufactures
`
`a scenario based on Schaefer’s AUTO-PRECHARGE command according to which
`
`Schaefer prevents interruptions of a burst during the entire length of the burst.
`
`But, as was explained in the Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) and is further
`
`explained herein, Qualcomm continues to misread or mischaracterize Schaefer,
`
`which discloses prohibiting user commands only during the time necessary to
`
`perform and complete a precharge operation and to argue that the prohibition on
`
`issuing user commands applies to the entire burst transfers as well. But Schaefer’s
`
`disclosure is clear—and Qualcomm runs away from it. Schaefer explicitly defines
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`when the precharge operation is initiated and until when the used is prohibited from
`
`issuing another command, i.e., until the precharge time is completed:
`
`The AUTO-PRECHARGE command insures that the precharge is
`initiated at the earliest, valid stage within a burst cycle. The user is not
`allowed to issue another command until the precharged time (tRP) is
`completed.
`Ex-1017, 7:40-44.
`
`That is, the prohibition of issuing another command is limited to the
`
`precharged time (tRP). Accordingly, before the precharge has been initiated, the user
`
`can issue another command, which would interrupt the existing burst. Neither
`
`Qualcomm nor Mr. Murphy dispute that the issuance of another command would
`
`interrupt the existing burst. Because Qualcomm cannot get away from this reality,
`
`the Reply resorts in mischaracterizations of Monterey’s arguments, Dr. Brogioli’s
`
`testimony, and Schaefer’s disclosures, in an apparent attempt to create distraction
`
`and confusion. But these attempts cannot and should not derail the focus from
`
`Schaefer’s explicit disclosure that bursts are interruptible, except only during
`
`precharge.
`
`II.
`
`Schaefer Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said Generation Of Said
`Predetermined Number Of Internal Address Signals Is Non-
`interruptible”
`
`Schaefer does not disclose the “wherein said generation of said predetermined
`
`number of internal address signals is non-interruptible” limitation recited by
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`independent claims 1, 16, and 17, and incorporated by challenged dependent claims
`
`2-5, 7, 9-10, 12-18, 20, and 21. Particularly, Schaefer (1) explicitly discloses
`
`interrupting bursts using a variety of burst termination options (see POR, 30-32);
`
`and (2) Schaefer’s alleged prohibition on user commands, according to Schaefer’s
`
`disclosure and Qualcomm’s expert’s deposition admissions, applies only to the
`
`PRECHARGE command operation period tRP. (See POR, 36-52.)
`
`A.
`
`Schaefer Prohibition On User Commands During The
`PRECHARGE Command Operation Period Does Not Disclose
`Non-Interruptibility Of Bursts
`Petitioner mischaracterizes the POR and incorrectly alleges that “[t]he 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.” Reply, 7 (emphasis in original, emphasis added).
`
`The POR instead made clear that Schaefer conveys interrupting bursts by
`
`disclosing multiple means for interrupting bursts before completion because, as
`
`Qualcomm’s expert admitted, Schaefer is directed to interrupting bursts, which
`
`result in advantages, such as preventing wasted cycles in between bursts. See, POR,
`
`29-34.
`
`Petitioner suggests that prohibiting issuing another command during a
`
`portion of a burst conveys non-interruptibility. Petitioner is mistaken. This
`
`argument is equivalent to arguing that a flight between Los Angeles and New York
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`with a layover in Dallas is a direct flight, just because the Dallas-New York leg of
`
`the trip is a direct flight. The fact that Schaefer discloses prohibiting issuing another
`
`command only during the PRECHARGE time (tRP) conveys actually that before the
`
`PRECHARGE time, issuing another command was allowed, which would interrupt
`
`the burst.
`
`B.
`
`Schaefer’s Plain Language Is Clear That Issuing Another
`Command Is Only Prohibited During The PRECHARGE Time
`(tRP)
`
`Qualcomm accurately identifies the dispute between the parties:
`
`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.
`Reply, 7.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`
`Citing to Schaefer at 7:38-44, Qualcomm notes that “[t]he 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.’” Based on this, Qualcomm alleges that “[t]he 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.’”
`
`Reply, 8.
`
`Qualcomm mischaracterizes Schaefer. Even though Qualcomm cites
`
`Schaefer at 7:38-44, Qualcomm conveniently only mentions the sentence (Ex-1017,
`
`42-44) that only references the end of the prohibition period. Qualcomm attempts
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`to hide the previous sentence that defines the start of the prohibition period. For
`
`clarity and for illustrating Qualcomm’s disingenuous attempt to distort Schaefer’s
`
`disclosure, Patent Owner provides the entire relevant section of Schaefer:
`
`By using the AUTO-PRECHARGE command feature, a manual
`PRECHARGE command does not need to be issued during the
`functional operation of SDRAM 20. The AUTO-PRECHARGE
`command insures that the precharge is initiated at the earliest, valid
`stage within a burst cycle. The user is not allowed to issue another
`command until the precharged time (tRP) is completed.
`Ex-1017, 7:38-44.
`
`The passage clearly references when the precharge is initiated (“at the earlier
`
`valid stage within a burst cycle” (Ex-1017, 7:42)) until it is completed. Therefore,
`
`when the AUTO-PRECHARGE command is employed, i.e., in the event that the
`
`AUTO-PRECHARGE command is employed, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that the “user is not allowed to issue another command” from the “earliest, valid
`
`stage within a burst cycle” “until the precharged time (tRP) is completed.”
`
`Qualcomm further mischaracterizes the POR, by alleging that “PO offers no
`
`direct rebuttal to this passage, but instead cites to later passages.” Reply, 9 (citing
`
`POR, 44-45.) Qualcomm conveniently omits the discussion in the POR about “the
`
`AUTO-PRECHARGE command insur[ing] that the precharge is initiated at the
`
`earliest, valid stage within a burst cycle.’” POR, 43 (citing Ex-1017, 7:41-43.)
`
`Based on Dr. Brogioli’s explanation, the POR concludes that “Schaefer must ensure
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`that a subsequent early ACTIVE command does not interrupt the precharge
`
`operation.” POR, 44. Accordingly, the POR clearly identified the starting and
`
`ending time, i.e., the precharge time (tRP), of the prohibition of issuing another
`
`command.
`
`Qualcomm also notes that “Dr. Brogioli concedes that the only user (external)
`
`command shown in FIG. 4 from T2 through T9 is the READ with AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE issued at T2.” But Figure 4 of Schaefer is not an example of a
`
`burst that is interrupted. Qualcomm’s logical fallacy is generalizing that Schaefer
`
`does not disclose interrupting bursts just because in the particular example of Figure
`
`4 another command is not issued between T3 and T6. But the issue is not whether
`
`in the particular example of Figure 4 another command is issued. Rather, the issue
`
`is whether another command can be issued between T2 and T6. The answer is yes.
`
`PO’s Interpretation Is Consistent with Schaefer’s Plain Language
`
`C.
`Qualcomm also argues that “[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.” Reply, 9.
`
`First, as explained above in Section III.B, Schaefer’s plain language is clear that
`
`issuing another command is only prohibited during the PRECHARGE time (tRP).
`
`Second, for the argument that PO’s “proposed configuration [allegedly] makes little
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`sense” (Reply, 9), Qualcomm points to Mr. Murphy’s declaration at paragraph 83
`
`where “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.’” Reply, 9 (citing Ex-1015, ¶83).
`
`Mr. Murphy merely offers a conclusory statement without providing any
`
`justification that would support such conclusion. Mr. Murphy alleges that “such
`
`interrupts would have been more costly (more circuitry).” Ex-1015, ¶83. But Mr.
`
`Murphy does not explain how and why allowing interrupting bursts would have been
`
`more costly or would have involved more circuitry. Mr. Murphy merely ponders
`
`“[t]he question always ends up being asked, what is the advantage to this change vs.
`
`the cost and how often will it be used?” Id. But PO’s interpretation would cause
`
`neither additional costs nor additional circuitry. This is because Schaefer already
`
`includes circuitry for interrupting bursts, as Mr. Murphy acknowledged:
`
`Q. Schaefer discloses at least three ways to terminate a burst, burst
`termination command, a precharge command or a second burst
`operation; correct?
`A. That’s correct, for the bursts that don't include an auto-precharge.”
`Ex-2009, 118:14-22.
`
`And as discussed in detail in Section III.D below, the AUTO-PRECHARGE
`
`command is merely a command that performs all of the same precharge functions
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`described for the PRECHARGE command, without having
`
`to issue
`
`the
`
`PRECHARGE command manually.
`
`Besides, as Mr. Murphy further acknowledged, Schaefer explicitly teaches
`
`that allowing interrupting bursts is beneficial:
`
`Q. So one reason to allow interruptions of burst is to avoid wasting
`
`cycles within the device; correct?
`
`A. That's correct.
`
`Ex-2009, 94:25-95:4.
`
`Mr. Murphy also alleged that “[a]llowing such interrupts … and may have
`
`detrimentally impacted the speed of operation.” Reply, 9. Mr. Murphy does not
`
`even offer a definitive answer as to whether there will be a detrimental impact to the
`
`speed of operation. Such a wavering opinion should be given no weight. Mr.
`
`Murphy’s inability to definitely conclude whether there will be a detrimental impact
`
`to the speed of operation undermines Qualcomm’s argument.
`
`Qualcomm also alleges that “[d]esigning burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE
`
`operations to also permit interrupts would provide no additional functionality and
`
`would have numerous downsides.” Reply, 10. For support, Qualcomm points to
`
`Mr. Murphy’s declaration at paragraph 83, where Mr. Murphy concludes that
`
`“[a]llowing such interrupts would have been more costly (more circuitry) and may
`
`have detrimentally impacted the speed of operation.” Reply, 10 (citing to Ex-1015,
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`¶83.) As discussed above, such conclusory and wavering opinion should be given
`
`no weight.
`
`For additional support Qualcomm also alleges that “allowing interrupts before
`
`the internal PRECHARGE operation automatically begins would negate the stated
`
`advantage of AUTO-PRECHARGE.” Reply, 10. Qualcomm points to Schaefer and
`
`notes 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.’” Reply, 10 (citing Ex-1017,
`
`7:38-43.). Qualcomm concludes that “[i]f 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.” Reply, 10 (internal citations omitted.)
`
`Qualcomm is mistaken. Qualcomm misrepresents Schaefer. Further,
`
`Qualcomm’s conclusion is even contrary to Qualcomm’s expert admissions.
`
`Qualcomm attempts to associate Schaefer’s advantages of interrupting bursts, with
`
`the benefit conveyed by the AUTO-PRECHARGE command. Qualcomm’s attempt
`
`fails. As the POR explained “because the PRECHARGE and ACTIVE command
`
`operations (1) must be completed before beginning a READ or WRITE burst
`
`operation, and (2) require a given number of cycles to complete, ‘[a]t many
`
`frequencies, the time to perform the PRECHARGE command operation, and the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`ACTIVE command operation results in wasted time which adds up to an extra clock
`
`cycle resulting in a wait cycle.’” POR, 17-18 (citing Ex-1017, 1:49-52.)
`
`Specifically, as the POR further explained, “at some frequencies, ‘the total
`
`time required for tRP and tRCD equals an extra clock cycle or system clock cycle time
`
`(tCK) than if the two (tRP and tRCD) were able to be accomplished as a single parameter
`
`thereby resulting in a wait cycle.’” POR, 18 (citing Ex-1017, 9:11-15.) Accordingly,
`
`the wasted cycles in Schaefer occur as a result of the “the total time required for tRP
`
`and tRCD.” Figure 4 of Schaefer, which illustrates an example of the AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE command, shows that tRP and tRCD run consecutively, i.e., tRP runs
`
`between T6 and T9, while tRCD starts running at T9.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`Ex-1017, Fig. 4 (annotated by Qualcomm and further annotated by Monterey.)
`
`Therefore, since the wasted cycles in Schaefer occur as a result of the “the
`
`total time required for tRP and tRCD” the start time of the precharge time (tRP) is
`
`irrelevant to the overhead (wasted cycles) that Schaefer is trying to eliminate.
`
`Mr. Murphy agrees that the wasted clock cycles in Schaefer are a result of
`
`performing—not the starting time of—the precharge and active commands:
`
`Q. Schaefer is directed to eliminating the potential wasted clock cycles
`necessary to perform the precharge command operations and the active
`command operations; correct?
`A. Yes, given the fact that the frequencies of operation can be different.
`Ex-2009, 110:19-111:1.
`
`Consequently, interrupting bursts avoids wasting cycles that is a result of
`
`performing the precharge and active commands, as Mr. Murphy admitted:
`
`Q. So one reason to allow interruptions of burst is to avoid wasting
`cycles within the device; correct?
`A. That's correct.
`Ex-2009, 94:25-95:4.
`
`Accordingly, Qualcomm’s argument about initiating the precharge “at the
`
`earliest valid stage within a burst cycle” (Reply, 10) is a mischaracterization of
`
`Schafer and a failed attempt to create confusion.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`D. A POSITA Would Have Understood Schaefer’s Disclosure Of
`Circuitry For Reducing Time Between Bursts To Apply to The
`AUTO-PRECHARGE Command
`
`Qualcomm further alleges that “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.”
`
`Reply, 11. Qualcomm is mistaken.
`
`Qualcomm and Mr. Murphy tries to create a distance between the
`
`“PRECHARGE” and the “AUTO-PRECHARGE” commands. For example, Mr.
`
`Murphy testified:
`
`Q. Schaefer discloses at least three ways to terminate a burst, burst
`termination command, a precharge command or a second burst
`operation; correct?
`A. That’s correct, for the bursts that don't include an auto-precharge.
`Ex-2009, 118:14-22.
`
`But a POSITA would have understood that Schaefer treats “PRECHARGE”
`
`“AUTO-PRECHARGE” in a similar manner. For example, Schaefer discloses that
`
`“[a]n AUTO-PRECHARGE command is a non-persistent feature in SDRAM 20
`
`which performs all of the same individual bank precharge functions described
`
`above for the PRECHARGE command.” Ex-1017, 7:29-32. Schaefer describes
`
`the difference between the two commands as not having to issue a manual
`
`PRECHARGE command. See id., 7:38-40 (“By using the AUTO-PRECHARGE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`command feature, a manual PRECHARGE command does not need to be issued
`
`during the functional operation of SDRAM 20.”)
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would not have understood the lack of explicit
`
`disclosure in Schaefer of a burst termination for bursts that include AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE as distinguishing the bursts with manual PRECHARGE and AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE. Rather, a POSITA would have understood the AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE “perform[ing] all of the same individual bank precharge functions
`
`described above for the PRECHARGE command” to suggest that that bursts with
`
`either the manual PRECHARGE or the AUTO-PRECHARGE could be terminated.
`
`Qualcomm also alleges that:
`
`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-
`PRECHARGE command …,” making clear this passage says nothing
`specific to AUTO-PRECHARGE functionality.
`Reply, 11-12.
`
`But this conclusory statement is another attempt by Qualcomm to
`
`mischaracterize Schaefer and the POR. Qualcomm again hides the disclosure of
`
`Schaefer that was discussed in the POR that contradicts Qualcomm’s argument. The
`
`entire portion of Schaefer identified in the POR recites:
`
`[I]n ‘either a READ command or WRITE command with either a
`PRECHARGE command or an AUTO-PRECHARGE command
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`following the READ or WRITE command, the above-described
`problem of too much total time between the addition of tRP and tRCD may
`result an initial wait cycle.’
`POR, 33 (citing Ex-1017, 9:16-21.)
`
`Schaefer, therefore, makes it clear that both the manual PRECHARGE and
`
`AUTO-PRECHARGE commands may result in an initial wait cycle, which is a
`
`wasted cycle. And Mr. Murphy agreed that Schaefer is directed to eliminating
`
`wasted clock cycles:
`
`Q Schaefer is directed to eliminating wasted clock cycles between reads
`and writes in an SDRAM where a precharge is necessary; correct?
`A Yes.
`
`Ex-2009, 112:3-8.
`
`E.
`
`Schaefer Discloses Burst Termination Commands For a Fixed-
`Length Burst With AUTO-PRECHARGE.
`Qualcomm finally alleges that Schaefer does not disclose “burst termination
`
`commands for a fixed-length burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE.” Reply, 12.
`
`Qualcomm is mistaken. First, Qualcomm mischaracterizes Schaefer by alleging that
`
`a “full page” burst command is “not fixed.” See, Reply, 12 (“[U]ser interrupt
`
`commands in the specific context of a “full page” (not fixed) burst…”.); id., (“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.”)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`Schaefer in contrast defines a “full page” burst as a fixed-burst of 1024
`
`cycles. See, Ex-1017, 6:1-2. (“Burst lengths of 2, 4, 8, or full page (1,024) cycles
`
`are programmable into mode register…”) The “full page” burst however, “will wrap
`
`around and continually restart the ‘burst’ operation” until it is stopped by one of
`
`the burst interruption options. (Ex-1017, 5:15-16) That is a full page burst is better
`
`understood as consecutive fixed-burst operations, each having 1024 cycles,
`
`instead of a not-fixed burst, as Qualcomm appears to suggest. Accordingly, the
`
`premise of Qualcomm’s argument in Section III.E of the Reply is incorrect, and
`
`therefore the arguments in Section III.E should be disregarded.
`
`Qualcomm also alleges that Dr. Brogioli admits that Schaefer does not
`
`disclose “burst termination commands for a fixed-length burst with AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE.” Reply, 12. For support, the Reply cites—but not quotes—Dr.
`
`Brogioli’s testimony at Ex-1029, 34:8-23, 36:5-37:12, 38:17-39:8. These sections
`
`do not support Qualcomm’s argument. In fact they contradict it. Specifically, in the
`
`sections identified by Qualcomm, Dr. Brogioli confirmed that (i) a full-page burst
`
`would wrap around and continuously restart until getting interrupted (see e.g., Ex-
`
`1029, 36:19-25. (“The full-page burst…will wrap around and restart…until a burst
`
`termination command or precharge command is indicated by the command
`
`controller, or until interrupted with another burst operation.”) and (ii) 2-4-8 cycles
`
`long bursts do not wrap around (loop) or restart, but—similar to the fixed “full-
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`page” burst—can also be interrupted (see e.g., Ex-1029, 36:16-18. (“I would say
`
`that the burst length of 2, 4, or 8 in Schaefer will ultimately conclude on their own,
`
`if allowed, you know, to run to completion.”)
`
`Dr. Brogioli also confirmed that Schaefer does not explicitly discuss an
`
`example of a fixed “full-page” burst with AUTO-PRECHARGE. But Schaefer
`
`needs not discuss and provide examples of all possible permutations of the 4-type of
`
`fixed bursts (i.e., 2, 4, 8, or full page (1,024) cycles) or unfixed bursts with AUTO-
`
`PRECHARGE to explain how fixed bursts in Schaefer are interrupted. For lack of
`
`actual arguments, Qualcomm attempts to manufacture new (non-existent) disputes.
`
`And in any case, Mr. Murphy admitted that Schaefer discloses at least three
`
`ways to terminate the bursts disclosed in Schaefer:
`
`Q. Schaefer discloses at least three ways to terminate a burst, a burst
`termination command, a precharge command or a second burst
`operation; correct?
`A. That's correct, for the bursts that don't include an auto-precharge.
`Ex-2009, 118:15-22.
`
`Notwithstanding his objection in the case of an AUTO-PRECHARGE
`command, Mr. Murphy agreed that bursts can be interrupted. But as already
`explained above the AUTO-PRECHARGE command performs all the
`PRECHARGE functions, without having to issue a manual PRECHARGE
`command.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`Fixed Length Bursts of 2, 4, And 8 Cycles Can Be Interrupted
`1.
`Qualcomm argues that fixed length bursts of 2, 4, and 8 cycles can “conclude
`
`on their own without need for an additional external user command.” Reply, 13.
`
`But the fact that a burst can conclude “on its own” without being interrupted, does
`
`not make it “uninterruptible” as the claims of the ’134 Patent require. As Dr.
`
`Brogioli explained, bursts of length of 2, 4, and 8 cycles can get interrupted, i.e.,
`
`may not be allowed to run to completion. See Ex-1029, 36:16-18 (“I would say that
`
`the burst length of 2, 4, or 8 in Schaefer will ultimately conclude on their own, if
`
`allowed, you know, to run to completion.”)
`
`2. Mr. Murphy Admitted That Fixed Bursts Without AUTO-
`PRECHARGE Can Be Terminated
`Qualcomm does not dispute that Mr. Murphy admitted that fixed bursts
`
`without AUTO-PRECHARGE can be terminated. Qualcomm confirms that:
`
`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.
`Reply, 14.
`
`And as explained in the POR and herein, Schaefer’s disclosure is clear that
`
`fixed length bursts with AUTO-PRECHARGE can be interrupted before the
`
`precharge operation has been initiated.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`III. Mr. Murphy’s Declaration Should Be Given Little Or No Weight
`Monterey explained in the POR why the Board should afford little or no
`
`weight to Mr. Murphy’s declaration. See POR, 23-28. Qualcomm spends three
`
`pages in their Reply on this issue (see Reply, 4-6), but never actually addresses
`
`Monterey’s argument. Specifically, neither Qualcomm in their Reply nor Mr.
`
`Murphy at his deposition provided a reasonable explanation about Mr. Murphy’s
`
`conflicting testimony.
`
`Qualcomm instead tried to divert the Board’s focus on the matter by listing
`
`Mr. Murphy’s experience. But an expert’s experience–any expert’s experience–is
`
`irrelevant to the expert’s credibility, if the expert provides conflicting testimony on
`
`an identical issue. Accordingly, the Board should significantly discount Mr.
`
`Murphy’s credibility. See, e.g., UltraTec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267,
`
`1273 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“If [an expert] gave conflicting testimony on cross-
`
`examination, this would be highly relevant to both the Board’s analysis of the
`
`specific issues on which he gave inconsistent testimony and to the Board’s overall
`
`view of his credibility.”).
`
`A. Dr. Brogioli Was A POSITA At The Time Of Filing Of The ’134
`Patent
`
`There is no dispute between the parties about the definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in this proceeding. Both Parties have agreed that
`
`a POSITA “would have had at least a degree in electrical or computer engineering,
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of
`
`memory circuits, related hardware design, or the equivalent, with additional
`
`education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet., 14; POR, 21.
`
`There is also no dispute that Dr. Brogioli satisfied this definition as of
`
`February 14, 2000—the filing date of the ’134 Patent. Specifically, Dr. Brogioli was
`
`awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1999 from the
`
`Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. See, Ex-2007, 1. Dr. Brogioli had at least five
`
`years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of memory circuits,
`
`related hardware design, or the equivalent, as of the filing date of the ’134 Patent.
`
`See, id., 3.
`
`To distract the Board’s attention from Qualcomm’s expert conflicting
`
`testimony, Qualcomm alleges that Dr. Brogioli “was not a POSITA at the time of
`
`filing of the ’134 Patent,” under a new definition of the POSITA level. Reply, 6.
`
`But when Qualcomm deposed Dr. Brogioli, Qualcomm asked Dr. Brogioli
`
`about his experience, his credentials, and his areas of expertise. Qualcomm did
`
`not—and could not cast any doubt about Dr. Brogioli’s ability to provide expert
`
`testimony in this matter.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Qualcomm has failed to carry its burden of proving
`
`that the challenged claims are anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, Monterey
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01492
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`respectfully requests a final written decision affirming the patentability of each of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 20, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Theodoros Konstantakopoulos/
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos (Reg.
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
