`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, U.S.A., and
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION DELAWARE,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Issue Date: November 18, 2003
`
`Title: MEMORY DEVICE WITH FIXED LENGTH NON INTERRUPTIBLE
`BURST
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Page
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`A.
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Experience ............................................................................................. 2
`C.
`Publications and Presentations .............................................................. 3
`D.
`Professional Activities ........................................................................... 4
`E.
`Testimony in Other Cases ..................................................................... 5
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 5
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS ...................................... 6
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................12
`V.
`STATE OF THE ART ...................................................................................13
`A.
`Integrated Circuit Memories ...............................................................13
`B.
`Burst Mode ..........................................................................................14
`VI. THE ‘134 PATENT .......................................................................................16
`A. Overview .............................................................................................16
`B. Admitted Prior Art...............................................................................17
`C.
`Relevant Prosecution History of the ‘134 Patent ................................22
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................24
`VIII. HOW CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................24
`A. Ground 1: Anticipation Over Zagar ....................................................24
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................25
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................30
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................31
`4.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................31
`5.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................32
`6.
`Dependent Claim 9....................................................................32
`7.
`Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................32
`8.
`Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................34
`9.
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................34
`10. Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................34
`11.
`Independent Claim 16 ...............................................................35
`12.
`Independent Claim 17 ...............................................................38
`13. Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................39
`
`(i)
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Table of Contents (continued)
`
`Page
`
`14. Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................39
`B. Ground 2: Obviousness Over Zagar In View of Fujioka ....................39
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................41
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................42
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................43
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................43
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................45
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6....................................................................46
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................47
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................48
`9.
`Dependent Claim 9....................................................................48
`10. Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................48
`11. Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................49
`12. Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................49
`13. Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................49
`14.
`Independent Claim 16 ...............................................................49
`15.
`Independent Claim 17 ...............................................................50
`16. Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................51
`17. Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................51
`18. Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................51
`19. Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................52
`C. Ground 3: Obviousness Over Zagar In View of Lysinger ..................52
`20. Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................55
`21. Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................55
`D. Ground 4: Anticipation By Takasugi ..................................................56
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................56
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................62
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................63
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................63
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................64
`6.
`Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................64
`7.
`Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................65
`8.
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................65
`9.
`Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................66
`10.
`Independent Claim 16 ...............................................................66
`
`(ii)
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Table of Contents (continued)
`
`E.
`
`Page
`
`Independent Claim 17 ...............................................................67
`11.
`12. Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................68
`Ground 5: Obviousness Over Takasugi In View of Fujioka ...............69
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................69
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................70
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................70
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................70
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................70
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6....................................................................71
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................71
`8.
`Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................71
`9.
`Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................72
`10. Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................72
`11. Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................72
`12. Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................72
`13.
`Independent Claim 16 ...............................................................73
`14.
`Independent Claim 17 ...............................................................73
`15. Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................74
`16. Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................74
`17. Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................74
`Ground 6: Obviousness Over Takasugi In View of Zagar..................75
`18. Dependent Claim 8....................................................................75
`19. Dependent Claim 9....................................................................75
`20. Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................76
`21. Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................76
`G. Ground 7: Anticipation By Wada........................................................77
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................84
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................90
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................91
`4.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................92
`5.
`Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................92
`6.
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................93
`7.
`Independent Claim 16 ...............................................................94
`8.
`Independent Claim 17 ...............................................................96
`H. Ground 8: Obviousness Over Wada In View of Takasugi ..................97
`
`F.
`
`(iii)
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Table of Contents (continued)
`
`Page
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................97
`1.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................97
`2.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................97
`3.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................98
`4.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................98
`5.
`Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................98
`6.
`Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................98
`7.
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................99
`8.
`Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................99
`9.
`Independent Claim 16 ...............................................................99
`10.
`Independent Claim 17 .............................................................100
`11.
`Ground 9: Obviousness Over Wada In View of Zagar .....................101
`1.
`Dependent Claim 5..................................................................101
`2.
`Dependent Claim 9..................................................................101
`3.
`Dependent Claim 10 ...............................................................102
`4.
`Dependent Claim 14 ...............................................................102
`5.
`Dependent Claim 18 ...............................................................102
`6.
`Dependent Claim 21 ...............................................................103
`Ground 10: Obviousness Over Wada In View of Zagar And
`Further In View of Fujioka ................................................................103
`1.
`Dependent Claim 6..................................................................103
`2.
`Dependent Claim 7..................................................................103
`3.
`Dependent Claim 19 ...............................................................104
`4.
`Dependent Claim 20 ...............................................................104
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................104
`
`J.
`
`I.
`
`(iv)
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of the Petitioners Nanya Technology
`
`Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., and Nanya Technology
`
`Corporation Delaware (collectively, “Nanya”) as an independent expert consultant
`
`to provide this declaration concerning the technical subject matter relevant to the
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 (“the ‘134 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I submit this declaration to offer my expert opinion regarding the
`
`validity of the claims of the ‘134 patent. Specifically, I have considered whether
`
`claims 1-21 of the ‘134 patent are valid under 35 U.S.C. sections 102 and 103. I
`
`understand that Monterey Research, LLC has sued Nanya in the United States
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:19-cv-02090, for
`
`allegedly infringing the ‘134 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have set forth my academic and professional qualifications and
`
`relevant experience in this declaration and have attached a copy of my curriculum
`
`vitae as Ex. 1004.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $400 per hour
`
`for the time I spend on this matter. My compensation is not related in any way to
`
`the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`
`5.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-21 of the ‘134 patent are invalid based
`
`on the prior art. The substance and bases of my opinions appear below.
`
`6.
`
` I am an independent consultant in the area of semiconductor circuit,
`
`microchip, and electronics design, testing, and application. I have over 20 years of
`
`industry experience in the aforementioned technical area. Companies I have
`
`worked for include Cisco Systems, Xilinx, LSI Logic (later acquired by
`
`Broadcom), Stryker, and InterDigital. I have also taught at Stanford University and
`
`Saginaw Valley State University. In addition, I am a licensed Professional
`
`Engineer in the State of Michigan.
`
`B.
`
`Experience
`
`7.
`
`I have an extensive engineering background in semiconductor circuit,
`
`microchip, and electronics design, testing, and application. I was responsible, as an
`
`individual contributor at several corporations in the semiconductor industry, for the
`
`research, development, and design of digital and mixed-signal circuits,
`
`architectures, and algorithms. I am an inventor in 28 U.S. Patents, many of which
`
`are in the aforementioned technical area.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught electrical and computer engineering courses on topics
`
`related to semiconductor circuit, microchip, and electronics design, testing, and
`
`application, as consulting professor at Stanford University and as an adjunct
`
`professor at Saginaw Valley State University. Courses include Digital Circuits,
`
`2
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`Computer Architecture & Organization, Data Communications, and Clock & Data
`
`Recovery Architectures.
`
`9.
`
`I have provided consulting services to a major patent-licensing
`
`corporation as a technical expert in the area of semiconductor circuit, microchip,
`
`and electronics design, testing, and application. My work included determining
`
`whether and how specific patent claims within the aforementioned area read on
`
`various products or product features. I analyzed the patents at issue, technical
`
`specifications of products, product white papers, and product marketing materials
`
`to produce detailed claim charts used by attorneys to formulate infringement
`
`opinions and licensing decisions. I have also performed technology market analysis
`
`and developed detailed technology landscapes and roadmaps in the aforementioned
`
`technology area.
`
`C.
`
`Publications and Presentations
`
`10.
`
`I have written technical publications dating back to 2003 on topics in
`
`semiconductor circuit, microchip, and electronics design, testing, and application. I
`
`have written technical articles published in peer reviewed professional journals,
`
`trade journals, and proceedings of peer-reviewed conferences. I have presented at
`
`several
`
`technical symposia and
`
`technical conferences on
`
`topics
`
`in
`
`the
`
`aforementioned technical area. Select publications on topics in the aforementioned
`
`area include “Error signature analysis (ESA) receiver architecture for data
`
`3
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`communication,” DesignCon
`
`(2012); “Mostly digital SerDes
`
`(MDS): a
`
`comprehensive low power receiver architecture,” DesignCon (2012); “Inconsistent
`
`fails due to limited tester timing accuracy,” Proc. 26th VLSI Test Symp. (2008);
`
`“Scan test cost and power reduction through systematic scan reconfiguration,”
`
`IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (2007);
`
`“Segmented addressable scan architecture,” Proc. 23rd VLSI Test Symp. (2005);
`
`“Minimizing the number of test configurations for FPGAs,” Int. Conf. Computer
`
`Aided Design (2004); “FPGA bridging fault detection and location via differential
`
`IDDQ,” Proc. 22nd VLSI Test Symp. (2004); “Subframe multiplexing for FPGA
`
`manufacturing test,” Proc. Int. Symp. FPGAs (2004); and “FPGA interconnect
`
`delay fault testing,” Proc. Int. Test Conf. (2003). A complete list of my
`
`publications is included in Ex. 1004.
`
`D.
`
`Professional Activities
`
`11.
`
` I am or have been in the past a member or senior member of several
`
`professional organizations, including the Institute of Electrical & Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the
`
`American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the International Society of
`
`Optics & Photonics (SPIE), and the American Chemical Society.
`
`12.
`
`I served as a Program Evaluator for the Accreditation Board of
`
`Engineering and Technology (ABET) from 2013-2018. As a Program Evaluator I
`
`4
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`was responsible for determining ABET accreditation for university education
`
`programs categorized as Electrical Engineering programs and Computer
`
`Engineering programs.
`
`13.
`
`In 2013 and 2015 I volunteered for the National Science Foundation
`
`as an Industry Mentor and Instructor for the I-Corps program. As an I-Corps
`
`Industry Mentor I provided industry and technical guidance to engineers,
`
`inventors, and entrepreneurs launching technology startups. As an I-Corps
`
`instructor I coached engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs in lean-startup and
`
`business methods.
`
`E.
`
`Testimony in Other Cases
`
`14.
`
`I have not served as an expert witness in litigation cases, including
`
`Inter Partes Review cases.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed below, I considered the ‘134 patent
`
`and its file history. I have also considered the following documents:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 (“the ‘134 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 (“the
`‘134 patent prosecution history”)
`
`5
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Erik Chmelar in support of Petition
`for IPR of the ‘134 patent
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erik Chmelar
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,666,323 (“Zagar”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,303 (“Takasugi”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,280 (“Wada”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,149 (“Fujioka”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,784,331 (“Lysinger”)
`
`16. Further, in regards to my opinions herein, I rely on my own
`
`knowledge, training, and more than 20 years of experience in researching,
`
`developing, and designing digital and mixed-signal circuits, architectures, and
`
`algorithms, as well as in the application thereof.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
`
`17.
`
`I have a general understanding of the law on patentability. I have a
`
`general understanding of validity, prior art and priority date based on my
`
`experience with patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`18. Prior Art. I understand that an invention by another must be made
`
`before the priority date of a particular patent claim to qualify as “prior art” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, that a printed publication must be publicly available
`
`before the priority date of a particular patent claim to qualify as prior art under 35
`
`6
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a), that a printed publication must be publicly available more than
`
`one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States to
`
`qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or that the invention by another must
`
`be described in an application for patent filed in the United States before the
`
`priority date of a particular patent claim to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`19. Anticipation: I understand that anticipation analysis is a two-step
`
`process. The first step is to determine the meaning and scope of the asserted
`
`claims. Each claim must be viewed as a whole, and it is improper to ignore any
`
`element of the claim. For a claim to be anticipated under U.S. patent law: (1) each
`
`and every claim element must be identically disclosed, either explicitly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference; (2) the claim elements disclosed in the
`
`single prior art reference must be arranged in the same way as in the claim; and (3)
`
`the identical invention must be disclosed in the single prior art reference in as
`
`complete detail as set forth in the claim. Where even one element is not disclosed
`
`in a reference, the anticipation contention fails. To serve as an anticipatory
`
`reference, the reference itself must be enabled (i.e., it must provide enough
`
`information so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can practice the subject
`
`matter of the reference without undue experimentation).
`
`7
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`
`20.
`
`Inherency. I further understand that where a prior art reference fails to
`
`explicitly disclose a claim element, the prior art reference inherently discloses the
`
`claim element only if the prior art reference must necessarily include the
`
`undisclosed claim element. Inherency may not be established by probabilities or
`
`possibilities. The fact that an element may result from a given set of circumstances
`
`is not sufficient to prove inherency. I have applied these principles in forming my
`
`opinions in this matter.
`
`21. Obviousness. I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious only if the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`that art. An obviousness analysis requires consideration of four factors: (1) scope
`
`and content of the prior art relied upon to challenge patentability; (2) differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention; and (4) the objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness, such as commercial success, unexpected results, the failure of others
`
`to achieve the results of the invention, a long-felt need that the invention fills,
`
`copying of the invention by competitors, praise for the invention, skepticism for
`
`the invention, or independent development.
`
`8
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`
`22. Analogous Art. I understand that a prior art reference is proper to use
`
`in an obviousness determination if the prior art reference is analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention. I understand that a prior art reference is analogous art if at least
`
`one of the following two considerations is met. First, a prior art reference is
`
`analogous art if it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even
`
`if the prior art reference addresses a different problem and/or arrives at a different
`
`solution. Second, a prior art reference is analogous art if the prior art reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if it is not in the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
`
`23. Obviousness Combinations. I understand that it must be shown that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation that a modification or combination of one or more prior art
`
`references would have succeeded. Furthermore, I understand that a claim may be
`
`obvious in view of a single prior art reference, without the need to combine
`
`references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference can be
`
`supplied by the knowledge or common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art. However, I understand that it is inappropriate to resolve obviousness
`
`issues by a retrospective analysis or hindsight reconstruction of the prior art and
`
`that the use of hindsight reconstruction is improper in analyzing the obviousness of
`
`a patent claim.
`
`9
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that the law recognizes several specific guidelines
`
`that inform the obviousness analysis. First, I understand that a reconstructive
`
`hindsight approach to this analysis (i.e., the improper use of post-invention
`
`information to help perform the selection and combination), or the improper use of
`
`the listing of elements in a claim as a blueprint to identify selected portions of
`
`different prior art references in an attempt to show that the claim is obvious, is not
`
`permitted. Second, I understand that any prior art that specifically teaches away
`
`from the claimed subject matter (i.e., prior art that would lead a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to a specifically different solution than the claimed invention),
`
`points to non-obviousness, and conversely, that any prior art that contains any
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify or combine such prior art
`
`reference(s) points to the obviousness of such a modification or combination.
`
`Third, while many combinations of the prior art might be “obvious to try”, I
`
`understand that any obvious to try analysis will not render a patent invalid unless it
`
`is shown that the possible combinations are: (1) sufficiently small in number so as
`
`to be reasonable to conclude that the combination would have been selected; and
`
`(2) such that the combination would have been believed to be one that would
`
`produce predictable and well understood results. Fourth, I understand that if a
`
`claimed invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or more
`
`prior art references uses known methods or techniques that yield predictable
`
`10
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`results, then that factor also points to obviousness. Fifth, I understand that if a
`
`claimed invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or more
`
`prior art references is the result of known work in one field prompting variations of
`
`it for use in the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces that yields predicable variations, then that factor also points to
`
`obviousness. Sixth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the
`
`modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of
`
`routine optimization, then that factor also points to obviousness. Seventh, I
`
`understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the modification or
`
`combination of one or more prior art references is the result of a substitution of one
`
`known prior art element for another known prior art element to yield predictable
`
`results, then that factor also points to obviousness.
`
`25. Dependent Claims. I understand that a dependent claim incorporates
`
`each and every limitation of the claim from which it depends. Thus, my
`
`understanding is that if a prior art reference fails to anticipate an independent
`
`claim, then that prior art reference also necessarily fails to anticipate all dependent
`
`claims that depend from the independent claim. Similarly, my understanding is that
`
`if a prior art reference or combination of prior art references fails to render obvious
`
`an independent claim, then that prior art reference or combination of prior art
`
`11
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`references also necessarily fails to render obvious all dependent claims that depend
`
`from the independent claim.
`
`26. Time of Invention. Subject to a claim by claim analysis, in general, I
`
`understand that the “time of invention” for the ‘134 patent is the date of the U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/504,344 filed on February 14, 2000.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time at which
`
`the earliest application to which the ‘134 patent claims priority was filed (February
`
`14, 2000) would have been a technical person with a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, applied physics, or a related field,
`
`and approximately two years of experience working in the design, development,
`
`and/or testing of memory circuits, related hardware design, or the equivalent, with
`
`additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical
`
`person who is assumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as
`
`prior art. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art makes inferences and
`
`takes creative steps.
`
`12
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT 1003
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,651,134
`Declaration of Erik Chmelar, Ph.D.
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART
`
`A.
`
`Integrated Circuit Memories
`
`29. Prior to February 14, 2000, when the ’134 patent was filed, integrated
`
`circuit memories had been well known for decades and were in use widely
`
`throughout the semiconductor, computer, and other industries. At a basic level,
`
`memories are comprised of circuit elements that store information to represent one
`
`of two logic states, a 1 (true or ON) or a 0 (false or OFF).
`
`30. The most common form of memory is dynamic random access
`
`memory, or DRAM. DRAM uses a transistor and a capacitor to form a memory
`
`cell. In the positive-logic convention, a capacitor charged to a high voltage level
`
`represents a logic-1, and a capacitor discharged to a low voltage level represents a
`
`logic-0. A charged capacitor, however, tends to leak charge, so it must be
`
`periodically refreshed. Thus, the DRAM must read the logic value, or data bit,
`
`stored in each DRAM memory