PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,833
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued: October 30, 2012
`Filed: September 29, 2008
`Inventors: Chi-She Chen, et al.
`Assignee: Netlist, Inc.
`Title: NON-VOLATILE MEMORY MODULE
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`On behalf of SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk” or “Petitioner”) and in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review is
`
`respectfully requested for claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,833 (“the ‘833
`
`Patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1001.
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to
`
`charge the $31,000 Request and Post-Institution Fees, along with any additional
`
`fees, to Deposit Account 501432, ref: 305529-600058. Thirty claims are being
`
`reviewed, so the required Request and Post-Institution Fees are $23,000, plus an
`
`excess claim fee of $8,000.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. Cover
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  Grounds For Standing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 3 
`III.  Overview Of The ‘833 Patent .......................................................................... 3 
`IV. 
`Identification Of Challenge Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................... 6 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes Review
`A. 
`Is Requested .......................................................................................... 6 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge to the Claims Is Based ....................................... 6 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................... 9 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable ........................................................................................ 10 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ................................ 10 
`E. 
`There Is A Reasonable Likelihood That At Least One Claim Of The
`‘833 Patent Is Unpatentable ........................................................................... 10 
`Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 18, and 29 are Anticipated by Fukuzo (U.S.
`A. 
`Patent Pub. No. 2006/0294295) .......................................................... 10 
`1. 
`Claims 1 and 15 ......................................................................... 10 
`2. 
`Claims 2 and 18 ......................................................................... 14 
`3. 
`Claim 13 and 29 ........................................................................ 15 
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 22, 24, 27, and 28 are Anticipated
`by Panabaker (U.S. Patent No. 7,716,411) ......................................... 15 
`1. 
`Claims 1 and 15 ......................................................................... 15 
`2. 
`Claims 2 and 18 ......................................................................... 20 
`3. 
`Claims 6 and 22 ......................................................................... 21 
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Claims 8 and 24 ......................................................................... 21 
`4. 
`Claims 11 and 27....................................................................... 22 
`5. 
`Claims 12 and 28....................................................................... 23 
`6. 
`Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-22, 24, and 27-29 are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo and Li (U.S. Patent No.
`6,336,174) ............................................................................................ 23 
`1. 
`Claims 1 and 15 ......................................................................... 23 
`2. 
`Claims 2 and 18 ......................................................................... 26 
`3. 
`Claims 3 and 19 ......................................................................... 26 
`4. 
`Claims 4 and 20 ......................................................................... 27 
`5. 
`Claims 5 and 21 ......................................................................... 28 
`6. 
`Claims 6 and 22 ......................................................................... 28 
`7. 
`Claims 8 and 24 ......................................................................... 29 
`8. 
`Claims 11 and 27....................................................................... 30 
`9. 
`Claims 12 and 28....................................................................... 31 
`10.  Claims 13 and 29....................................................................... 31 
`11.  Claim 17 .................................................................................... 32 
`Claims 3 and 19 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Fukuzo and Spiers (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0080515) .................. 33 
`Claims 3 and 19 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Fukuzo, Li, and Spiers ......................................................................... 34 
`Claims 7 and 23 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Fukuzo and Hansen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0132250) ................ 35 
`Claims 7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Fukuzo, Li, and Hansen ................................................ 37 
`1. 
`Claims 7 and 23 ......................................................................... 37 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. iii
`
`

`

`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`
`
`Claims 9 and 25 ......................................................................... 38 
`2. 
`Claims 10 and 26....................................................................... 38 
`3. 
`Claims 14 and 30 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Fukuzo and Sun (U.S. Patent No. 7,102,391) ..................................... 39 
`Claims 14 and 30 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Fukuzo, Li, and Sun ............................................................................ 40 
`Claim 16 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Fukuzo and Komatsuzaki (U.S. Patent No. 6,944,042) ...................... 41 
`Claim 16 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo,
`Li, and Komatsuzaki............................................................................ 43 
`Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17-22, 24, 27, and 28 are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Panabaker and Li .............................. 44 
`1. 
`Claims 1 and 15 ......................................................................... 44 
`2. 
`Claims 2 and 18 ......................................................................... 45 
`3. 
`Claims 3 and 19 ......................................................................... 45 
`4. 
`Claims 4 and 20 ......................................................................... 46 
`5. 
`Claims 5 and 21 ......................................................................... 46 
`6. 
`Claims 6 and 22 ......................................................................... 47 
`7. 
`Claims 8 and 24 ......................................................................... 47 
`8. 
`Claims 11 and 27....................................................................... 47 
`9. 
`Claims 12 and 28....................................................................... 48 
`10.  Claim 17 .................................................................................... 48 
`M.  Claims 3 and 19 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker and Spiers ........................................................................... 48 
`Claims 3 and 19 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker, Li, and Spiers .................................................................... 49 
`
`K. 
`
`L. 
`
`N. 
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`O. 
`
`P. 
`
`Claims 7, 9, 23, and 25 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Panabaker and Hansen .................................................. 50 
`1. 
`Claims 7 and 23 ......................................................................... 50 
`2. 
`Claims 9 and 25 ......................................................................... 51 
`Claims 7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Panabaker, Li, and Hansen ........................................... 52 
`1. 
`Claims 7 and 23 ......................................................................... 52 
`2. 
`Claims 9 and 25 ......................................................................... 53 
`3. 
`Claims 10 and 26....................................................................... 53 
`Claims 13 and 29 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker and Fukuzo ......................................................................... 54 
`Claims 13 and 29 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker, Li, and Fukuzo .................................................................. 55 
`Claims 14 and 30 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker and Sun .............................................................................. 56 
`Claims 14 and 30 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker, Li, and Sun ........................................................................ 57 
`Claim 16 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker and Komatsuzaki ............................................................... 57 
`Claim 16 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Panabaker, Li, and Komatsuzaki ......................................................... 58 
`VI.  Mandatory Notices Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............................... 59 
`A. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest ........................................ 59 
`B. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................. 59 
`C. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................. 60 
`VII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60 
`
`Q. 
`
`R. 
`
`S. 
`
`T. 
`
`U. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. v
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘833 patent is currently being wielded by the patent owner, Netlist, Inc.
`
`(“Netlist”), in an attempt to cover long-known memory systems and methods for
`
`controlling a memory system. The subject matter claimed in the ‘833 patent
`
`includes standard elements, such as a host system, a volatile memory subsystem,
`
`and a non-volatile memory subsystem (see ‘833 patent, claim 1), that were well-
`
`known in the prior art before the filing date of the ‘833 patent. This is evidenced
`
`in the “Background” section of the ‘833 patent, which discloses not only these
`
`standard elements, but also first and second modes of operation that are recited in
`
`the independent claims of the ‘833 patent:
`
`Certain types of memory modules comprise a plurality of
`dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) devices (i.e., “a volatile
`memory subsystem”) mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB).
`These memory modules are typically mounted in a memory slot or
`socket of a computer system (i.e., “a host system”) . . . and are
`accessed by the computer system to provide volatile memory to the
`computer system (i.e., “a first mode of operation in which data is
`communicated between the volatile memory subsystem and the host
`system”).
`. . .
`Non-volatile memory (i.e., “a non-volatile memory subsystem”)
`can generally maintain stored information while power is not applied
`to the non-volatile memory. . . . [I]t can therefore be useful to backup
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 1
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`
`volatile memory using non-volatile memory (i.e., “a second mode of
`operation in which data is communicated between the volatile
`memory subsystem and the non-volatile memory subsystem”).
`
`(‘833 patent, 1:15-31, underlined annotations added.)
`
`Unfortunately, the Office was not presented with, nor did it apply, the best
`
`prior art during examination of the ‘833 patent, and Netlist was able to gain
`
`allowance based on a single feature that allegedly distinguished over the prior art.
`
`Specifically, Netlist argued during prosecution that the prior art did not disclose
`
`operating the volatile memory subsystem at two different clock frequencies, with
`
`the clock frequency depending on whether the volatile memory subsystem was
`
`communicating with the host system or the non-volatile memory subsystem. (Ex.
`
`1011 at 7-15.)
`
`But this feature was not new when the ‘833 patent was filed, as evidenced by
`
`the submission herewith of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0294295 (Ex. 1013,
`
`“Fukuzo”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,716,411 (Ex. 1014, “Panabaker”). Both Fukuzo
`
`and Panabaker disclose the single feature that was allegedly missing from the prior
`
`art – operating the volatile memory subsystem at the two different clock
`
`frequencies depending on the mode of operation – as well as all of the other
`
`elements of the independent claims of the ‘833 patent. The dependent claims of
`
`the ‘833 patent add nothing more than well-known concepts that are explicitly
`
`disclosed in Fukuzo, Panabaker, or one or more additional prior art references
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 2
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`presented herein. Petitioner submits that had these references been considered by
`
`the Patent Office during prosecution, claims 1-30 of the ‘833 patent would not
`
`have issued, and therefore this petition for inter partes review should be granted.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘833 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘833 PATENT
`
`The ‘833 patent was filed on September 29, 2008, and issued on October 30,
`
`2012. The ‘833 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 12/131,873, filed
`
`on June 2, 2008, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/941,586, filed on June 1, 2007.
`
`The ‘833 patent is directed to a memory system coupled to a host system
`
`where the memory system includes a volatile memory subsystem and a non-
`
`volatile memory subsystem. (‘833 patent at Abstract, 4:56-61.) The volatile
`
`memory subsystem communicates with both the host system and the non-volatile
`
`memory subsystem. (Id. at 3:60-65.) When data transfer is occurring between the
`
`volatile memory subsystem and the host system, the volatile memory subsystem is
`
`operated at a first frequency. (Id. at 17:50-53.) And when data transfer is
`
`occurring between the volatile memory subsystem and the non-volatile memory
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 3
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`subsystem, the non-volatile memory subsystem is operated at a second frequency
`
`and the volatile memory subsystem is operated at a third frequency. (Id. at 17:53-
`
`62; Fig. 9.) The third frequency is less than the first frequency (id. at 18:8-10), and
`
`the second frequency is equal to the third frequency (id.).
`
`
`
`Application No. 12/240,916, which later issued as the ‘833 patent, was
`
`originally filed with 54 claims, including seven independent claims. (See Ex. 1002
`
`at 32-39.) On March 31, 2011, the Office issued a restriction requirement,
`
`identifying four claim groups (Ex. 1003 at 2), and Netlist elected Group III,
`
`consisting of claims 37-42 (Ex. 1004 at 9). Independent claim 37 was a method
`
`claim that recited three steps: (1) operating a volatile memory subsystem at a first
`
`frequency when the memory system is in a first mode of operation in which data is
`
`communicated between the volatile memory subsystem and a host system; (2)
`
`operating a non-volatile memory subsystem at a second frequency when the
`
`memory system is in a second mode of operation in which data is communicated
`
`between the volatile memory subsystem and a non-volatile memory subsystem;
`
`and (3) operating the volatile memory subsystem at a third frequency when the
`
`memory system is in the second mode of operation, the third frequency being less
`
`than the first frequency. (Id. at 6.)
`
`
`
`In a first non-final Office Action, the Office rejected all pending claims as
`
`being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,336,174 (Ex. 1017, “Li”) and U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 4
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`Pub. No. 2007/0192627 (“Oshikiri”). (Ex. 1004 at 2.) Specifically, the Office
`
`found that Li disclosed all features of the independent claims, except for the
`
`operation of the memory system at the first, second, and third frequencies. (Id. at
`
`2-3.) In response, Netlist did not argue against the Office’s application of Li to the
`
`claims and instead argued only that Oshikiri did not disclose the first, second, and
`
`third frequencies. (Ex. 1006 at 14-15.) In its reply to the first non-final Office
`
`Action, Netlist also added new claims 55-91. (Id. at 9-13.)
`
`
`
`After the claims were again rejected as being obvious over Li and Oshikiri
`
`(Ex. 1007), Netlist amended the claims to recite “a first clock frequency,” “a
`
`second clock frequency,” and “a third clock frequency,” and argued that these
`
`amendments overcame the prior art rejections. (Ex. 1008 at 9-10; see also Ex.
`
`1009.) Subsequently, in a second non-final Office Action, the Office rejected all
`
`pending claims as being obvious over Li and a new reference, U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`
`2008/0195806 (“Cope”). (Ex. 1010 at 3.) In response, Netlist again did not argue
`
`against the application of Li to the claims and only argued that Cope did not
`
`disclose the first, second, and third clock frequencies. (Ex. 1011 at 7-15.)
`
`
`
`On September 17, 2012, the Office issued a Notice of Allowance, allowing
`
`claims 37-42, 61-76, and 83-90. (Ex. 1012.) These claims were then renumbered
`
`and issued as claims 1-30 of the ‘833 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 5
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes Review
`Is Requested
`
`Inter partes review is requested for claims 1-30 of the ‘833 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0294295 (“Fukuzo”) (Ex. 1013). Fukuzo was
`
`filed on June 24, 2005, and published on December 28, 2006, and is prior
`
`art to the ‘833 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,716,411 to Panabaker (“Panabaker”) (Ex. 1014).
`
`Panabaker was filed on June 7, 2006, and issued on May 11, 2010, and is
`
`prior art to the ‘833 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,336,174 to Li (“Li”) (Ex. 1015). Li was filed on
`
`August 9, 1999, and issued on January 1, 2002, and is prior art to the
`
`‘833 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0080515 (“Spiers”) (Ex. 1016). Spiers was
`
`filed on October 12, 2004, and published on April 13, 2006, and is prior
`
`art to the ‘833 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0132250 (“Hansen”) (Ex. 1017). Hansen was
`
`filed on December 16, 2003, and published on June 16, 2005, and is prior
`
`6
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 6
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`
`art to the ‘833 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,102,391 to Sun (“Sun”) (Ex. 1018). Sun was filed on
`
`July 29, 2004, and issued on September 5, 2006, and is prior art to the
`
`‘833 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,944,042 to Komatsuzaki (“Komatsuzaki”) (Ex. 1019).
`
`Komatsuzaki was filed on December 31, 2002, and issued on September
`
`13, 2005, and is prior art to the ‘833 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 on which the
`
`challenge to the claims is based and the patents and publications relied upon for
`
`each ground are as follows:
`
`a) Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 18, and 29 are anticipated by Fukuzo under
`
`35 U.S.C. 102 §§ (a) and (e);
`
`b) Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 22, 24, 27, and 28 are anticipated by
`
`Panabaker under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e);
`
`c) Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-22, 24, and 27-29 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo and Li;
`
`d) Claims 3 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo
`
`and Spiers;
`
`e) Claims 3 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo,
`
`Li, and Spiers;
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`
`f) Claims 7 and 23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo
`
`and Hansen;
`
`g) Claims 7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Fukuzo, Li, and Hansen;
`
`h) Claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo
`
`and Sun;
`
`i) Claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo,
`
`Li, and Sun;
`
`j) Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo and
`
`Komatsuzaki;
`
`k) Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuzo, Li, and
`
`Komatsuzaki;
`
`l) Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17-22, 24, 27, and 28 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Panabaker and Li;
`
`m) Claims 3 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker and Spiers;
`
`n) Claims 3 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker, Li, and Spiers;
`
`o) Claims 7, 9, 23, and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker and Hansen;
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 8
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`
`p) Claims 7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Panabaker, Li, and Hansen;
`
`q) Claims 13 and 29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker and Fukuzo;
`
`r) Claims 13 and 29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker, Li, and Fukuzo;
`
`s) Claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker and Sun;
`
`t) Claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Panabaker, Li, and Sun;
`
`u) Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Panabaker and
`
`Komatsuzaki; and
`
`v) Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Panabaker, Li,
`
`and Komatsuzaki.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and solely for the purposes of this
`
`review, Petitioner construes the claim language such that the claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the ‘833 patent.
`
`Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this review, each claim should be
`
`construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required
`
`
`
`9
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 9
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Because the standard for claim construction at
`
`the Patent Office is different than that used during a U.S. District Court litigation,
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to argue a different claim construction in
`
`litigation for any term of the ‘833 patent as appropriate in that proceeding.
`
`D.
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`
`
`An explanation of how claims 1-30 are unpatentable, including identification
`
`of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in Section V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1020 is a Declaration of Paul Min, Ph.D., under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘833 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 18, and 29 are Anticipated by Fukuzo (U.S.
`
`Patent Pub. No. 2006/0294295)
`1.
`Fukuzo (Ex. 1013) discloses a synchronous dynamic random access memory
`
`Claims 1 and 15
`
`
`
`(SDRAM) memory chip device that includes i) a volatile SDRAM memory array,
`
`and ii) a non-volatile memory controller for transferring data between the volatile
`
`SDRAM memory array and a non-volatile memory device (e.g., a NAND-flash
`
`device). (Fukuzo, Abstract.) In Fig. 3, volatile SDRAM memory array 190 transfers
`
`data to non-volatile flash memory device 60 via flash controller section 30.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 10
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`
`
`
`The SDRAM memory chip device further includes an SDRAM core section 10
`
`with an interface 12 for transferring data between a central processing unit (CPU)
`
`50 and the volatile SDRAM memory array 190. (Id. at ¶ 0082; see also Fig. 3.)
`
`Thus, in Fukuzo, the volatile memory array 190 transfers data to and receives data
`
`from both the host system 50 and the non-volatile memory 60.
`
`The preamble of ‘833 patent claim 1 recites “[a] method for controlling a
`
`memory system operatively coupled to a host system, the memory system
`
`including a volatile memory subsystem and a non-volatile memory subsystem.”
`
`Fukuzo discloses in Fig. 3 a memory system including SDRAM chip device 40
`
`(i.e., “a volatile memory subsystem”) and flash memory device 60 (i.e., “a non-
`
`volatile memory subsystem”). (Fukuzo at ¶ 0081.) The memory system including
`
`the devices 40, 60 is connected to and communicates with the CPU 50 (i.e., “a host
`
`system”) via the interface 12 (i.e., “[the] memory system operatively coupled to a
`
`host system”). (Id. at ¶ 0082.)
`
`The first element of claim 1 recites “operating the volatile memory
`
`subsystem at a first clock frequency when the memory system is in a first mode of
`
`
`
`11
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 11
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`operation in which data is communicated between the volatile memory subsystem
`
`and the host system.” A core section 10 of the SDRAM chip device 40 of Fukuzo
`
`operates at a clock frequency of 130 MHz (i.e., “operating the volatile memory
`
`subsystem at a first clock frequency”). (Id. at ¶ 0084.) The core section 10
`
`operates at 130 MHz when it is sending data to and receiving data from the CPU
`
`50 (i.e., “in a first mode of operation in which data is communicated between the
`
`volatile memory subsystem and the host system”). (Id. at ¶¶ 0082-0084.)
`
`The second element of claim 1 recites “operating the non-volatile memory
`
`subsystem at a second clock frequency when the memory system is in a second
`
`mode of operation in which data is communicated between the volatile memory
`
`subsystem and the non-volatile memory subsystem.” Fukuzo discloses that the
`
`flash memory device 60 (i.e., “the non-volatile memory subsystem”) operates at a
`
`clock frequency of 20 MHz (i.e., “a second clock frequency”). (Fukuzo at ¶¶ 0084,
`
`0088.) The flash memory device 60 operates at the clock frequency of 20 MHz
`
`when the flash controller section 30 of the SDRAM chip device 40 is sending data
`
`to and receiving data from the flash memory device 60 (i.e., “in a second mode of
`
`operation in which data is communicated between the volatile memory subsystem
`
`and the non-volatile memory subsystem”). (Id.)
`
`The third element of claim 1 recites “operating the volatile memory
`
`subsystem at a third clock frequency when the memory system is in the second
`
`
`
`12
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 12
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`mode of operation, the third clock frequency being less than the first clock
`
`frequency.” Fukuzo discloses that the flash controller section 30 of the SDRAM
`
`chip device 40 operates at a clock frequency of 20 MHz (i.e., “operating the
`
`volatile memory subsystem at a third clock frequency”). (Id. at ¶ 0084.) The flash
`
`controller section 30 operates at 20 MHz when the flash controller section 30 is
`
`sending data to and receiving data from the flash memory 60 (i.e., “in the second
`
`mode of operation”). (Id. at ¶¶ 0082-0084 and 0088.) The third clock frequency
`
`of 20 MHz is less than the first clock frequency of 130 MHz.
`
`The claim chart below along with the referenced Declaration of Dr. Paul
`
`Min (Ex. 1020) demonstrate in further detail how Fukuzo anticipates claim 1.
`
`1. A method for
`controlling a memory
`system operatively
`coupled to a host
`system, the memory
`system including a
`volatile memory
`subsystem and a non-
`volatile memory
`subsystem, the method
`comprising:
`operating the volatile
`memory subsystem at a
`first clock frequency
`when the memory
`system is in a first mode
`of operation in which
`data is communicated
`between the volatile
`memory subsystem and
`
`
`
`Fukuzo discloses this claim element. (See Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 120-
`25.)
`See Fig. 3, reproduced above; see also Abstract and ¶¶ 0078
`and 0080-0082.
`
`Fukuzo discloses this claim element. (See Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 126-
`30.)
`¶ 0084: “The SDRAM core section 10 has a clock generator
`110, which generates an internal clock (running at, e.g., 130
`MHz) from the incoming clock signals. This clock is valid
`for the SDRAM core section 10 and the FIFO memory
`buffer section 20.”
`See also ¶¶ 0008, 0082, 0086, 0111, 0112, and Fig. 3 at 110.
`
`13
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1014, p. 13
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833
`
`the host system;
`operating the non-
`volatile memory
`subsystem at a second
`clock frequency when
`the memory system is
`in a second mode of
`operation in which data
`is communicated
`between the volatile
`memory subsystem and
`the non-volatile
`memory subsystem;
`and
`
`Fukuzo discloses this claim element. (See Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 131-
`35.)
`¶¶ 0087-0088: “This latter buffer and register section
`performs the transfer speed adaption with regard to the
`slower flash controller clock 310. . . . A standard NAND-
`flash interface 32 provides the data transfer and the command
`control to or from the flash memory device 60. Therein, the
`NAND-flash controller 320, which controls this operation is
`positioned on the present memory chip device 40.”
`¶ 0084: “The clock is forwarded to the flash controller
`section 30, where a flash clock generator 310 generates a
`flash clock from the SDRAM section clock, which is valid
`for this section, e.g., at 20 MHz.”
`See also ¶¶ 0008, 0019, 0025, 0027, 0085, 0099-0101, 0103,
`0114, Fig. 3 at 310, and Fig. 5 (“ST” and “LD”).
`Fukuzo discloses this claim element. (See Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 136-
`41.)
`¶¶ 0084 and 0087-0088, reproduced above.
`See also ¶¶ 0008, 0019, 0025, 0027, 0085, 0099-0101, 0103,
`0114, 0125, 0127, Fig. 3 at 310, and Fig. 5 (“ST” and “LD”).
`
`
`operating the volatile
`memory subsystem at a
`third clock frequency
`when the memory
`system is in the second
`mode of operation, the
`third clock frequency
`being less than the first
`clock frequency.
`
`Fukuzo anticipates claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e). Claim 15 recites
`
`a memory system with substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and Fukuzo
`
`anticipates claim 15 for the reasons described above. (Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 153-75.)
`
`Claims 2 and 18
`
`2.
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “wherein the third
`
`
`
`clock frequency is substantially equal to the second clock frequency.” Fukuzo
`
`discloses that the fla