Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`BiTMICRO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KIOXIA AMERICA, INC.
`And KIOXIA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BiTMICRO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00331-ADA
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00335-ADA
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`’939 PATENT ......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“predetermined level” ..............................................................................................1
`
`“means for deactivating the plurality of super capacitors to cut off power
`to the computing engine based upon the plurality of super capacitors
`discharging to a predetermined level” .....................................................................3
`
`“reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and the
`plurality of super capacitors” ...................................................................................5
`
`“means for reversing the flow of current between the computing engine
`and the plurality of super-capacitors” ......................................................................7
`
`II.
`
`’243 PATENT ......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“passive port” ...........................................................................................................8
`
`“a plurality of modules each comprising” .............................................................10
`
`III.
`
`’740 PATENT ....................................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“optimized memory operations” ............................................................................11
`
`“optimally distributed”...........................................................................................13
`
`“memory store” ......................................................................................................14
`
`IV.
`
`’190 PATENT - “optimal” .................................................................................................15
`
`’084 AND ’694 PATENTS - “Direct Memory Access (DMA) descriptors” /
`V.
`“DMA controller descriptor” .........................................................................................................16
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................................2
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................7
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................4
`
`B. Braun Med., Inc., v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................4
`
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................5
`
`Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp.,
`No. 1:14-cv-1516-WSD, 2016 WL 3517595 (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2016) ...................................5
`
`Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................10, 11
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................14
`
`Data Retrieval Tech., LLC v. Sybase, Inc.,
`No. C 08-5481 VRW, 2010 WL 11586656 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010) ....................................16
`
`Digit. Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B, LP,
`No. 6-19-CV-00167-ADA, 2020 WL 376664 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) ................................3
`
`Ex Parte Gittleman,
`2008 WL 696137 (B.P.A.I. 2008)..............................................................................................7
`
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989 (C.C.P.A. 1971) ...................................................................................................7
`
`-ii-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp.,
`483 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................9
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................13
`
`Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp.,
`34 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................9
`
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.,
`814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`Meds. Co. v. Mylan, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................9
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................4
`
`Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.,
`793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................13
`
`Nabors Drilling Techs. USA, Inc. v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co.,
`No. 3:20-CV-03126-M, 2022 WL 1689444 (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2022) .................................16
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Document Sec. Sys.,
`No. 2020-2261, 2022 WL 1218036 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) ..........................................10, 11
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................5
`
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................2
`
`Pall Corp. v. Hemasure Inc.,
`181 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................15
`
`Pisony v. Commando Constr., Inc.,
`No. W-17-CV-00055-ADA, 2019 WL 928406 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2019) ............................15
`
`Qcue, Inc. v. Digonex Techs., Inc.,
`No. A-12-CA-484-SS, 2013 WL 4784120 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2013)......................................2
`
`-iii-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................10
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................1
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,
`199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd.,
`166 F. Supp. 3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)........................................................................................5
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho Corp.,
`213 F. Supp. 3d 829 (W.D. Tex. 2016)....................................................................................12
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`KIOXIA America, Inc., KIOXIA Corporation, and Intel Corporation (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) hereby submit their Reply Claim Construction Brief.
`
`I.
`
`’939 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“predetermined level”
`
`BiTMICRO does not contest any of the salient claim arguments made by Defendants for
`
`this claim term. For example, BiTMICRO does not dispute that the ’939 patent specification
`
`describes a “predetermined level” as a preset minimum operating voltage at which “the down-
`
`converter has insufficient voltage differential to continue proper operation and shuts down.” Case
`
`No. 6:22-cv-00331, Dkt. 36 (“Opening Br.”) at 3 (citing ’939 patent at 5:39-43). Nor does
`
`BiTMICRO contest that the specification establishes the importance of setting the predetermined
`
`level at a voltage necessary for proper operation, explaining that if the voltage “were allowed to
`
`fall below the minimum operating voltage of the computer system, the computer system could
`
`continue to run with unpredictable and potentially serious results.” Id. (citing ’939 patent at 5:44-
`
`48, 6:45-49). BiTMICRO does not even dispute that a threshold set below a minimum operating
`
`voltage necessary for proper operation would fatally undermine the ’939 patent’s stated goals of
`
`ensuring that “a user is able to correctly store large amounts of newly written and modified data”
`
`and “rapidly and irretrievably erase data.” Id. (citing ’939 patent at 2:33-41).
`
`In view of these undisputed facts, it is evident the patentee acted as its own lexicographer
`
`by not only “clearly set[ting] forth a definition” of “predetermined level,” but also “clearly
`
`express[ing] an intent to define the term.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In addition, it is well-established that the scope of a claim term is limited
`
`where the specification describes a particular aspect “as important to the invention.” CCS Fitness,
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Toro Co. v. White Consol.
`
`Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (limiting the meaning of a claim term based in
`
`-1-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`part on statements in the specification describing a particular structure as “important to the
`
`invention”). Here, the fact that the specification establishes the critical importance of having the
`
`predetermined level fixed at a preset minimum operating voltage necessary for proper operation
`
`confirms Defendants’ proposed construction. ’939 patent at 5:44-48, 6:45-49; see also CCS, 288
`
`F.3d at 1366-67; Toro, 199 F.3d at 1301. Accordingly, BiTMICRO’s assertion that Defendants’
`
`construction imports a limitation from the specification lacks merit. See Case No. 6:22-cv-00331,
`
`Dkt. 38 (“Resp. Br.”) at 5.
`
`Aside from the requirements in the specification, BiTMICRO also acknowledges that the
`
`applicant expressly “distinguish[ed] a reference (Manson) cited by the examiner” at least in part
`
`on this basis. Resp. Br. 4-5 (emphasis added). The scope of a claim term is limited where “the
`
`patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment.” CCS,
`
`288 F.3d at 1366-67 (emphasis added). Accordingly, BiTMICRO’s admission regarding the
`
`prosecution history further confirms the accuracy of Defendants’ proposed construction.
`
`Finally, BiTMICRO’s reference to different patents, from different inventors, with
`
`different written descriptions and claims has no relevance to the proper construction of
`
`“predetermined level.” A patentee “is not entitled to a claim construction divorced from the context
`
`of the written description and prosecution history” of the asserted patent. Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`
`424 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, how a claim term may be used in unrelated patents
`
`“merits little consideration.” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
`
`Qcue, Inc. v. Digonex Techs., Inc., No. A-12-CA-484-SS, 2013 WL 4784120, at *10 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 5, 2013) (“[A]ll claims are not created equal, and the mere fact [a term] has been used in
`
`other patents does not make [it] any more meaningful in the context of the [asserted] [p]atent”).
`
`-2-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“means for deactivating the plurality of super capacitors to cut off power to
`the computing engine based upon the plurality of super capacitors
`discharging to a predetermined level”
`
`BiTMICRO’s brief illustrates why this claim element is indefinite for lack of
`
`corresponding structure. BiTMICRO states that “it does not make any sense” to identify a “specific
`
`structure” for this term. Resp. Br. 8-9. But it is black letter law that the specification must not only
`
`disclose a corresponding structure for a means-plus-function term, but must also “clearly link[] or
`
`associate[] that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Digit. Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B,
`
`LP, No. 6-19-CV-00167-ADA, 2020 WL 376664, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020). Because
`
`the ’939 patent does not meet this requirement, it is indefinite as a matter of law.
`
`BiTMICRO’s arguments expose the absence of corresponding structure in the specification
`
`of the ’939 patent. BiTMICRO begins its brief by block-quoting a portion of the specification
`
`discussing an up-converter, down-converter, and various circuitry. Resp. Br. 6-7 (citing ’939
`
`patent at 3:28-3:48, 3:49-4:8, Fig. 1). But these excerpts make no mention of deactivating any
`
`component, much less “deactivating a plurality of super capacitors to cut off power to the
`
`computing engine.” See id. BiTMICRO then block-quotes a different portion of the specification,
`
`id. at 7-8 (citing ’939 patent at 5:17-43), that also discloses nothing about “deactivating a plurality
`
`of supercapacitors.” Indeed, it is unclear from the specification what actions deactivating super-
`
`capacitors requires. BiTMICRO itself seems unsure whether it “mean[s] the capacitors are unable
`
`to take a charge again” or “something else.” Resp. Br. 9. While raising these questions in the
`
`context of Defendants’ position, BiTMICRO never explains what “deactivating a plurality of
`
`supercapacitors” means. The reason for that is simple. The patent does not address this issue, and
`
`thus BiTMICRO cannot identify any structure that performs the function.
`
`Structures that BiTMICRO vaguely suggests as candidates for corresponding structure are
`
`not clearly linked to the claimed function. BiTMICRO underlines the charge level sensors, but
`
`-3-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`there is nothing to indicate the sensors “deactivate” the super-capacitors. Resp. Br. 7-8. The
`
`sensors simply “inform the computer system that the super-capacitor voltage has fallen below the
`
`fully charged and partially charged levels.” ’939 patent at 5:36-39, 6:37-40. Likewise, BiTMICRO
`
`underlines the down-converter that is eventually “shut down,” but there is also nothing to indicate
`
`that the down-converter “deactivates” the super-capacitors. In any event, relying on the down-
`
`converter is illogical. As its name implies, a down-converter simply converts a high voltage signal
`
`to a lower voltage one. ’939 patent at 3:46-48. It does not deactivate any type of structure, as the
`
`specification makes clear. Further, BiTMICRO invokes generic “circuitry” or “elements of the
`
`circuitry” that it admits are “not expressly stated” in the specification but would allegedly be
`
`“obvious to laypersons and POSITAs alike.” Resp. Br. 8. Such alleged structure is immaterial: “It
`
`is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl.
`
`Pty. Ltd v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Accordingly, BiTMICRO does not point to any structure that is clearly linked to
`
`“deactivating the plurality of super capacitors,” as it must to identify corresponding structure.
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(finding a means plus function term indefinite because “there is no clear link or association
`
`between the disclosed structures and the function recited” in the claim); B. Braun Med., Inc., v.
`
`Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (confirming that a claim term was indefinite
`
`because “neither the specification nor the prosecution history contains any indication that the
`
`[structure] corresponds to the recited function.”). Thus, the claim is indefinite.
`
`Likewise, BiTMICRO’s attempt to equate the “means for activating” and the “means for
`
`deactivating” is fundamentally flawed. See Resp. Br. 6. “Different claim terms are presumed to
`
`-4-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d
`
`1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, this difference is underscored by the fact that claim element
`
`10[a] recites specific functionality for activating the super capacitors “based upon power being
`
`removed from the computer system,” while claim element 10[c] recites functionality for
`
`deactivating the capacitors “based upon the plurality of super capacitors discharging to a
`
`predetermined level.” ’939 patent, Cl. 10. This distinct functionality, which BiTMICRO omits
`
`from its discussion of the claim terms, negates BiTMICRO’s contention that the claim elements
`
`are “mirror images.”1 This is underscored by the fact that BiTMICRO’s brief emphasizes different
`
`supposed structures for these two claim elements. See Resp. Br. 7-8.
`
`Finally, BiTMICRO’s suggestion that expert testimony is necessary to invalidate the claim
`
`for indefiniteness (Resp. Br. 8), “misstates the applicable law.” Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box
`
`Recorders Ltd., 166 F. Supp. 3d 364, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “[T]he Federal Circuit has . . . made
`
`clear that expert testimony is not a per se requirement and that when a specification is devoid of
`
`structure—as [Defendants] contend[]—the skilled artisan is unnecessary to find the claim
`
`indefinite.” Id.; Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp., No. 1:14-cv-1516-WSD, 2016 WL 3517595,
`
`at *10 & n.9 (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2016) (same); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1318-
`
`19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming indefiniteness finding for a means-plus-function term without expert
`
`testimony). None of BiTMICRO’s cited cases purport to state a different rule of law. Resp. Br. 8.
`
`C.
`
`“reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and the
`plurality of super capacitors”
`
`
`1 Notably, the applicant added the “means for deactivating” limitation during prosecution to
`overcome an anticipation rejection over a prior art reference, which taught the “means for
`activating” claim element. Ta Decl., Ex. I at 6-7. Accordingly, if the “means for deactivating”
`limitation is nothing more than a mirror image of the “means for activating,” as BiTMICRO now
`contends, the claim is invalid over the prior art. Such an interpretation would also render the
`applicant’s statement to the Patent Office meaningless.
`
`-5-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`BiTMICRO’s arguments for this term are
`
`directly contradicted by the specification of
`
`the ’939 patent. As explained in Defendants’
`
`Opening Brief—and
`
`illustrated again
`
`in
`
`annotated Figure 1 to the left—the specification
`
`makes clear that current flows in only one
`
`direction from the external power source to the
`
`capacitors, and also flows in only one direction
`
`from the capacitors to the computing engine.
`
`Opening Br. 10-11. Notwithstanding this fact,
`
`BiTMICRO divines an entirely different current flow that requires movement in the opposite
`
`direction—i.e., from the capacitors “to the shared power plane of the EPS, Power Isolator and CE.”
`
`Resp. Br. 11. BiTMICRO identifies nothing in either the specification or prosecution history
`
`supporting such a current flow. Accordingly, BiTMICRO’s attempt to rewrite the ’939 patent’s
`
`specification to fit its litigation-based theory should be rejected.
`
`Regardless, BiTMICRO’s attorney argument is irrelevant. The plain claim language
`
`requires the flow of current to be reversed between the computing engine and the super
`
`capacitors—not between the super capacitors and the power isolator, the external power source,
`
`or a so-called “power plane.” And as the specification makes clear, current flows in only one
`
`direction from the super capacitors, through a down-converter, to the computing engine.2 For this
`
`
`2 This is apparent from both the specification’s description and Figure 1, shown above. See,
`e.g., ’939 patent at 3:46-48 (noting that voltage from the capacitors must flow through a down-
`converter to convert it to a voltage that usable by the computing engine); Figs. 3 & 5 (explaining
`that voltage must be discharged “through the down converter”).
`
`-6-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`to fulfill the requirement of “reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and the . . .
`
`super capacitors” upon activation, current would need to flow in the opposite direction during
`
`normal operation. That is, current would need to flow from the computing engine to the super
`
`capacitors along the same pathway. But as BiTMICRO expressly acknowledges, the “external
`
`power supply (EPS)”—not the computing engine—“supplies current to the . . . capacitor” during
`
`normal operation. Resp. Br. 11. Thus, activation of the super capacitors cannot “revers[e] the flow
`
`of current between the computing engine and the plurality of super capacitors” as recited in the
`
`claim. Accordingly, this claim term is indefinite. See Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299
`
`F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (C.C.P.A. 1971); Ex Parte
`
`Gittleman, 2008 WL 696137, at *4 (B.P.A.I. 2008); see also Opening Br. 9-11.
`
`D.
`
`“means for reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and
`the plurality of super-capacitors”
`
`BiTMICRO’s argument consists of two sentences, alleging that this claim is not indefinite
`
`“for the same reasons as discussed with respect to the previous term.” Resp. Br. 12. But as
`
`illustrated in both the previous section and Defendants’ Opening Brief, the ’939 patent does not
`
`teach any functionality for “reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and the
`
`plurality of super capacitors.” Opening Br. 11-12; supra § I.C. On that basis alone, this claim term
`
`is indefinite. Regardless, BiTMICRO also makes no attempt to identify any structure for the recited
`
`function beyond a single sentence referencing generic “circuitry” in “the cited passages of the
`
`specification.” Resp. Br. 12. As Defendants have explained, however, the ’939 patent does not
`
`teach any component, circuitry, structure, or other mechanism that reverses the flow of current
`
`between the computing engine and the super capacitors. Opening Br. 11-12; supra § I.C.
`
`Accordingly, this term is indefinite for lack of corresponding structure.
`
`II.
`
`’243 PATENT
`
`-7-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“passive port”
`
`BiTMICRO’s argument that applicants did not define “passive port” strains credulity. As
`
`explained (Opening Br. 13-15), during prosecution the examiner rejected pending claim 14 as
`
`indefinite due to the term “passive port”
`
`(Ta Decl., Ex. F at 22-23)—which did not
`
`appear anywhere in the specification. To
`
`overcome this rejection, applicants added
`
`“passive port” to the specification and
`
`expressly defined it: “The connection
`
`between a passive ball on one surface of a
`
`SDRAM module and a passive pad on
`
`another surface of the same SDRAM
`
`module . . . is named ‘passive port.’” Id. at 3. Applicants told the examiner that “Applicants may
`
`be their own lexicographers” specifically in connection with this amendment and repeated their
`
`definition. Id. at 23 (excerpted above). Defendants’ construction tracks this language verbatim.
`
`To avoid the consequences of “their own lexicograph[y],” BiTMICRO argues, incorrectly,
`
`that Defendants mischaracterize the prosecution history. It claims (Resp. Br. at 16) that because
`
`applicants’ remarks to the examiner bolded the word “connection,” the Court should construe
`
`“passive port” as merely a connection. But applicants did not say that “passive port” was any
`
`connection between a passive ball and pad—they unambiguously defined the term as a specific
`
`type of connection, one “between a passive ball on one surface of a SDRAM module and a passive
`
`pad on another surface of the same SDRAM module.” Ta Decl., Ex. F at 3, 23. BiTMICRO then
`
`asserts (Resp. Br. at 16) that applicants’ remarks merely identified “example connections,” because
`
`applicants used the phrase “such as.” To the contrary, applicants used “such as” to show how their
`
`-8-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`overall definition applied to the specific embodiment of Figure 19. Ta Decl., Ex. F at 23 (“such as
`
`passive ports 1909 illustrated in Figure 19”). BiTMICRO then notes that lexicography is an
`
`“exacting” standard (Resp. at 16)—but neither of its cited cases involves the situation here, where
`
`applicants affirmatively represented that they were acting as “their own lexicographers” when
`
`providing a definition. Further, in each case, the Federal Circuit limited claims based on the
`
`specification. See Meds. Co. v. Mylan, Inc., 853 F.3d 1296, 1308-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (construing
`
`“efficient mixing” term “to require using the efficient mixing conditions of Example 5,” where
`
`this was “the specification’s only clear delineation of what ‘efficient mixing’ is”); Luminara
`
`Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing claims
`
`to require chaotic pivoting where “the specification disclaims non-chaotic pivoting”).
`
`BiTMICRO argues (Resp. Br. 14) that Intel’s construction excludes embodiments, pointing
`
`to Figure 19. This is incorrect; applicants told the examiner explicitly that Figure 19 was consistent
`
`with their definition. Ta Decl., Ex. F at 3, 23 (“The above description should be read in conjunction
`
`with amended Figure 19[.]”). The only other embodiment that involves “passive port” is depicted
`
`in Figure 21a-b. ’243 patent at 10:8 (as modified by Certificate of Correction) (“In effect, each of
`
`these serial chain circuits functions as a passive port.”); Ta Decl., Ex. F at 5. That a serial chain
`
`circuit functions in effect as a passive port does not mean that it is the same as a passive port. To
`
`the extent other disclosed embodiments are broader than the “passive port” claims—for example,
`
`because they include modules other than SDRAM—a “patentee may draft different claims to cover
`
`different embodiments.” Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp., 483 F.3d 1328, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) is not applicable because
`
`the construction there was not supported by any definitional statements and was inconsistent with
`
`the sole embodiment. In contrast, the applicants here specifically defined “passive port” and
`
`-9-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`confirmed to the Patent Office that embodiments (e.g., Fig. 19) were consistent with that definition.
`
`Finally, BiTMICRO argues (Resp. Br. 15) that claim differentiation weighs against
`
`Defendants’ construction because claim 2 recites a limitation consistent with applicants’ definition.
`
`However, claim 2 also recites a new limitation, “wherein the one or more passive port forms a
`
`ladder like routing path,” and thus is already different in scope from claim 1. Further, claim
`
`differentiation “is not a hard and fast rule” and “will be overcome by a contrary construction
`
`dictated by the written description or prosecution history.” Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`
`413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
`
`B.
`
`“a plurality of modules each comprising”
`
`BiTMICRO fails to rebut Intel’s showing that the plain and ordinary meaning of this term
`
`should control. The preamble of claim 1 is “[a] stacked module comprising.” Accordingly, “a
`
`plurality of modules each comprising” is a limitation. BiTMICRO is wrong that a preamble must
`
`include all words that appear before the first colon; the Federal Circuit has held otherwise. Nichia
`
`Corp. v. Document Sec. Sys., No. 2020-2261, 2022 WL 1218036, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2022)
`
`(holding, for a claim reciting “[a] display comprising a plurality of plastic leaded chip carrier
`
`LEDs, the plastic leaded chip carrier LEDs each comprising,” that only “[a] display comprising”
`
`was the preamble and the remaining text before the second “comprising” was a limitation).
`
`BiTMICRO’s cited case of Application of Dean, 291 F.2d 947, 949 (C.C.P.A. 1961) is not
`
`applicable, because Dean did not involve a claim that recited “comprising” twice before a colon.
`
`As Intel explained previously (Opening Br. 17-18), even if this Court determines that the
`
`disputed term is part of the preamble of claim 1, it is still limiting because a term in the claim body
`
`depends on it for antecedent basis. Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002), relied upon by BiTMICRO, actually supports Intel: there, unlike
`
`here, a preamble not repeated in the claim body was not limiting (Id. at 807-08, 810), and a
`
`-10-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1013
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 43 Filed 12/14/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`preamble repeated in the claim body (as in ’243 patent claim 1) was limiting. Id. at 810-11.
`
`The specification contradicts BiTMICRO’s assertion (Resp. Br. 19) that only the topmost
`
`module in Figure 21a can contain a control circuit. Rather, the specification states that Figures 21a
`
`and 21b—which BiTMICRO ignores—describe aspects of the same embodiment: “FIG. 21a shows
`
`how this [connection] technique is implemented in the stacking method … Regarding the top
`
`module [of Figure 21a], the serial chain termination and branching to other pads is shown in FIG.
`
`21b.” ’243 patent at 9:61-10:10 (as modified by Certificate of Correction). In the embodiment of
`
`Figures 21a-b, all modules are identical and each includes a control circuit: “Since the modules
`
`are identical [in Fig. 21a], this routed signal passes through … the stack until it reaches the OUT
`
`pad 2114 of the main board for external access … All modules [in Fig. 21b] have a control circuit
`
`that includes a selectable buffer 2115 that tri-states the input when pulled low.” Id. at 10:5-32 (as
`
`modified by Certificate of Correction) (emphasis added). Thus,