Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 6
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 39
`Entered: August 5, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-005311
`Patent 8,542,643 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01582 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`IPR2015-00531
`Patent 8,542,643 B2
`
`
`concluded that it means “an area of memory having a set of addressable
`
`slots.” Both parties then agreed to this construction. We find that it also
`
`corresponds to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. For
`
`example, the Specification does not define “register,” but more broadly
`
`describes registers as memories addressed by a selection kernel. Ex. 1001,
`
`20:3–14. To the extent that Petitioner’s dictionary definition is more
`
`narrow, the parties have not explained persuasively why such extrinsic
`
`evidence should be used to restrict the otherwise broad meaning ascribed by
`
`the claim language itself and the Specification. We decline Patent Owner’s
`
`request that we undo the parties’ district court agreement. Accordingly, we
`
`adopt the parties’ agreed construction from the Qualcomm Litigation.
`
`
`
`3. “selection kernel”
`
`Claims 1, 6, and 11 each recite a “selection kernel” that “addresses a
`
`bad channel stored in a particular location of the default channel register”
`
`and replaces “the bad channel stored in the particular location of the default
`
`channel register with a good channel selected from the set of good channels
`
`loaded in the good channel register.”
`
`Neither party proposes a construction of “selection kernel.”
`
`Nevertheless, it is a technical term that requires construction in order for us
`
`to apply the prior art to the claims and resolve the parties’ dispute over the
`
`presence of a selection kernel in the prior art.
`
`The Specification does not define “selection kernel.” Nevertheless, it
`
`describes a selection kernel (box 510), in connection with Figures 5A and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`IPR2015-00531
`Patent 8,542,643 B2
`
`
`5B, as a module of software that performs the addressing of the default
`
`channel and good channel registers. Ex. 1001, 20:1–21:4.
`
`Consistent with this description, a technical dictionary defines a
`
`“kernel” as “[a] software module that encapsulates an elementary function or
`
`functions of a system.” IEEE 100, THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF
`
`IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 599 (7th ed. 2000) (Ex. 3001). The parties’
`
`applications of the term are consistent as well. See Ex. 1002 (Ding Decl.)
`
`¶ 39 (“As would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, a selection
`
`kernel selects channels to use for transmission of data. The selection kernel
`
`outputs an address to address a register and may address the same bad
`
`channel multiple times.”); PO Resp. 9 (“The ’643 Patent utilizes a selection
`
`kernel 510 that addresses the default channel register 520 and replaces bad
`
`channels contained therein with good channels from the good channel
`
`register 550.”), 23 (same).
`
`In light of the use of the term in the claims and Specification, we
`
`construe “selection kernel” to mean “a software module that encapsulates a
`
`register addressing function.”
`
`
`
`4. “good channel usage timeout”
`
`Claims 4 and 14 recite “removing a particular good channel from the
`
`good channel register, based at least in part on a good channel usage timeout
`
`value.” Claim 9 includes a similar recitation. The ’643 patent Specification
`
`describes a “good channel usage timeout” value as follows:
`
`According to another embodiment of the invention,
`implementation of a selected set of communications channels
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`IPR2015-00531
`Patent 8,542,643 B2
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–
`
`4, 6–9, and 11–14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643 B2 are held unpatentable;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that claims 5, 10, and 15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,542,643 B2 are not held unpatentable; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED, because this is a final written decision, the
`
`parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our Decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40-14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`IPR2015-00531
`Patent 8,542,643 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Daniel Leventhal
`Daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`R. Ross Viguet
`Ross.viguet@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Jeffrey Helvey
`Jhelvey-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Robert Sokohl
`Rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Nathan Rees
`Nate.rees@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`Richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David Simmons
`Dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`Gregory Donahue
`gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`46
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
