Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORYSYSTEMSLLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORYSYSTEMSLLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Micron Technology,Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper1,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,233,181 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the °181 patent”). Limestone Memory
`
`Systems LLC (“Patent Owner’’) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper6,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted “unless .
`
`.
`
`. there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`For the reasonsset forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
`
`and 7 of the ’181 patent, but does not demonstrate a reasonablelikelihood of
`
`prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 3 and 5 ofthe
`
`"181 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to claims1,
`
`2, 4, 6, and 7 of the °181 patent on the grounds specified below.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’181 patent is the subject of several cases
`
`in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
`
`Pet. 2-3; Paper 5, 2-3. Theparties also indicate that the following petitions
`
`for inter partes review are related to this case:
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 3; Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`B.
`
`The ’18/] Patent
`
`The ’181 patent relates to repairing defective memorycells ina
`
`semiconductor memory device. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 9-13. The ’181 patent
`
`explains that, when a memorycell becomesdefective, it can be replaced
`
`with a spare memorycell. /d. at col. 1, ll. 15-18. According to the
`
`°181 patent, prior semiconductor memory devices contained an array of
`
`spare memory cells for each memoryblockin the device, and, as a result, the
`
`spare memorycells were not usedefficiently. Jd. at col. 3, 1. 58-col. 4, 1. 8.
`
`To address this problem, the ’181 patent describes a semiconductor memory
`
`device with an array of spare memorycells that can be shared among a
`
`plurality of memoryblocks. /d. at col. 16,Il. 31-39.
`
`C.=Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is independent and is reproduced below.
`
`1. A semiconductor memory device, comprising:
`a plurality of first memory blocks each havinga plurality
`of first normal memory cells arranged in a matrix of rows and
`columns,each ofsaid plurality of first memory blocks
`including wordlines provided corresponding to said rows,
`respectively, and the first memory blocks aligned in the column
`direction; and
`
`a plurality of first spare memorycells arranged in a
`matrix of rows and columnsin a particular one ofsaid plurality
`of first memory blocks, each row ofsaid plurality offirst spare
`memorycells being capable of replacing a defective row
`including a defective first normal memorycell in said plurality
`of first memoryblocks.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 45, 1. 55—col. 46, |. 8.
`
`D.
`
`Evidence ofRecord
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration (see
`
`Pet. 4—5):
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 B1
`
`Reference or Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 5,487,040 (issued Jan. 23, 1996)
`“Sukegawa”’
`U.S. Patent No. 4,967,397 (issued Oct. 30, 1990) (“Walck”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`Betty Prince, Semiconductor Memories: A Handbook of
`Design, Manufacture, and Application (2d ed. 1992)
`“Prince”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,355,339 (issued Oct. 11, 1994
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009.
`
` “Oh”
`
`
`Ex. 1010
`[~.=Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds(see Pet. 4-5):
`|Claim(s)|BasisReference(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`§ 103(a
`35 U.S.C.
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Sukegawa and Walck
`Sukegawa and Oh
`
`
`
`
`Tl.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
`
`F.3d 1268, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Petitioner proposes
`
`construing the following claim terms: “wordlines,” “spare memory cells,”
`
`and “sense amplifier bands.” Pet. 12-15. Patent Owner arguesthat there is
`
`no controversy regarding those claims terms, and, thus, no construction is
`
`necessary at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 7-12. Onthis
`
`record and for purposesofthis decision, we agree with Patent Owner and
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`B.|Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. R. Jacob Baker,testifies that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’181 patent “would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or a closely related field, along with at least 2-3 years of experience
`
`in the development and use of memory devices and systems.” Ex. 1007
`
`417. Dr. Bakeralso explains that “[a]n individual with an advanced degree
`
`in a relevant field, such as computerorelectrical engineering, would require
`
`less experience in the development and use of memory devices and
`
`systems.” Jd. Patent Ownerargucs that Dr. Baker has substantially morc
`
`experience than a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent
`
`Owner, however, does not identify any precedent indicating that Dr. Baker
`
`cannottestify about the level of ordinary skill in the art simply because he
`
`may possessa higherlevel of skill in the art. Jd. Therefore, on this record
`
`and for purposes ofthis decision, we credit Dr. Baker’s testimony regarding
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, and 6 over Sukegawa
`2.
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, and 6 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa. Pet. 4. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`
`evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner demonstrates a
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 2, and 6 would
`
`have been obvious over Sukegawa. See id. at 21-39.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a plurality of first memory blocks each having a
`
`plurality of first normal memorycells arranged in a matrix of rows and
`
`columns,each ofsaid plurality of first memory blocks including wordlines
`
`provided corresponding to said rows, respectively, and the first memory
`
`blocks aligned in the column direction.” Ex. 1001, col. 45, 1. 56-col. 46,
`
`1.2. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that memory blocks 100, 104,
`
`108, and 112 in Figure 8 of Sukegawaare a plurality of first memory blocks
`
`each having a plurality of normal memorycells arranged in a matrix of rows
`
`and columns. Pet. 22—28 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 1, ll. 39-54, col. 4, Il. 45-63,
`
`Figs. 1, 2, 8). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that memory
`
`blocks 100, 104, 108, and 112 are aligned in the columndirection and
`
`include word lines corresponding to rows. Pet. 24—29 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`col. 1, ll. 55-64, Figs. 1, 2, 8). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Sukegawa teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “a plurality of first spare memorycells arranged
`
`in a matrix of rows and columnsin a particular one of said plurality of first
`
`memoryblocks, each rowofsaid plurality of first spare memorycells being
`
`capable of replacing a defective row including a defective first normal
`
`memorycell in said plurality of first memory blocks.” Ex. 1001, col. 46,
`
`ll. 3-8. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that each of memory blocks
`
`100, 104, 108, and 112 contains a redundant row of memorycells that is
`
`capable of replacing a defective row of memorycells in that memory block
`
`or any of the other memory blocks. Pet. 30-32 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 2,
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Il. 21-59, col. 3, ll. 34-43, Fig. 8). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Sukegawateaches the abovelimitation of claim 1.
`
`Claims 2 and 6 depend from independent claim 1. Ex. 1001, col. 46,
`
`Il. 9-23, col. 46, Il. 51-54. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Sukegawateachesthe limitations of dependent claims 2 and 6. Pet. 32-39.
`Onthis record, Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Sukegawa teachesthe
`
`limitations of claims 2 and 6.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 3 over Sukegawa and Prince
`3.
`Petitioner argues that claim 3 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Prince. Pet. 4-5. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions
`
`and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below,Petitioner
`
`does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`
`claim 3 would have been obvious over SukegawaandPrince.
`
`Claim 3 recites “a plurality of sense amplifier bands provided between
`
`each of said plurality of first memoryblocks and each of said sccond
`
`memory blocks, and shared by adjacent memoryblocksin the column
`
`direction for sensing and amplifying data in each column of the adjacent
`
`memoryblock including a selected memory cell when activated.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 46, Il. 24-31. Petitioner argues that Figure 1 of Sukegawa shows a
`
`plurality of sense amplifier bands provided between each ofthe plurality of
`
`first and second memory blocks. Pet. 39-40 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1).
`
`Figure 1 of Sukegawadoes not show the boundaries of the memoryblocks,
`
`and, thus, does not show whether the sense amplifier bands are provided
`
`between each of the memoryblocks. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. As a result,
`
`Petitioner annotates Figure 1 to show what Petitioner believes are the
`
`boundaries of the memory blocks with respect to the sense amplifier bands.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Pet. 39-40. Petitioner, however, does not provide an explanation or identify
`
`evidence that supports Petitioner’s annotations to Figure 1, beyond including
`
`the same annotations as part of Appendix A of the Baker Declaration.! Jd.;
`
`Ex. 1007, A-30—A-32. Thus, on this record, Petitioner has not shown
`
`sufficiently that Sukegawateachesa plurality of sense amplifier bands
`
`provided between eachofthe plurality of first and second memory blocks.
`
`Petitioner argues that Figure 6.25(b) of Prince shows a sense amplifier
`
`that is shared by adjacent memoryblocks. Pet. 41-42 (citing Ex. 1009, 47—
`
`48, Fig. 6.25(b)). Figure 6.25(b) of Prince does not show the boundaries of
`
`the memory blocks, and, thus, does not show whetherthe sense amplifieris
`
`shared by adjacent memory blocks. Ex. 1009, Fig. 6.25(b). Asaresult,
`
`Petitioner annotates Figure 6.25(b) to show whatPetitioner believes are the
`boundariesofthe memoryblockswith respect to the sense amplifier.
`Pet. 41-42. Petitioner, however, does not provide an explanation oridentify
`
`evidence that supports Pctitioncr’s annotations to Figure 6.25(b). Id.
`
`Petitioner points out that Prince teachesthat “‘|a]djacent segments were
`
`grouped into pairs of open bit-lines to form eight memoryblocks of 128k
`
`bits each.” Jd. at 41 (citing Ex. 1009, 47). Petitioner does not explain,
`
`though, why that teaching in Prince showsthat the bit lines in Figure 6.25(b)
`
`are in adjacent memory blocks, rather than the same memory block. Pet.
`
`' Further, Patent Ownercalls into question Petitioncr’s annotations by
`arguing that the sense amplifier bands in Sukegawaactually are provided
`within each of the memory blocks, not between each of the memory blocks.
`Prelim. Resp. 16-19 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 1, ll. 39-44, Fig. 1). Patent
`Owner’s argumenthighlights the deficiency in Petitioner’s position because
`Petitioner did not provide an explanation as to why we should interpret
`Sukegawain the manner presented by Petitioner.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`41-42. Thus,on this record, Petitioner has not shownsufficiently that
`
`Prince teaches a sense amplifier band shared by adjacent memory blocks.
`
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 3 would have been
`
`obvious over Sukegawa and Prince.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 4 over Sukegawa and Prince
`4.
`Petitioner argues that claim 4 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Prince. Pet. 5. Claim 4 recites “the first memory blocks and
`
`the second memory blocks share a circuit related to a memorycell selection
`
`operation.” Ex. 1001, col. 46, Il. 32-35. Petitioner identifies evidence
`
`indicating that Prince teaches a column decoder shared by multiple memory
`
`blocks, and articulates a reason why it would have been obvious to combine
`
`the cited teachings of Prince with the cited teachings of Sukegawa. Pet. 44—
`
`47 (citing Ex. 1007 ¥ 23; Ex. 1009, 47). Therefore, on this record, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 4
`
`would have been obvious over SukegawaandPrince.
`
`5.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 5 over Sukegawa and Walck
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 5 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Walck. Pet. 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 3. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 46, ll. 36-50. As discussed above, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood ofprevailing in showing that claim 3 would have been
`
`obvious over SukegawaandPrince. See supra Section I.B.2. Petitioner
`
`does not argue that Walck compensates for any of the deficiencies noted
`
`above with respect to Sukegawaand Prince. See Pet. 49-52. Therefore, for
`
`the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3, Petitioner does not
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 5
`
`would have been obvious over Sukegawa and Walck.
`
`6.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 7 over Sukegawa and Oh
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 7 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Oh. Pet. 5. Claim 7 recites “the first memory blocks other
`
`than said particular one hasnofirst spare memorycells.” Ex. 1001, col. 46,
`
`Il. 55-57. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Oh teaches providing
`
`spare memorycells in only one memory block andusing those spare
`
`memory cells to replace defective memorycells in other memoryblocks.
`
`Pet. 53-55 (citing Ex. 1010, col. 6, Il. 19-33). Petitioner also articulates a
`
`reason why it would have been obvious to combinethe cited teachings of Oh
`
`with the cited teachings of Sukegawa. Pet. 56. Therefore, on this record,
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`
`claim 7 would have been obvious over Sukegawa and Oh.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the ’181 patent, but
`
`does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 3 and 5 of the ’181 patent. At this stage in the
`
`proceeding, we have not madea final determination with respect to the
`
`patentability of any of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is herebyinstituted as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the ’181 patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Sukegawa;
`
`B.
`
`Claim 4 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over SukegawaandPrince; and
`
`C.
`
`Claim 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Sukegawa and Oh;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter
`
`partes review of the ’181 patent is hereby instituted commencingon the
`
`entry date of this Order, and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given ofthe institution ofa trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthatthetrial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified, and no other groundsare authorized.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Justin L. Constant
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`jason.lang@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul B. Henkelmann
`FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`LimestoneIPR@fitcheven.com
`
`12
`
`
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
