Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 7
`Entered: October 20, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO., LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BEVERLY M. BUNTING,and
`JON B. TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CER. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 7
`Entered: October 20, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO., LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BEVERLY M. BUNTING,and
`JON B. TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CER. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`A. Background
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`NVIDIA Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper2, “Pet.”’)
`
`requesting inter partes review ofclaims 1, 7-9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 of US.
`
`Patent No. 7,804,734 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’734 patent”). Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Patent Owner’) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper
`6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
`|
`Wehavejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which providesthat an
`inter partes review maynot beinstituted “unless .
`.
`. there 1s a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we do
`
`not institute an inter partes review for the challenged claims.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties inform usthat the ’734 patent is the subject of a Petition
`
`for inter partes review in IPR2015-01068 and an investigation before the
`
`International Trade Commission: Certain Graphics Processing Chips,
`
`Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-941
`
`(USITC). Pet. 4-5; Paper 5, 2. Patent Owneralso identifies
`
`IPR2015-01062 and IPR2015-01065as related to the current proceeding.
`
`Pet. 5.
`
`C. The ’734 Patent
`
`The ’734 patent discloses a data strobe buffer, and a memory system
`
`containing the same,that can be interfaced to different types of
`
`semiconductor memory devices. Ex. 1101, 1:15-19. In one embodiment of
`
`the ’734 patent, during a read operation inafirst mode, the data strobe
`
`buffer receives a data strobe signal, comparesthis signal with a reference
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`voltage Vref, and outputs a new data strobe signal based on the results of the
`
`comparison. Jd. at 4:32-37. During a read operation in a second mode,the
`
`data strobe buffer receives a data strobe signal and passesthis signal without
`
`comparing it with the reference voltage Vref. Id. at 4:44-48. According to
`
`the ’734 patent, the first mode may be an operating modeof the data strobe
`
`buffer when the data strobe buffer interfaces with Double-Data-Rate (DDR)
`
`Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM)and the second
`
`mode maybe an operating modeofthe data strobe buffer when the data
`
`strobe buffer interfaces with Mobile Double-Data-Rate (MDDR) SDRAM.
`
`Id. at 1:21-27, 4:37-39, 4:48-51, 5:13-16, 5:25-30, Figs. 3A, 3B.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claims | and 17 are independent. Claim|is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A data strobe buffer comprising:
`
`a first input/output node;
`a first driver coupled to the first input/output node, the first
`driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the
`first input/output node during a write operation; and
`a first receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal
`from the first
`input/output node and output a third data
`strobe signal during a read operation when the data strobe
`buffer
`is
`in a first or second mode,
`the first receiver
`configured to compare the second data strobe signal with a
`first reference voltage and output a result of the comparison
`as the third data strobe signal when the data strobe buffer is
`in the first mode,
`the receiver further configured to not
`compare the second data strobe signal with the first
`reference voltage when the data strobe buffer is in the
`second mode.
`
`Ex. 1101, 8:27-42.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`E. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`
`Whetherclaims 1, 7-9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as having been obvious over Seo! and Kong.’
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review,“[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Jn re Cuozzo Speed
`Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In determining the
`
`broadest reasonable construction, we presumethat claim termscarry their
`ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a
`patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proffers claim constructions for four terms: “coupled,”
`“data strobe signal,” “data strobe bar signal,” and “input/output node.” Pet.
`
`13-14. Patent Ownerproposesconstructions for the terms “mode” and
`
`“input/output node.” Prelim. Resp. 8-14.
`Uponreview of the record, we determine that no claim terms need be
`construed for purposesofthis decision.’ See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`'U.S. Patent No. 6,819,602 B2, issued Nov. 16, 2004 (Ex. 1103).
`* US. Patent No. 7,173,871 B2, issued Feb. 6, 2007 (Ex. 1104).
`3 We discuss below the terms “read” and “write,” as used in the context of
`the ’734 patent.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be
`
`construed that are in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy.”’)
`
`B. Obviousness Based on Seo and Kong
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 7-9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 of the 734
`
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view ofSeo and Kong.
`
`Pet. 32-55. In support ofits contentions, Petitioner relies on the declaration
`
`testimony of Dr. Bruce Jacob (Ex. 1107). For the reasonsthat follow, we
`
`determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing as to claims 1, 7—9; 12, 13, 17, and 19 of the ’734 patent.
`
`I. Seo
`
`Seo is directed to a multimode data buffer and a method for
`
`controlling propagation time delay for a semiconductor memory device. Ex.
`
`1103, 1:15-17. Figure 2 of Seo is reproduced below:
`
`FIG. 2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 a block diagram of a data strobe input buffer of Seo.
`Seo discloses that data strobe input buffer 13 of Figure 2 may be a
`
`single mode/dual mode (SM/DM)double-use data strobe input bufferthat, in
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`response to a control signal (CNT/CNTB), differentially amplifies data
`
`strobe signal (DQS) and reference voltage (VREF) whenin single mode
`
`(SM)and differentially amplifies data strobe signal (DQS) and inverse data
`
`strobe signal (DQSB) when in dual mode (DM). Jd. at 7:48-54, 7:63-67,
`
`8:4-8.
`
`2. Kong
`
`“Kong discloses a semiconductor memory device containing a circuit
`
`for inputting and outputting a bi-directional data strobe signal.” Ex. 1107
`
`{ 84 (citing Ex. 1104, 1:14-18, Abstract). Figure 3 of Kong 1s reproduced
`
`below:
`
`FIG. 3
`
`DQS
`
`Figure 3 illustrates circuit diagrams of a data strobe input and output buffer
`and a controlcircuit contained in a semiconductor memory device.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`Dr. Jacobtestifies that, although the process of driving the data strobe
`
`signal is not disclosed in Seo, including whether the data strobe bufferis
`
`uni-directional or bi-directional, circuits for driving a bi-directional data
`
`strobe are disclosed in Kong. Ex. 1107 999. Specifically, Dr. Jacob
`
`testifies that element 32 of Kongts a data-strobe input buffer and element 34
`
`of Kongis a data-strobe output buffer. Jd. ¥ 100.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Independent claims 1 and 17 both require a driver “configured to
`
`output a first data strobe signal to the first input/output node during a write
`
`operation”and a “receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal
`
`from the first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a
`
`read operation.” Ex. 1101, 8:30-34, 10:26-31. Both parties agree that, as
`
`used in the claims of the ’734 patent, the term “read” meansto read data
`
`from a memory device and the term “write” meansto write data to a
`
`memory device. Pet. 11 (noting that in the ’734 patent “a driver is used to
`
`drive a data strobe signal to the memory device during a write operation”),
`
`25; Ex. 1107 J 32; Prelim. Resp. 15-16; see also Ex. 1101, 3:52—56, 3:65—
`
`4:2 (noting thatthe “data strobe buffer 190 providesafirst data strobe signal
`DQS_1 to the memory device 200 during a write operation, and 1s provided
`with a second data strobe signal DOS_2 by the memory device 200 during a
`
`read operation’).
`
`Petitioner argues, however, that a write operation from the perspective
`
`of a memory controller is the equivalent of a read operation from the
`
`perspective of the memory device. Likewise, Petitioner argues that a read
`_ operation from the perspective of a memory controller is the equivalent of a
`write operation from the perspective of the memory device. Pet. 25 (citing
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`Ex. 1107 Jf 89-92), 35 (citing Ex. 1107 J] 127-128), 37 (citing Ex. 1107
`
`q 133). According to Petitioner, the situation is akin to cars that drive on the
`
`left or right side of the road, but have the same components and work the
`
`same way. Id. at 24. Petitioner concludes, therefore, that the “location and
`perspective of the data strobe buffer does not alter the invalidity analysis.”
`
`Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 110789-92).
`
`Patent Ownerasserts the challenged claims would not have been
`
`obvious over Seo and Kongbecauseneither reference discloses a data strobe
`
`buffer for use in a memory controller. Prelim. Resp. 15—16. In particular,
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that both Seo and Kongare directed to data strobe
`
`buffers for use in a memory device, which would not output a data strobe.
`signal during a “write” operation or receive a data strobe signal during a
`“read” operation,as recited in claim 1 of the ’734 patent. Jd. at 16-17.
`
`According to Patent Owner,the difference in placement betweenthe data
`
`strobe buffer of Seo and Kongandthe data strobe buffer of the ’734 patentis
`
`“fundamental,” because placementofthe data strobe buffer in the memory
`
`controller enables the memory controller to operate in conjunction with
`
`varying types of memory devices.
`
`/d. at 16.
`
`Patent Owner’s argumentis persuasive. As discussed above,
`
`Petitioner concedesthat neither Seo nor Kongdiscloses a data strobe buffer
`
`that outputs a data strobe signal during a “write operation”orthat receives a
`
`data strobe signal during a “read operation.” Pet. 35 (“Kong discloses a
`
`‘read’ operation in which the data strobe is output... .”); see also Ex. 1107
`
`{ 90 (Dr. Jacob testifying that, “[w]hen Seo or Kongtalk about outputting a
`
`data strobe signal, they are talking about a read operation, because a DRAM
`
`outputs the data and data strobe signals during a read operation”). Thus, we
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`are not persuaded that Seo and Kongexplicitly disclose or suggest a “first
`driver configured to outputa first data strobe signal to the first input/output
`
`node during a write operation”or a receiver “coupled to receive a second
`
`data strobe signal from the first input/output node and output a third data
`
`strobe signal during a read operation,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’734
`
`patent. Ex. 1101, 8:29-34.
`Petitioner’s argumentthat the function of the two data strobe buffers
`
`is equivalent, i.e., “regardless of where the data strobe buffer is located (in
`the memory controller or memory device)it is used for both write and read
`operations,” is not persuasive, because this argument doesnot address the
`claims as written. Pet. 24. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner
`
`dues not persuasively argue that it would have been obviousto place the data
`strobe buffer of Seo and Kong in a memory controller, as opposed to a
`
`memory device, such that the data strobe buffer would output a data strobe
`signal “during a write operation” and receive a data strobe signal “during a
`read operation.” Prelim Resp. 17 (“Petitioner does not—and cannot—allege
`
`that it would have been obviousto place the combined system of Seo and
`
`Kong in a memory controller.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the
`
`combination of Seo and Kong, as formulated by Petitioner, discloses or
`
`suggests every limitation of independent claims 1 and 17 of the °734 patent.
`
`4. Conclusion
`
`Based on the foregoing, and on the arguments presented in the
`
`Petition, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`independentclaims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over Seo and Kong.
`As dependent claims 7-9, 12, 13, and 19 each depend from claim 1 or claim
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`17, we are likewise not persuaded that these claims would have been
`
`obvious over Seo and Kong.
`
`lI. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing,it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is not instituted.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01135
`Patent 7,804,734 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bob Steinberg
`Julie Holloway
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`bob.steinberg@Iw.com
`Julie.Holloway@lw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Appleby
`Gregory Arovas
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`robert.appleby@kirkland.com
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`
`
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
