Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`
`
`Entered: February 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES, I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00113
`Patent No. 6,058,045
`__________
`
`Held: November 6, 2014
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER (via videoconference), TREVOR M.
`JEFFERSON, and DAVID C. McKONE (via videoconferece,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 6, 2014, commencing at 10:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`
`
`Entered: February 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES, I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00113
`Patent No. 6,058,045
`__________
`
`Held: November 6, 2014
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER (via videoconference), TREVOR M.
`JEFFERSON, and DAVID C. McKONE (via videoconferece,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 6, 2014, commencing at 10:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN A. LIMBACH, ESQUIRE
`HARPREET SINGH, ESQUIRE
`DLA Piper, LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, California 94303
`
`JON E. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE
`CHRISTIAN A. CAMARCE, ESQUIRE
`RAYMOND J. WERNER, ESQUIRE
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`1100 New York Avenue
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`and
`
`ANDREW G. HEINZ, ESQUIRE
`Desmarais, LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10169
`
`and
`
`DONALD COULMAN, ESQUIRE
`Intellectual Ventures
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good morning. I'm Judge
`
`Jefferson and with us remotely are Judges McKone and Turner.
`
`
`
`
`
`We're here for IPR 2014-00113, Toshiba Corporation V
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`I'll ask each attorney to stand, starting with the Petitioner,
`
`and make your appearances and state who is with you.
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Good morning. My name is Alan
`
`11
`
`Limbach, I'm with DLA Piper, I represent the Petitioner, Toshiba; and
`
`12
`
`with me is -- go ahead.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. SINGH: Hi, my name is Harpreet Singh,
`
`14
`
`representing Petitioner with DLA Piper.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Your Honors.
`
`Jon Wright from Stern, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox
`
`18
`
`representing the Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures I.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`With my at counsel's table is Christian Camarce, also
`
`20
`
`from Stern, Kessler, and back-up counsel that are also present are
`
`21
`
`Raymond Werner from the Stern Kessler firm, Andy Heinz from the
`
`22
`
`Desmarais firm and Donald Coulman from Intellectual Ventures.
`
`
`
`
`
`Thank you.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`Obviously per our Order Paper 24, the proceedings will
`
`be transcribed by a court reporter. Please speak up or into the
`
`microphone.
`
`
`
`
`
`We also remind you that we have two remote Judges and
`
`any demonstratives or exhibits you refer to please refer to by page
`
`number or other identifying marks so that we can then have a clear
`
`record of what's being referred to and the Judges can follow your
`
`presentations.
`
`
`
`
`
`Each side will have 60 minutes to present their argument.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`As Petitioner bears the burden of proof, we'll start with Petitioner.
`
`11
`
`You should let us know at the outset if you're going to reserve any
`
`12
`
`time for rebuttal.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner will have 60 minutes to respond to the
`
`14
`
`issues presented.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Again, I'll note for the remote panel members, they will
`
`16
`
`be, they should be mic'ed and able to hear everything that's going on.
`
`17
`
`If you have trouble, if you do have trouble hearing or we have trouble
`
`18
`
`hearing, we can repeat the questions we have for you.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`On, I'm, my recollection is that there were no objections
`
`20
`
`made to demonstratives or evidence that were filed with the Court.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Just reminding you that there are no speaking objections
`
`22
`
`here. You have your time period to make any objections or -- I'm
`
`23
`
`sorry, make any statements on the record that you want to make
`
`24
`
`regarding evidence.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`And we'll get started, if there are no questions from either
`
`party.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And our Judges can hear everything okay?
`
`JUDGE McKONE: I can hear, Judge Jefferson.
`
`If I cannot hear somebody at the podium, I will let you
`
`know. And you can hear me okay?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Certainly.
`
`Judge Turner?
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Yes, I can hear. I can't hear anybody
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`until you talk into the microphone, but I'm looking forward to that.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And I'll remind then, again,
`
`12
`
`please everyone talk into the microphone, including me. And of
`
`13
`
`course if our court reporter couldn't hear, she will let us know, as well.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`We'll get started with Petitioner. Will you please let me
`
`15
`
`know how much time you're going to reserve and you can continue?
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Thank you, your Honors.
`
`Can you hear me remotely?
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Why don't you adjust the mic
`
`19
`
`straight so it looks a little more directional, straight at you.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Okay. Great, so again, my name is
`
`21
`
`Alan Limbach, for Petitioner, Toshiba, and I'll reserve 25 minutes for
`
`22
`
`rebuttal.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. You may begin.
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Okay. Thank you.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`So starting with, and I'll go by slide numbers, so if I
`
`forget, just please remind me, but we'll dive right into slide 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`So this IRP is about the '045 Patent, or what I'll be
`
`referring to as the '045 Patent. It was filed in 1999 and claims priority
`
`to a parent divisional -- or it's a divisional of a parent case that was
`
`filed in 1997 claiming priority to a provisional in 1996.
`
`
`
`
`
`The parent application covers the memory cells. There
`
`was a restrictional requirement in the parent case; and so this case just
`
`covers how the memory cells are, flash memory cells are connected
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`together and how you apply the voltages.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 3, this is the prior art that we'll be dealing
`
`12
`
`with today and what I refer to, you see this is a U.S. Patent 5,297,029,
`
`13
`
`what I'll be referring to as the Nakai reference. It is a Toshiba patent
`
`14
`
`and it was filed in 1992, approximately four years before the '045
`
`15
`
`Patent provisional application was filed.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 3 -- 4, so in the Petitioner's petition we
`
`17
`
`offered seven claim constructions and three of those claim
`
`18
`
`constructions dealt with the voltages in the claim, in the asserted
`
`19
`
`claims -- or the challenged claims and four dealt with the array
`
`20
`
`configuration.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board adopted essentially the constructions that we
`
`22
`
`had proposed, minus the word the; and I don't think that that was
`
`23
`
`meant to signify anything that's relevant here today. So I'll be
`
`24
`
`referring to these as the adopted constructions.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 5. So, the challenged claims have two
`
`parts or aspects to them. The first is it sets forth the array
`
`configuration of the memory array that's at issue or being covered by
`
`the claim and the second is the applied voltages that are applied at the
`
`various lines and in order to program a selected cell.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And those are highlighted on the slide.
`
`Going to slide 6. Now what's undisputed in this case and
`
`in this proceeding so far is the fact that Nakai anticipates the memory
`
`array configuration aspects of these claims. We set forth in our
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`petition why those limitations are anticipated by Nakai.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`I.V. never challenged the adopted constructions relating
`
`12
`
`to the array configuration and they don't argue that Nakai doesn't
`
`13
`
`anticipate those claim elements.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 7, we also set forth in our petition why the,
`
`15
`
`under the adopted constructions, the applied program voltages are
`
`16
`
`anticipated by Nakai.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`And the only argument that was ever introduced by I.V.
`
`18
`
`in its reply is a footnote that basically argued -- well I'll just read it, it
`
`19
`
`says, as shown, when the Board's construction is actually applied to
`
`20
`
`Nakai and the '045 Patent, the upper boundary for the logic high
`
`21
`
`voltage becomes Vcc. Well that's not the adopted construction. The
`
`22
`
`adopted construction is a positive voltage higher than logic low
`
`23
`
`voltage such as Vcc.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`Here they're kind of wrapping in their proposed
`
`construction, so to us we don't see that it's actually meaningfully
`
`disputed that under the adopted constructions Nakai anticipates.
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 8. So the real issue here is claim
`
`construction. I.V. and its experts challenge one of the adopted claim
`
`constructions and only one, that's the, for logic high voltage.
`
`
`
`
`
`Now everyone agrees that a logic high voltage is a
`
`positive voltage higher than logic low voltage; and what's different is
`
`that in I.V.'s proposed construction, they add an additional limitation,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and less than or equal to the nominal value of Vcc; and it's that
`
`11
`
`limitation that they're reading in to the claim language that is their sole
`
`12
`
`basis for why Nakai does not anticipate. If they can't read that
`
`13
`
`limitation in to the claim, it's essentially undisputed, the claims are
`
`14
`
`invalid over Nakai.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`So the sole issue here is should we effectively re-write
`
`16
`
`the claims to add this numerical cap to the logic high voltage of Vcc.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 9. Now 37 CFR 42.100(b) states, a claim
`
`18
`
`in an unexpired parent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`19
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`20
`
`appears. So that's the claim construction standard that we are all
`
`21
`
`operating under.
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Now this slide summarizes the claim construction
`
`23
`
`standards argued or applied in this proceeding.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petitioner and its expert used broadest reasonable
`
`25
`
`construction. The Board used the broadest reasonable construction.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`I.V. and its experts did not. They used other standards. They said,
`
`well, clear demarcation or principled and precise dividing line,
`
`practical dividing line, reasonable and principled boundary or a more
`
`precise construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`They don't challenge the adopted constructions under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard. They don't identify the
`
`standard and they never applied it.
`
`
`
`
`
`They applied narrow constructions and they never try and
`
`tie these constructions that they've argued to broadest reasonable.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`So we don't believe that there's a dispute in the record in
`
`11
`
`this case on the issue of whether or not this -- the adopted construction
`
`12
`
`for logic high voltage is proper under the broadest reasonable
`
`13
`
`construction standard.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 10. Now the Petitioner, its expert and the
`
`15
`
`Board all articulated why the adopted construction for logic high
`
`16
`
`voltage is appropriate.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`The term logic high voltage appears only in the claims;
`
`18
`
`it's not in the specification. It's consistent with the exemplary voltages
`
`19
`
`provided in the specification. One skilled in the art viewing the '045
`
`20
`
`Patent would understand that logic high voltage is a voltage that's
`
`21
`
`higher than -- or is a voltage that's higher than logic low, such as Vcc.
`
`22
`
`There's nothing else in the specification that would provide anything
`
`23
`
`other than that.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, has Petitioner presented
`
`any testimony that supports the logic high voltage construction that
`
`you proposed and the Board adopted in its preliminary decision?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Are you referring to an expert?
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Yes.
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Yes. Our expert opined that this is the
`
`proper construction and he applied the broadest reasonable
`
`construction standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`He identified the standard, he applied it and he concluded
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`this is the only reasonable construction under that standard.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: So why isn't it just common sense
`
`12
`
`that the logic high is whatever is interpreted as a one, a logic one by
`
`13
`
`the remainder of the chip, as opposed to a logic zero?
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: When you go in to the patent -- we
`
`15
`
`looked for that, we looked for anything we could latch on to this, the
`
`16
`
`meaning of this other than what we proposed.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no logic device to tie that to; and the problem is
`
`18
`
`the logic high voltage is not applied to a logic device, it's applied to
`
`19
`
`things like word lines. Those are not logic devices, those are memory
`
`20
`
`cells.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`And so, and the other problem is it says apply a logic
`
`22
`
`high voltage, a logic high voltage, a logic high voltage. So there's
`
`23
`
`more -- there can be more than one. In other words, they don't have to
`
` 10
`
`24
`
`be the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`So if you're applying a voltage to a word line where
`
`there's no logic device, we couldn't find any meaning for that.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Is there no ordinary meaning in the
`
`context of memory devices where a logic high is 3.3 volts or 5 volts or
`
`whatever is interpreted as a one by a memory cell?
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Well, first of all, the specification
`
`doesn't identify any such logic devices. Moreover, you could have
`
`different logic devices on the same chip with different logic voltages.
`
`
`
`
`
`So if, if we're going to tie the logic high to a logic device,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`it has to be in the claims. It certainly has to be in the specification and
`
`11
`
`they don't identify that.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, with respect to claims 1
`
`13
`
`and 4, since the use of high voltage there is with respect to
`
`14
`
`programming, is there any other place in the spec that they can find
`
`15
`
`support other than column 7, let's say lines, it looks like 26 to 55?
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: I guess I didn't understand your
`
`17
`
`question.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: The claims talk about, about logic
`
`19
`
`high voltage, but they talk about it with respect to 1 and 4. They only
`
`20
`
`talk about it during programming, and so the only part of the spec that
`
`21
`
`is really sort of specifically directed to the programming operation is
`
`22
`
`column 7 where it talks about programming operation. They have a
`
`23
`
`read operation.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`So I would think if you, if you wanted support for what
`
`25
`
`that logic high voltage is, you'd have to find that support in those two
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`paragraphs in that column, or, or I'm sure Patent Owner will come up
`
`and dispute that, but I guess I'm looking for your take on that.
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: So if you go to the specification, it
`
`talks about the voltages, it gives exemplary voltages. It says you can
`
`apply Vcc to the, say, the selected word line and then you go to the
`
`claim and it says that's the logic high voltage, but there's nothing in
`
`there that says it has to be Vcc.
`
`
`
`
`
`And even I.V. admits it can be lower than Vcc. They
`
`only give one value, they just say Vcc. They also use logic high
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`voltage to describe the erase operation, so it has to have the same
`
`11
`
`meaning and, again, it's not provided in the specification.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`There's nothing that provides one of ordinary skill any
`
`13
`
`guidance as to anything other than they're just relative to each other.
`
`14
`
`There's no file history to rely on. The case was allowed without any
`
`15
`
`amendment or argument, so there's nothing that's provided in the
`
`16
`
`specification to provide you any guidance as to what these voltages
`
`17
`
`should be, other than the way that they are spelled forth in the adopted
`
`18
`
`constructions.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay.
`
`MR. LIMBACH: One thing also to note is that the '045
`
`21
`
`Patent does not disclose any numerical limits on any of these voltages.
`
`22
`
`It does not say, oh, you can't have this particular voltage exceed X
`
`23
`
`value, which is important because that's the construction that's being
`
`24
`
`proffered by I.V.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`So going to slide 11. Now, setting aside the fact that they
`
`didn't apply the broadest reasonable construction, they set forth under
`
`their standards many arguments as to why the logic high voltage
`
`should be capped at Vcc. And even applying their arguments and
`
`their standards, they don't have any merit, they don't make any sense,
`
`and so I'll walk through those now.
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 12. Now first they, I.V. argues that the
`
`adopted constructions only define the voltages relative to each other,
`
`which is true. But they say well that makes it impossible to determine
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`where one begins and another ends, and that's simply not true.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`The logic high is higher than the logic low and the
`
`12
`
`boosted positive is larger than the logic high. So, the logic low ends
`
`13
`
`before the logic high begins and the logic high ends before the
`
`14
`
`boosted positive begins. So you do know where one begins and
`
`15
`
`another one ends.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 13. Now they say that there's no clear
`
`17
`
`demarcation between logic high voltage and boosted positive voltage
`
`18
`
`when you have more than one logic high voltage. And again, we don't
`
`19
`
`think that this argument has any merit to it.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`If multiple different logic high voltages are applied, the
`
`21
`
`way that the claims are structured as they're properly construed, it just
`
`22
`
`simply means that the boosted positive has to be higher than the logic
`
`23
`
`high voltages, plural. There's nothing more in the claims or the
`
`24
`
`specification to provide otherwise.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`And that's a clear demarcation. And, in fact, their own
`
`papers admit that there's a clear demarcation because they actually set
`
`forth the adopted constructions in an algebraic form and you can see
`
`that they set it forth at logic low is less than logic high and logic high
`
`is less than boosted positive. So there is a clear demarcation.
`
`
`
`
`
`Now, they say well, no, we need to cap logic high at Vcc
`
`to provide some type of a clear demarcation, but that, it doesn't work
`
`that way. If you have a logic low -- I'm sorry, a logic high that's
`
`below Vcc, that means that the boosted positive can be below Vcc, it
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`just needs to be higher than logic high. So the Vcc provides no value,
`
`11
`
`it doesn't mean anything.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Going to slide 14. Now the, a telltale indication of how
`
`13
`
`arbitrary this cap is is the fact that you have the same issue between
`
`14
`
`the difference between logic low and logic high, yet I.V. never
`
`15
`
`proffered a construction for capping logic low so you'd have that same
`
`16
`
`clear demarcation.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`If they're so concerned about a clear demarcation
`
`18
`
`between logic high and boosted positive that's separate from simply
`
`19
`
`trying to save its patent over Nakai, then they would have offered a
`
`20
`
`construction for logic low and they didn't. So that shows you it's
`
`21
`
`arbitrary, it's erroneous, there's no merit to it.
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Could it be that they just didn't need
`
`23
`
`to offer a construction of logic low because that wouldn't have
`
`24
`
`affected the outcome of the case?
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: It's possible, but I mean if they're
`
`going to challenge the adopted constructions and they would say,
`
`look, you need a clear demarcation between logic high and boosted,
`
`don't you think that they would have at least said and of course the
`
`same goes true for logic low.
`
`
`
`
`
`I mean if we need that clear demarcation to apply this
`
`patent, why not construe that as well. They didn't, they didn't provide
`
`one.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.V. argues that, one, and we're on slide 15 now, I.V.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand reading
`
`11
`
`the patent that the logic high is capped at Vcc, but there's nothing in
`
`12
`
`the -- there's nothing in the patent that suggests that.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`The claims recite no numerical limits for any of the
`
`14
`
`voltages. If, if they wanted to cap logic high at Vcc, they could have
`
`15
`
`put that in the patent, they could have put that in the claims. They
`
`16
`
`chose not to.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Now, we all know that as, as this technology progresses,
`
`18
`
`voltages change, thresholds change and so it's a clear intent by the
`
`19
`
`inventor not to be tied to any specific voltage. He thought at the time,
`
`20
`
`because he didn't know about Nakai, that he had this broad concept of
`
`21
`
`how to apply programming voltages and now that they're faced with
`
`22
`
`Nakai, they're trying to reel back that scope, but that's not claim
`
`23
`
`construction, that's claim re-writing, that's claim amendment. We
`
`24
`
`don't think that's proper in the context of how they're doing it.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`More importantly, there's no numerical limits even in the
`
`specification. It nowhere describes that Vcc is an absolute limit for
`
`logic high. So not only are they reading in a limitation in to the
`
`claims, they're reading it from outside the patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Their construction also directly contradicts two
`
`disclosure portions of the specification and they're cited on slide 15,
`
`but it talks about the BSL line during erase and the BSL line that says
`
`the voltage is about Vcc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Well one of ordinary skill in the art when they hear about
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Vcc, that means, well, it can be approximately, it can be a little below
`
`11
`
`or a little below -- above. Claim 2 and Claim 5 recite that the BSL
`
`12
`
`during erase is logic high. So the patent actually supports and
`
`13
`
`discloses that logic high can exceed Vcc.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`The same is true for the bit line during the erase
`
`15
`
`operation where it says it can be as low as Vcc. Again, one of ordinary
`
`16
`
`skill reading that would say, oh, that means that it can be above Vcc
`
`17
`
`and, again, Claims 2 and 5 recite that that particular line is logic high.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`So the patent actually --
`
`JUDGE McKONE: I assume you would also oppose a
`
`20
`
`construction if we were to modify our construction to be about Vcc
`
`21
`
`rather than just below Vcc or -- I assume you would still oppose
`
`22
`
`around Vcc or about Vcc for logic high; is that correct?
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: Absolutely, because that, they, they
`
`24
`
`swung for the fences when they drafted these claims. They had the
`
`25
`
`control over how broad these claims would be and it's not our job to
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`try and narrow the claims in order to save the patent. If they wanted
`
`to do that, they could have filed a motion to amend. They didn't.
`
`
`
`
`
`They're trying to argue this is construction and this is not
`
`the broadest reasonable construction. And, you know, if, if we didn't
`
`have Nakai in front of us, why would we limit it to about Vcc, what
`
`would be the reason to do that.
`
`
`
`
`
`The only reason to limit it to Vcc is to save the patent
`
`from invalidity and that's not claim construction, that's claim re-
`
`drafting.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`They could have put in dependent claims that limited it to
`
`11
`
`Vcc, but they didn't do that. And the problem is when we go to have
`
`12
`
`this patent asserted against us, they'll hit us with a nice broad claim on
`
`13
`
`infringement and then when we start showing prior art, they're circling
`
`14
`
`the fences and trying to narrow the claims.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`That's not how it works. Either the claims are valid or
`
`16
`
`they're not valid. We're not here to try and save the patent over the
`
`17
`
`prior art -- well they are, but I'm not.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`So I think that's all for slide 15. Give me just a second
`
`19
`
`here. So in slide 16 another argument they say is, well, limiting it to
`
`20
`
`Vcc is important because that's tied to the nominal power supply and
`
`21
`
`they give all sorts of reasons why it's really important to limit it to
`
`22
`
`Vcc, you don't want it to exceed, you get all these advantages and so
`
`23
`
`forth.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`The problem is that the memory array power supply is
`
`25
`
`not recited in the claims. As a matter of fact, it's not even in the
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`specification. The memory array's power supply -- I'm sorry, the
`
`claims don't include any limitations under the source of these
`
`voltages. It doesn't say you have to get it from the Vcc or the primary
`
`power supply source. You can get these voltages from anywhere,
`
`according to the claim terms. There's no limitations on where these
`
`voltages come.
`
`
`
`
`
`As a matter of fact, Mr. Berg, their expert, testified that
`
`Vcc power supply is typically an off-chip power source. So that
`
`means that the scope of Claim 1 would depend upon an unclaimed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`voltage from an unclaimed power supply that's external to the memory
`
`11
`
`array that's claimed in Claim 1.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`And that kind of feeds in to slide 17. Their claim
`
`13
`
`construction actually renders Claim 1 indefinite. The scope of Claim
`
`14
`
`1 now depends upon an unclaimed variable object, this power supply,
`
`15
`
`this Vcc source. There's no industry standard for the value of Vcc.
`
`16
`
`Vcc typically refers to the power supply, the primary power supply's
`
`17
`
`voltage, wherever that power supply may be. It can be on chip, it can
`
`18
`
`be off chip.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`There's also no industry standard for the power supply,
`
`20
`
`itself, where it is, what it is, what it does.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`So here what you're doing is you're referencing
`
`22
`
`something that's externally applied and that's going to dictate the
`
`23
`
`scope of the claim.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`So let me give you an example. Let's say that someone
`
`25
`
`makes a chip that reads on Claim 1. It has all of the architecture and
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`it's set to apply the voltages as specified in Claim 1. And it's got three
`
`pins and it's got all its power pins on the side and one of them is Vcc,
`
`one of them is logic low, one of them is logic high, one of them is
`
`boosted positive; so all the voltages are coming in.
`
`
`
`
`
`So, if you supply Vcc or lower to the logic high pin, that
`
`would meet the claim and now we have infringement, according to
`
`I.V.
`
`
`
`
`
`But if suddenly I boost that voltage up to Vcc plus a
`
`small number, all of a sudden the chip doesn't infringe? That can't be.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`I have a chip here sitting here on the counter, does it
`
`11
`
`infringe or not? They can't tell me until I hook it up to the power
`
`12
`
`supply and then they'll look at the logic high voltage coming in and
`
`13
`
`then they'll make their determination.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`So the scope of Claim 1 is indeterminable under their
`
`15
`
`construction. It gives no notice to the public what infringes and what
`
`16
`
`does not.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: What about just construction of
`
`18
`
`logic high to be the chip power supply; why is that problematic?
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: The chip power supply is not part of
`
`20
`
`the array, it's not part of the chip.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`So if I have a chip sitting here, the power supply is --
`
`22
`
`could be supplied by another manufacturer.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`So I've got a chip and if I drop it in and the logic high
`
`24
`
`voltage that's supplied to it is above what they consider Vcc, then it
`
`25
`
`doesn't infringe. If it, if it --
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: They --
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: They meaning the person who drops
`
`the chip in to the board that contains the power supply.
`
`
`
`
`
`So you can't -- if you do that, if I've got a chip here, I
`
`don't know if it infringes or not under their construction until I tie it to
`
`a power supply.
`
`
`
`
`
`That's not part of the claim language. It gives you, it's,
`
`it's completely indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Let me ask a follow-up question real
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`quick. So if the claim actually recited Vcc, your position would be
`
`11
`
`that it's still indefinite?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: If claim --
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Let's say Claim 1 recited and said,
`
`14
`
`wherein, logic high is Vcc.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`In theory, that could change, depending on what my
`
`16
`
`inputs to my chip are, so I think under your logic the claim would still
`
`17
`
`be indefinite, right?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: I believe so. I believe so.
`
`If I were drafting the claim, I would have set forth the
`
`20
`
`power supply, I would have defined it. I would have said there's a
`
`21
`
`voltage supplied by it. I would even have defined the fact that the
`
`22
`
`boosted positives may be derivative off of that. I would have set forth
`
`23
`
`where the power supply is to give guidance to those in the industry to
`
`24
`
`say, okay, now I know what you're talking about.
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`And, again, I would also put in the specification, oh, and
`
`by the way, make logic high limited to Vcc because you get all these
`
`advantages. None of that is taught. There's nothing in the
`
`specification --
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: But if it was in the claim, it would
`
`still be indefinite?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: I would say --
`
`JUDGE TURNER: And that's what I'm trying to get --
`
`MR. LIMBACH: -- yeah, yeah.
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Because there are a lot of claims, a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`lot of claims to devices, having examined in this area, I can tell you
`
`12
`
`there are a lot that recite Vcc, so this is sort of, your argument
`
`13
`
`followed to its logical conclusion would be we've got an awful lot of
`
`14
`
`invalid patents out there because they recite Vcc which could be any
`
`15
`
`value, I guess.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Maybe I'm taking your argument to an absurd limit,
`
`17
`
`perhaps.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: I'd have to look at the claims. I, I don't
`
`19
`
`know.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`But if you're going to recite Vcc, you've got to set forth
`
`21
`
`in the claims what that is or in the specification and they didn't even
`
`So, I don't know --
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay.
`
`MR. LIMBACH: -- I guess in the abstract --
`
` 21
`
`22
`
`do that.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00003 & IPR2014-005567
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: So it is your position that because
`
`the claims are not tied to specific numerical values, they're indefinite?
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. LIMBACH: If you're going to tie it to a numerical
`
`value such as Vcc, you have to identify the source of Vcc. Here they
`
`don't, the claims don't identify that.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I don't know if I'm answering your question.
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I, I think you are. I think I, I --
`
`mayb
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
