Paper No. 47
`Date Entered: October 27, 2016
`G.B.T., INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`Case IPR2015-01081
`Patent 5,987,604
` ____________
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
` 37C.F.R. § 42.73

`Patent 5,987,604
`On October, 29, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims
`1–30 of U. S. Patent No. 5,987,604 ("the ’604 Patent"). Paper 18 (“Dec. to
`Inst.”). Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 30, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Petitioner Reply (Paper 39, “Pet. Reply”). Patent
`Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 23, “Mot. To Exclude”), Petitioner
`filed an Opposition (Paper 43, “Opp. To Mot. To Exclude”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Reply (Paper 44 “Reply to Opp. to Mot. to Exclude”). A
`transcript of an oral hearing held on June 29, 2016 (Paper 46, “Hr’g Tr.”)
`has been entered into the record.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a). We base our decision on
`the preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting
`evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance
`of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`The ’604 Patent discloses an x86 based system in which a system
`management interrupt (SMI) invokes an operating mode known as system
`management mode (SMM). Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 10–20. In SMM, system
`firmware is used to perform power management or control other system
`functions, e.g., controlling hardware specific features, in a manner that is
`transparent to the operating system and applications software. Id.
`The ’604 Patent discloses creating a virtual monitor that runs under
`SMM with memory paging to execute SMI code in virtual mode, thereby
`allowing SMM code written to run below the 1 MB boundary to execute

`Patent 5,987,604
`above the 1 MB boundary by mapping the entire SMI handler above the 1
`MB boundary and executing the code as a page enabled, protected mode,
`virtual task with SMM. Id. at col. 2, ll. 27–35. When an SMI is generated,
`the central processing unit (CPU) asserts an SMI activate (SMIACT) control
`signal to access system management random access memory (SMRAM) 20,
`which is a dedicated memory space not accessible to the operating system or
`application software. Id. at col. 3, ll. 21–27, col. 6, ll. 6–10. After storing
`the current operating location for return purposes in SMRAM 20, CPU 14
`jumps to a location in SMRAM 20 to execute the SMI handler code that
`performs the system management activity. Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–31. Upon
`completion of the system management activity, control is returned to the
`previously interrupted operating system. Id. at col 3, ll. 31–37.
`The ’604 Patent notes that conventional SMIs execute slowly because
`they operate below the 1 MB boundary in an uncached memory area, in
`order to avoid cache conflict with overlapping memory. Id. at col. 1, ll. 26–
`31. Such conventional SMMs operate in real mode with 4GB memory
`segments and 1 MB addressable program memory and are relatively slow.
`According to the ’604 Patent, a conventional alternative approach transfers
`SMI code and data from a region above the 1 MB boundary to a cacheable
`region below the 1 MB boundary, allowing standard execution of SMI code
`in real mode, but requiring transfer of the SMI code back to a cacheable area
`above the 1 MB area after completing the SMI. Id. at col. 1, ll. 37–45.
`In accordance with the invention in the ’604 Patent, the data and code
`in SMRAM 20 located in the physical memory is mapped to location 22,
`which is above the 1 MB region in system space 50. Id. at col. 6, ll. 10–14,
`col. 7, ll. 27–30. CPU 14 then jumps to a location in SMRAM 20 that is

`Patent 5,987,604
`above the 1 MB region in the system address space 50 to execute the SMI
`handler code. Id. at col. 6, l. 15–19, col. 7, ll. 32–37. The SMI handler then
`jumps to location 24, which must be within 64 K of location 22, where the
`CPU mode change takes place, configuring CPU 14 to operate in protected
`mode. Id. at col 6, ll. 20–28.
`The SMI handler then creates page tables and is configured to create a
`task state segment (TSS) and input/output (I/O) bit map, unless they were
`created during power on self-test (POST). Id. at col. 6, ll. 31– 39. The SMI
`handler then invokes the paging feature of CPU 14 and switches to virtual
`mode. Id. at col. 6, ll. 53–54.
`In virtual mode, CPU 14 determines logical operations the same way
`as in real mode and the physical address is determined using the page tables.
`Id. at col. 6, l. 66–col. 7, l. 1. The SMI handler begins the task required to
`perform system management activities. Id. at col. 7, ll. 1–3. During
`execution of system management activities, the software occasionally
`configures the processor to operate in protected mode to facilitate execution
`of specific tasks, such as cache flushes and accessing the floating point unit
`of the CPU. Id. at col. 7, ll. 3–6. Upon completion of the special task, the
`SMI handler configures the CPU to operate in virtual mode to resume
`system management activity. Id. at col. 7, ll. 12–14.
`Upon completion of system management activity, the SMI handler
`configures the CPU to exit the virtual mode, causing the CPU to operate in
`the protected mode. Id. at col. 7, ll. 14–19. Paging is then disabled and the
`SMI handler executes a resume instruction to return control to the previously
`interrupted operating system or application execution. Id. at col 7, ll. 18–22.

`Claims 1, 11 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is drawn to an
`apparatus, claim 11 is drawn to a method, and claim 21 is drawn to a
`computer-executable process. Claim 1 is representative:
`1. An apparatus for executing instructions in a system
`management mode in a processor-based system, comprising:
`a memory for storing instruction sequences by which the
`processor-based system is processed;
`a processor having a system address space, the processor for
`executing the stored instruction sequences; and
`wherein the stored instruction sequences cause the processor to:
`(a) configure the processor to operate in a protected mode
`while in system management mode, the processor operating
`at an address greater than one megabyte; (b) invoke a paging
`feature of the processor; (c) configure the processor to operate
`in a virtual mode; and (d) process the instruction sequences
`stored, wherein the process steps occur upon the receipt of an
`instruction to process a system management request.
`Independent claims 11 and 21 recite as limitations parts (a)–(d) of the
`wherein clause of claim 1.
`Petitioner cited the following references in its challenges to patentability:
`Exhibit No.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,644,755,
`iss. July 1, 1997.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,093,213,
`iss. July 25, 2000.
`Patent 5,987,604
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003

`Patent 5,987,604
`Advanced Micro Devices,
`Preliminary Enhanced
`AM686® Microprocessor
`Family Publication #19225
`Rev. B Amendment/0 (1995).
`3 Intel, Pentium® Processor
`Family Developer’s Manual
`Robert W. Collins, The
`Caveats of Pentium System
`management Mode (May 1,
`(last visited 8/11/2014).
`IBM, IBM 6x86
`Microprocessor Sixth
`Generation Superscalar
`Superpipelined x86-
`Compatible CPU (1996).
`3 Intel, Intel Architecture
`Software Developer’s
`Manual (1997).
`Am686 Manual
`Ex. 1004
`Pentium Manual
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`IBM 6x86
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`In our Decisions to Institute, we instituted trial on the following
`Claims 1–4, 11–14, and 21–24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`the combination of Collins and the Pentium Manual;
`Claims 1–4, 11–14, and 21–24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`the combination of Collins, the Pentium manual and IBM 6x86; and
`Claims 5–10, 15–20, and 25–30 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over the combination of Collins, the Pentium Manual and ASDM.

`Patent 5,987,604
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent” in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2141–46
`(2016). The terms also are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Our Decision to Institute applies the following claim
`constructions, which the parties do not dispute, and we apply these same
`constructions in this Decision.
`Protected Mode: ordinary meaning as discussed in the Dictionary of
`Computer Terms1 cited by Patent Owner; i.e., “[A] mode of processor
`operation in which an 80286 or later generation x86 microprocessor can
`access the largest possible amount of memory.” Dec. to Inst. 9–10.
`System Management Mode (SMM): an operating mode that is entered
`in response to a dedicated SMI and that uses a dedicated memory space to
`implement power management and enhanced system functions in firmware
`in a manner that is transparent to the operating system and applications
`software. Id. at 10–11.
`1 Douglas Downing & Michael Covington, BARRON’S BUSINESS GUIDES,
`DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS (3d. ed. 1992) (“Dictionary”).

`Patent 5,987,604
`Virtual Mode: a task running in protected mode in which the
`processor emulates an 8086 processor, such that the execution environment
`is the same as that of a real-address mode.2 Id. at 11–12.
`Paging: [A] memory management process for mapping logical
`addresses to physical addresses. Id. at 12–13.
`Collins (Ex. 1006)
`Collins is cited in each of the grounds on which we instituted trial.
`Therefore, we first address Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Collins.
`Petitioner identifies Collins as an article published in Dr. Dobb’s
`Journal on May 1, 1997. Pet. 22, 26. The version of Collins filed with the
`Petition as Ex. 1006 is a reproduction of Collins downloaded on August 14,
`2014 from a website identified as http://www/
`pentium-system-management/184410199 (“dr.dobbs URL”). Ex. 1006, 1.
`The reproduction states “The Caveats of Pentium System Management
`Mode By Robert R. Collins, May 1, 1997.” Id. at 1. The article also
`includes the following copyright notice: “Copyright © 1997, Dr. Dobbs
`Journal.” Id. at 6.
`Patent Owner challenges the admissibility of Ex. 1006, arguing that
`the version of Collins proffered by Petitioner is not an accurate or genuine
`2 According to ASDM in the real-address mode execution environment, the
`processor supports a 1 M-byte physical address space divided into segments,
`each of which can be up to 64 Kbytes in length, and the base of the segment
`is specified with a 16 bit segment selector, which is zero extended to form a
`20 bit offset from address 0 in the address space, and in which a physical
`address is formed by adding the offset to the 20 bit segment base. Ex. 1013
`§ 15.1, pp. 435–436.

`Patent 5,987,604
`duplicate of that reference as originally published. Mot. To Exclude 2.
`According to Patent Owner, accessing the Wayback Machine archives of
`Internet webpages showed that the dr.dobbs URL was under construction as
`of November 17, 2000 and that the version proffered by Petitioner could not
`have existed in 1997. Id. (citing, Ex. 2004, Declaration of Christopher
`Frerking, (“Frerking Decl.”) ¶3).
`Patent Owner conflates the existence of the dr.dobbs URL with the
`authenticity of the Collins article. The existence of the URL in 1997 is not
`the issue before us. Petitioner does not claim to have downloaded Collins
`from a 1997 URL. Exhibit 1006 clearly shows that the copy of Collins was
`downloaded on August 11, 2014 from the dr.dobbs URL. The issue before
`us is whether the copy of the article proffered in Ex. 1006 is a duplicate, i.e.,
`a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic,
`or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the
`original. Fed. R. Evid. 1001(c) (emphasis added). As Patent Owner notes
`“[a] duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a
`genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the
`circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.” Mot. To Exclude. 2–3
`(citing Fed. Rule of Evid. 1003).
`Following our Decision to Institute, Petitioner responded to Patent
`Owner’s evidentiary objection to Collins by serving on Patent Owner
`supplemental evidence, i.e., the Declaration of Robert Collins (“Collins
`Decl.”), a copy of Collins as it appeared in the May 1997 Dr. Dobbs Journal,
`and a copy of the cover page of the May 1997 Dr. Dobbs Journal publication
`obtained from the Georgia Tech Library. Mot. To Exclude 3. Patent Owner

`Patent 5,987,604
`declined to withdraw its objection and, as part of this Motion to Exclude,
`filed Petitioner’s supplemental evidence as Ex. 2007.
`Noting that the cover page indicates the Georgia Tech Library
`received the May 1997 Dr. Dobbs Journal on April 7, 1997, Patent Owner
`suggests that Petitioner seeks to move the date of the reference back to April
`1997. Mot to Exclude 4. Indeed, in its opposition to the Patent Owner
`Response, Petitioner argues that Collins was circulated to libraries as early
`as April 7, 1997 and cites the testimony of Robert Collins that his article was
`in circulation about a month before the May 1, 1997 publication date. Pet.
`Reply 20 (citing Collins Decl., Ex. 2007 ¶ 1; Ex. A). Patent Owner contends
`that Petitioner provided the hard copy of Collins and the Collins Declaration
`as supplemental evidence to overcome an objection, but because Petitioner
`did not file the supplemental evidence in this proceeding, Petitioner may not
`rely upon it for the substantive purpose of arguing an earlier date of
`publication. Mot. To Exclude 4.
`We need not reach the issue of whether Petitioner can rely on the
`Exhibit 2007 filed by Patent Owner because Petitioner has not provided any
`evidence that Collins was accessible to the public prior to its publication
`date of May 1, 1997. For example, Petitioner has not demonstrated how
`Collins would have been catalogued in any library or made accessible to the
`public. Thus, the only date we ascribe to Collins is May 1, 1997.
`Patent Owner also notes that the cover page in 1997 refers to a URL
`( that is different URL associated with Exhibit 1006. Mot. To
`Exclude 3–4. However, as discussed above, the existence of any particular
`web page is not the issue before us.

`Patent 5,987,604
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the publication in which Collins
`originally appeared, Dr. Dobb’s Journal, was, in May 1997, published in
`hard copy form. Mot. To Exclude 2. However, Patent Owner argues that
`the version of Collins provided by Petitioner as Ex. 1006 is not a duplicate
`of the article appearing originally in hard copy form. Mot. To Exclude. 2.
`Although the web site on which Collins appears in Ex. 1006 is not a
`copy of the article in its original form, we direct our inquiry to the contents
`of the article. “When the only concern is with getting the words or other
`contents before the court with accuracy and precision, a counterpart serves
`equally well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method
`which insures accuracy and genuineness.” Fed. R. Evid. 1003, Advisory
`Committee Notes. Patent Owner acknowledges that there is no difference
`between the contents of Collins in Ex. 1006 and the contents of the hard
`copy of Collins, as published in the May 1997 Dr. Dobbs Journal. Hr’gTr.
`53. Therefore, we conclude that Ex. 1006 is an admissible duplicate of the
`original Collins article and we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Ex.
`Polyudov Declaration (Ex. 1014)
`Patent Owner has also objected to and moved to exclude the
`declaration testimony of Petitioner’s expert Feliks Polyudov, (Ex. 1014
`(“Polyudov Decl.”)) on the ground that he has been employed by Petitioner
`AMI for 15 years and is therefore biased. Mot. To Exclude 6–7. Mr.
`Polyudov acknowledges his past and current employment by AMI and states
`that he is not being compensated specially for his work in this proceeding
`and that his compensation is not dependent upon the results of this
`proceeding. Polyudov Decl. ¶ 5. Patent Owner does not challenge Mr.

`Patent 5,987,604
`Ployudov’s qualifications or offer any evidence that Mr. Polyudov is biased,
`other than his employment at AMI. Nor does Patent Owner present any
`evidentiary basis for excluding Mr. Polyudov’s testimony.
`Although Mr. Polyudov’s employment background may affect the
`weight we assign his testimony, his status as an employee of AMI alone
`does not disqualify him. In consideration of the above, Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1014 is denied.
`We begin with Patent Owner’s contention that Collins, published in
`May 1997, is not prior art because the inventor of the ’604 Patent, David
`Edrich, asserts prior invention, declaring that “the invention had been
`disclosed to Intel engineers around April 1, 1997, meaning that the invention
`had been conceived of by no later than that date.” PO Resp. 14–15; Ex.
`2002, Declaration of David Edrich (“Edrich Decl.”) ¶ 9. As evidence of this
`earlier conception, Patent Owner relies on a Phoenix Technologies Invention
`Disclosure Form that states:
`The invention idea has been disclosed to Intel Engineers,
`informally, as a possible solution since around April 1, 1997. On
`July 1, 1997 Phoenix Engineers will be doing pre-alpha testing
`of the 440BX chipset. Part of this testing is to include SMI
`execution above 1 Megabyte so this invention is scheduled to be
`tested then but that is not the primary concern of the July effort.
`Ex. 2003 ¶ 8. The invention disclosure, which identifies Mr. Edrich as the
`sole inventor, states that it was prepared on June 18, 1997, but does not
`indicate who prepared it, and is not signed.
`Petitioner contends that Mr. Edrich’s testimony is entitled to no
`weight because his assertions about discussions with Intel engineers are
`hearsay, he is a paid consultant to Patent Owner, the disclosure is unsigned

`Patent 5,987,604
`and uncorroborated, and because among several alleged inventive concepts
`asserted in the disclosure, it is not possible to determine if the invention
`referenced in Mr. Edrich’s declaration is the same invention as that claimed
`in the ’604 Patent. Pet. Reply 15–17.
`“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows
`that the inventor disclosed to others his ‘completed thought expressed in
`such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art’ to make the invention.”
`Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The requirement of
`“independent” corroboration requires evidence other than the inventor’s
`testimony. In re NTP, Inc. 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Patent
`Owner offers no corroborating evidence to support Mr. Edrich’s testimony.
`There is no contemporaneous evidence supporting the statements in Mr.
`Edrich’s declaration and there is no testimony corroborating Mr. Edrich’s
`declaration. For example, the Intel engineers are not identified and there is
`no written record of what Mr. Edrich disclosed to these Intel engineers.
`Indeed, prior to the invention form dated June 18, 1997, there is no written
`record of what Mr. Edrich alleges he invented. Although the invention
`disclosure states that testing was to be conducted, Patent Owner provides no
`evidence that such testing was conducted or that any testing proved the
`concept, as purportedly conceived in April 1997.
`In view of the absence of any corroboration of prior invention by Mr.
`Edrich, we conclude Collins is prior art.

`Patent 5,987,604
`We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966). The test for obviousness is whether the combination of
`references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentees’ invention
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
`F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). Whether a patent claiming the combination
`of prior art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the
`improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
`to their established functions. Id. at 417. To reach this conclusion, however,
`requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate
`references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of
`ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined
`those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to
`yield the claimed invention. Id. As the Supreme Court recognized, in many
`cases a person of ordinary skill “will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” recognizing that a person of

`Patent 5,987,604
`ordinary skill “is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
`KSR at 420–21. Against this general background, we consider the
`references, other evidence, and arguments of the parties.
`Claims 1–4, 11–14, and 21–24 As Obvious Over Collins and Pentium
`Petitioner contends that Collins discloses a protected mode and a
`virtual mode while in a separate x86 state known as SMM, if the device is
`programmed to perform SMM (which Collin states, it most likely is not).
`Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1006, 4). The paragraph from Collins cited by Petitioner
`is entitled “Using Protected Mode Within SMM” and discloses the
`capability of operating in protected mode, if the SMM was programmed to
`do it. Ex. 1006, 4. Petitioner notes that the processor can execute directly in
`real address mode 8086 software in a multitasking environment, i.e., a
`virtual-8086 (“v86”) mode. Pet. 26. Petitioner also cites the disclosure in
`Collins concerning using SMM to create a CPL-0 v86 task, which Petitioner
`argues shows enabling virtual mode while employing SMM in protected
`mode. Id.
`Petitioner cites the Pentium Manual as disclosing a processor
`architecture including paging with a real mode, a protected mode, and an
`SMM mode, id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005, 40), and memory management
`features, such as paging, id. at 27 (citing Polyudov Decl. ¶ 141). Petitioner
`further argues that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that
`protected mode permits instructions located between 1 MB and 4 GB of
`memory to accessed by the processor and that protected mode features the
`ability to execute directly real-address mode 8086 software in a protected,
`multi-taking environment. Id.

`Patent 5,987,604
`In its claim charts Petitioner cites the Pentium Manual as disclosing
`the elements of claim 1, including, SMM (Pet. 28), SMRAM (id), relocating
`RAM to an address above 1 MB (id. at 29), invoking a paging feature (id.),
`configuring the processor to operate in a virtual mode (id. at 29–30),
`processing the instructions stored (id.) wherein the processing steps occur
`upon receipt of a system management request (id.). Petitioner cites Collins
`as disclosing operating in a protected mode while in SMM (id. at 29),
`invoking a paging feature of the processor (id.) and configuring the
`processor to operate in a virtual mode (id. at 30). Petitioner has also
`provided claim charts that support its challenges to claims 2–4, 11–14, and
`21–24 on this ground.
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in in the art would
`have been motivated to combine Collins and the Pentium Manual because
`they describe features of the Pentium processor having SMM, protected and
`virtual modes. Id. at 27.
`Patent Owner contends that the ’604 Patent overcomes problems in
`the prior art by teaching that “SMRAM should be mapped to occupy an area
`of memory having unique addressable locations above 1 Mbyte.” PO Resp.
`4 (citing Ex 2010, Expert Report of Dr. John Levy from C.D. Cal. Case No.
`CV14-03009-JVS(PJWx) (“Levy Report.”) ¶ 7).3 Patent Owner states that
`3 Paragraph 7 of the Levy Declaration does not address this issue; it
`identifies a course Dr. Levy taught at San Francisco State University. The
`Levy Report submitted as Exhibit 2010 in this proceeding appears to be
`taken from co-pending district court litigation. The Levy Report appears to
`address the ’604 Patent at Paragraphs 31–49. It is not clear what paragraph
`of the Levy Report (or any other Exhibit) supports this statement in the
`Patent Owner Response. We also note that in paragraph 40, apparently
`referring to issues in the district court, the Levy Report states that the only

`Patent 5,987,604
`“[t]he ’604 Patent discloses creating a virtual monitor that runs under SMM
`with memory paging to execute SMI code in virtual mode, thereby allowing
`SMM code written to run below the 1 Megabyte boundary to execute above
`the 1 Megabyte boundary.” Hr’g Tr. 23:15–19; Levy Report ¶ 38 (citing Ex.
`1001, col. 2, ll. 27–32). According to Patent Owner, the programmatic
`addressing solution described in the ’604 Patent is different from override
`addressing solutions supported by all of the cited prior art, because the ’604
`Patent offers the only addressing solution for operating SMM with
`instructions above 1 Megabyte. PO Resp. 5.
`Patent Owner argues that the Pentium Manual teaches an involved,
`instruction intensive procedure for using SMM mode addressing with special
`overrides per instruction, i.e., override prefixes, to operate with SMRAM
`code above 1 Mbyte so that SMM addressing can reach up to 4 Gbytes of
`address space. PO Resp. 8–9. According to Patent Owner, “the ’604 Patent
`claims do not describe using SMM mode addressing to operate at an address
`above 1 Mbyte, as disclosed in the Pentium Manual. Ex. 2010 ¶15. 4
`claim at issue is claim 11. This proceeding concerns claims 1–30. Thus, it
`is unclear if Patent Owner meant to reference a different document.
`However, we will not scour the record to determine Patent Owner’s
`4 The Levy Report in Ex. 2010 does not address this issue at paragraph 15.
`Paragraph 15 states that Dr. Levy applies the plain and ordinary meaning to
`terms not construed by the court. It is unclear if Patent Owner’s reference to
`the Pentium Manual as Ex. 2010 is intended to refer to Ex. 1005, as
`designated at page 6 in our Decision to Institute or Ex. 1013, which is
`another Pentium manual. In Exhibit 1005, Chapter 15, which is 9 pages
`long and has a number of subsections, concerns Input-Output and § 15.3 is
`titled “Protected Mode I/O.” In Exhibit 1013, Chapter 15, which is 28 pages
`long and includes numerous subsections, is titled “8086 Emulation” and
`includes a discussion of real address mode and virtual address mode.

`Patent 5,987,604
`Instead, such claims teach a programmatic approach that minimizes
`instructions, instead of relying on what is disclosed in Collins and the
`Pentium Manual.” PO Resp. 9.
`Petitioner argues that recognizing SMM involved executing 16 bit
`code in a 32 bit code execution environment, the ’604 Patent merely utilizes
`virtual 8086 mode for its intended purpose (i.e., to execute 16 bit code in a
`protected mode environment that supports multitasking), instead of utilizing
`real mode to run SMM-related code. Pet. Reply 1. According to Petitioner,
`it is undisputed that a programmatic solution to multitasking (protected
`mode, paging, and virtual mode) is taught in the Intel Pentium Manual. Pet.
`Reply 2–3. Petitioner cites the Pentium Manual as disclosing paging in
`protected mode, transitioning to virtual 8086 mode in protected mode and
`the usefulness of paging for virtual 8086 multitasking in protected mode. Id.
`Petitioner also notes that the salient characteristics of SMM, as embodied in
`the challenged claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, and 24 are taught explicitly by the
`Pentium Manual. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 at 41, 493–502). Petitioner further
`argues that functionality inherent in protected mode coexisting with
`operation in SMM was known in the prior art relating to the x86 processor.
`Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1006, 4; Ex. 1012, § 2.9.5).
`Patent Owner identifies prior art cache coherency problems resulting
`from overlaid SRAM implementations in which the processor cannot
`differentiate between system memory and its internal cache, so that cache
`may contain cached instructions at normal addresses that are at the same
`address of the SMM instructions. PO Resp. 2. Patent Owner reviews
`However, as noted above, we will not scour the record to determine Patent
`Owner’s intentions

`Patent 5,987,604
`problems with prior art solutions (turning off the cache and treating
`SMRAM as non-cacheable negates the value of having processor cache;
`flushing the cache to make it useable may not be possible with all legacy
`chipsets; relocating SMRAM space in a non-overlaid environment
`introduces jump restrictions). Id. at 3–4. According to Patent Owner, the
`’604 Patent overcomes these problems by mapping SMRAM to occupy an
`area of memory having unique addressable locations above 1 Mbyte. Id. at
`Claim 1 recites “the processor operating at an address above 1
`Mbyte.” The specification of the ’604 Patent discloses that SMM is invoked
`via assertion of the SMI signal to the CPU, which asserts the SMIACT
`control signal, which accesses SMRAM 20. Ex. 1006, col. 6, ll. 6–10. The
`specification further states: “In accordance with the principles of the present
`invention, the data and code of SMRAM 20 located in physical memory is
`first mapped into a location that is above 1 Megabyte in the system address
`space, as shown in Fig. 5.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 10–14. However, as Petitioner
`notes, independent claims 1, 11, and 21 of the ’604 Patent do not mention
`SMRAM and do not recite relocating SMRAM or mapping SMRAM above
`1 Mbyte. Pet. Reply. 7–8. In general, “even if all of the embodiments
`discussed in the patent included a specific limitation, it would not be proper
`to import from the patent’s written description limitations that are not found
`in the claims themselves.” Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket