throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 48
`
`
`
` Entered: November 4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC., MICRO-
`STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD, MSI COMPUTER CORP.,
`GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and G.B.T., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KINGLITE HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`37 C.F.R. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On November 6, 2015, we instituted inter partes review of claims 1,
`9–11, 19–21, 29–31, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,202 B1 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’202 patent”). Paper 16 (“Dec.”). Patent Owner, Kinglite Holdings
`Inc., filed a Patent Owner Response, Paper 28 (“PO Resp.”), to the
`Corrected Petition (Paper 9, “Pet.”) filed by American Megatrends, Inc.,
`Micro-Star International Co., Ltd, MSI Computer Corp., Giga-Byte
`Technology Co., Ltd., and G.B.T., Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”). Petitioner
`filed a Reply. Paper 36 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Contingent
`Motion to Amend (Paper 29, “Mot. to Amend”), and Petitioner filed an
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 35, “Pet. Opp.
`Amend”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 24 (“PO Mot. to
`Exclude”). Petitioner also filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 39 (“Pet. Mot.
`To Exclude”). A transcript of an oral hearing held on August 1, 2016 (Paper
`47, “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 full record, we conclude that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims
`are unpatentable for the reasons set forth below. For the reasons discussed
`below, we also deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and both Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude and Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ’202 patent has been asserted in Kinglite
`Holdings Inc. v. Giga-Byte Techn. Co. Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-04989 (C.D.
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`Cal.); Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star International Co. Ltd., Case No.
`1:14-cv-03009 (C.D. Cal.); Kinglite Holdings, Inc. v. EliteGroup Comput.
`Sys. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00912 (N.D. Cal.); Kinglite Holdings,
`Inc. v. Giga-Byte Tech. Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:15-cv-009615 (C.D. Cal.); and
`Kinglite Holdings, Inc. v. Micro-Star Int’l. Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:15-cv-
`009612 (C.D. Cal.). Paper 32, 2; Paper 11, 1.
`
`B. The ʼ202 Patent
`The ’202 patent discloses “a method and apparatus to perform
`multitasking in a basic input and output system (BIOS).” Ex. 1001,
`Abstract. “Interrupt signals are enabled at predetermined interrupt times”
`such that “[a] first task is performed in response to the interrupt signals at
`the interrupt times” and “[a] second task is performed between the
`successive interrupt times.” Id. Figure 5, provided below, “illustrat[es] an
`architecture to perform multitasking in a [BIOS].” Id. at 2:22–23.
`
`
`Figure 5 shows architecture 500 to perform multitasking in a BIOS,
`interrupt generator 530, first task interrupt service routine (ISR) 540, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`first task data 550. Id. at 11:10–27. “BIOS includes an initial code 510, and
`interrupt configuration 512, a normal second task 514, an interrupt disable
`code 516, and an operating system (OS) boot-up code 518.” Id. at 11:17–20.
`The Specification states further that
`[t]he ISR 540 is executed each time the interrupt generator 530
`generates an interrupt signal such as when the timer reaches a
`specified value. When the ISR 540 is complete, the program
`control is returned to the normal second task 514 which will
`continue to perform the normal second task in the BIOS. The
`ISR 540 may use data provided by the first task data 550. The
`ISR 540 may operate upon the graphics engine in performing the
`first task. For example, the first task may be a graphics animation
`that display[s] animated
`sequence of banners and/or
`advertisements.
`Id. at 12:2–12.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 are reproduced below (Ex. 1001,
`14:33–42, 15:1–12, 15:45–57, 16:23–34):
`1. A method to perform multitasking in a basic input
`and output system (BIOS) by a processor, the method
`comprising:
`enabling interrupt signals at predetermined interrupt
`times;
`performing a first task in response to the interrupt
`signals at the interrupt times; and
`performing a second task between the successive
`interrupt times.
`
`11. A computer program product comprising:
`a computer usable medium having computer
`program code embodied therein to perform multitasking in
`a basic input and output system (BIOS) by a processor, the
`computer program product having:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`computer readable program code for enabling
`interrupt signals at predetermined interrupt times;
`computer readable program code for performing a
`first task in response to the interrupt signals at the interrupt
`times; and
`computer readable program code for performing a
`second task between the successive interrupt times.
`
`21. A computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave
`comprising:
`to perform
`segment
`code
`a multitasking
`multitasking in a basic input and output system (BIOS) by
`a processor, the multitasking code segment having:
`an interrupt enable code segment for enabling
`interrupt signals at predetermined interrupt times;
`a first task code segment for performing a first task
`in response to the interrupt signals at the interrupt times;
`and
`
`a second task code segment for performing a second
`task between the successive interrupt times.
`
`31. A system comprising;
`a processor; and
`a memory coupled to the processor, the memory
`containing a program code, the program code when
`executed by the processor causing the processor to:
`enable interrupt signals at predetermined interrupt
`times,
`perform a first task in response to the interrupt
`signals at the interrupt times, and
`perform a second task between the successive
`interrupt times.
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted
`We instituted inter partes review on following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 18–19):
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`Claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, 29–31, 39, and 40 of the ’202 patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by AMIBIOS1; and
`Claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, 29–31, 39, and 40 of the ’202 patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Pearce2.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In the Decision to Institute, we applied the following claim
`constructions.
`We determined that “task” does not require further construction, but
`as recited in the ’202 patent claims does not exclude “the functions of setting
`up a programmable timer and determining which task to run.” Dec. 7.
`We determined that “interrupt controller” is construed as “a circuit or
`other device that generates or handles interrupts.” Id. at 8.
`The parties do not dispute these constructions, and we adopt them in
`this Decision for the reasons given in the Decision to Institute. Id. at 7–8.
`
`B. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`“a person holding a Bachelor of Science degree or its equivalent in electrical
`engineering or a related technical field such as computer science or software
`engineering, having at least one year of experience in computer
`programming.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s
`
`
`1 American Megatrends, AMIBIOS 98 TECHNICAL REFERENCE (1998) (Ex.
`1003, “AMIBIOS”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,694,582 to Pearce, filed Jan. 26, 1996, and issued Dec. 2,
`1997 (Ex. 1005, “Pearce”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`contention. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. We agree with Petitioner regarding the
`applicable level of ordinary skill.
`
`C. Anticipation by AMIBIOS (Ex. 1003)
`1. AMIBIOS (Ex. 1003)
`AMIBIOS is a technical manual that describes the technical details of
`“BIOS (Basic Input/Output System)[, which] is a collection of routines
`between the hardware and the systems software. The BIOS ROM contains
`hard disk utilities, device drivers, interrupt service routines, and other code
`and data between the system hardware and the systems software.” Ex. 1003,
`7. AMIBIOS states that “BIOS is the software layer between the systems
`software and the hardware” and “works in two directions.” Id. at 8. “One
`part of the BIOS receives and processes requests from programs to perform
`the standard BIOS I/O services” where the “mechanism for these requests is
`called an interrupt.” Id. “Interrupts are invoked by software programs.” Id.
`“The other side of the BIOS communicates with the hardware (video
`display, disk drives, keyboard, serial and parallel ports, and so on) in the
`language and codes used by each device. This side of the BIOS also handles
`any hardware device-generated interrupts.” Id.
`The AMIBIOS “Type of Interrupts” Figure is reproduced below. Id.
`at 89.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`
`The Type of Interrupts Figure above depicts various interrupts that are
`reserved in BIOS. Id.
`The Types of Interrupts Figure shows various hardware interrupts,
`such as a keyboard interrupt (IRQ1). Id. AMIBIOS discloses that “every
`time a key is pressed on the keyboard, the keyboard hardware generates a
`hardware interrupt (IRQ)” that are “vectored to Interrupt Service Routines
`(ISRs) that generally reside in the BIOS.” Id. The Types of Interrupts
`Figure also shows System Timer IRQ0 as an interrupt. The “Timer Interrupt
`(IRQ0)” Figure is depicted below. Id. at 102.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`
`The Timer Interrupt (IRQ0) Figure depicts how the system timer is
`used with the BIOS. Id.
`The Time Interrupt (IRQ0) Figure illustrates how the Intel 8254 Timer
`is used with the BIOS and INT 08h. Id. “INT 08h can be used to measure
`time increments independent of the system clock frequency. INT 08h is
`called approximately 18.2 times per second.” Id. “INT 08h increments the
`system time count . . . every time it is called.” Id. In addition, AMIBIOS
`states that “[p]rogrammers can revector INT 1Ch to their own routines and
`use the clock feature for timed events.” Id.
`2. Printed Publication and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Patent Owner objected to AMIBIOS on evidentiary grounds (Paper
`21), but now seeks exclude AMIBIOS because it does not qualify as a
`printed publication and cannot form the basis of a challenge to the
`patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (PO Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`2).3 Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to
`support the date of publication and public accessibility of the reference. PO
`Mot. to Exclude 2–4. Furthermore, Patent Owner states that the Petitioner’s
`supplemental exhibits and Declaration of S. Shankar (Ex. 1015) should be
`excluded as improper supplemental information based on the timing of the
`submission. Id. at 7–8. In addition, Patent Owner contends that the
`proprietary information marking that limited further distribution of
`AMIBIOS is “mutually exclusive with the AMI reference as prior art” and
`cannot be relied on as a “body of knowledge held by the hypothetical person
`of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 2–3 (citing Motionless Keyboard Co. v.
`Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, Patent
`Owner contends that there is no evidence in the record supporting a
`publication date and public accessibility of AMIBIOS prior to June 18,
`1998, the application date of the ’202 patent. PO Mot. to Exclude 4–5. At
`best, Patent Owner avers, “[t]he earliest shipment [of AMIBIOS] to an AMI
`‘customer’ reflected on Exhibit B to Mr. Shankar’s declaration (Ex. 1015)
`was August 26, 1998.” PO Mot. to Exclude 3.
`
`
`3 Although Patent Owner objected to AMIBIOS on the basis of its
`authenticity (Paper 21, 4–5), the substance of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude addresses whether AMIBIOS is a printed publication. Patent
`Owner improperly attempts to raise new arguments regarding this issue in
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 24) that should have been
`included in the Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 2 (stating that “[f]or the
`reasons set forth in Kinglite’s motion to exclude, there are evidentiary issues
`surrounding the AMIBIOS reference as a prior art publication”).
`Nonetheless, as explained herein, even if we consider Patent Owner’s
`improperly raised arguments, we conclude that AMIBIOS qualifies as a
`prior art printed publication and is admissible evidence.
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`For AMIBIOS to qualify as a printed publication, the document “must
`have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re
`Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A given reference is
`‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has
`been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons
`interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising
`reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground
`Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see Kyocera Wireless
`Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating
`that a reference is publicly accessible “upon a satisfactory showing that such
`document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”)
`Petitioner did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude, but addresses this issue in its Reply to the Patent Owner Response,
`where the issue also is raised. PO Resp. 2–3; Pet. Reply 18–23. Petitioner
`responds, and we agree, that the evidence cited in Exhibit 1015 supports that
`AMIBIOS was publically accessible at least as early as June 1998. Id. at 20.
`Petitioner’s declarant, Subramonian Shankar, provides credible and
`convincing evidence establishing that 300 copies of AMIBIOS were printed
`for distribution, that AMIBIOS was made available to customers and the
`interested public, and that it was distributed on June 5, 9, and 15 of 1998.
`Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 4, 12. Patent Owner’s arguments based on the sale of the
`AMIBIOS on August 25, 1998 do not undermine the testimony and evidence
`that AMIBIOS was checked out of AMI’s stockroom and distributed to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`customers. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 7, 12, (stating that AMIBIOS was checked out of
`the stockroom as part of the shipping process). Thus, contrary to Patent
`Owner’s contentions (PO Mot. to Exclude 3), we are persuaded that
`Petitioner’s evidence supports the contention that AMIBIOS was publicly
`accessible and distributed in June 1998.
`Also, Patent Owner’s arguments focus on actual dissemination of
`AMIBIOS and fail to address Petitioner’s evidence that AMIBIOS was
`made available to the public to the extent that persons interested and
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter could locate it. See SRI Int’l, 511
`F.3d at 1194; Kyocera Wireless, 545 F.3d at 1350. We determine that
`Petitioner’s declarant and supporting evidence provides convincing support
`by a preponderance of the evidence that AMIBIOS was made available to
`the interested public as of at least June 1998.
`We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument based on the
`testimony of Mr. Sartori that the proprietary markings on AMIBIOS indicate
`it was subject to nondisclosure agreements. PO Resp. 2–3 4; see Ex. 2006,
`26:16–27:7 (Deposition of Gabriele Sartori). We determine that Mr.
`Sartori’s testimony that “normally we receive those documents [with a
`proprietary information notice] on the NDA [non-disclosure agreement]” is
`insufficient to support a finding that AMIBIOS was not publically
`accessible. Mr. Sartori also testified that such documents were normally
`disclosed to the public, stating “it’s not a guarantee that inside the document
`[is] information that you cannot disclose to third parties . . . it’s also true that
`
`
`4 This argument was raised in the Patent Owner Response and not in the
`Motion to Exclude. PO Resp. 2–3. We address Patent Owner’s arguments
`here as they relate to the printed publication status of AMIBIOS.
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`we’ll produce those document[s] normally.” Ex. 2006, 26:23–27–4.
`Instead, we credit the testimony of Mr. Shankar, president and founder of
`AMI, that AMI did not restrict the availability of AMIBIOS and that it was
`accessible without such an agreement. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 1, 3, 4.
`We are equally unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
`timing of Petitioner’s submission of supplemental information and its effect
`on the publication date of AMIBIOS warrants the remedy of exclusion
`Patent Owner seeks. PO Mot. to Exclude 7. With respect to timing, we note
`that Patent Owner’s motion fails to provide any citations establishing the
`allegedly untimely service of Petitioner’s evidence in response to Patent
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (Paper
`21). PO Mot. to Exclude 2, 7–8. As such, Patent Owner has not shown that
`Petitioner’s evidence served in response to Patent Owner’s objection is
`untimely. See id. Petitioner served the Shankar Declaration (Ex. 1015) in
`response to Patent Owner’s objections (Paper 21). Patent Owner
`subsequently noticed the deposition of Mr. Shankar (Paper 38), deposed him
`(Ex. 2010), and submitted a Motion for Observations on Cross Examination
`of Mr. Shankar (Paper 41). Patent Owner also acknowledges that the
`supplemental evidence served by Petitioner was in response to Patent
`Owner’s objection regarding the admissibility of AMIBIOS. PO Mot. to
`Exclude 2, 7–8. We find that Petitioner has offered insufficient basis for us
`to exclude Petitioner’s evidence based on its timing or substance.
`For the above reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude
`AMIBIOS and Mr. Shankar’s Declaration (Exhibit 1015). We also
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`AMIBIOS is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`3. Analysis of Prior Art Challenge based on AMIBIOS
`Petitioner contends that AMIBIOS anticipates claims 1, 9–11, 19–21,
`29–31, 39, and 40. Pet. 13–18. Petitioner provides citations to the
`Declaration of Gabriele Sartori5 (Ex. 1010) to support its contention that
`AMIBIOS discloses the limitations of the challenged claims. Id. at 16–24
`(citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 45, 91, 93–94, 96, 98, 102, 105, 107, 113, 161, 164).
`Petitioner also provides claim charts showing the limitations of claims 1, 9,
`10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 39, and 40, and the corresponding disclosures
`of AMIBIOS. Pet. 18–23.
`Petitioner contends that AMIBIOS discloses “enabling interrupt
`signals at predetermined interrupt times,” as recited in claim 1, via the INT
`08h interrupt. Pet. 14–15. Similar limitations are found in independent
`claims 11, 21, and 31. Petitioner argues persuasively that the system
`disclosed in AMIBIOS enables the interrupts, performs a task during the
`interrupt, and returns to normal BIOS operations for the second task
`involving the CPU. Pet. 14–18.
`Petitioner provides sufficient support for its contention that AMIBIOS
`discloses “performing a first task in response to the interrupt signals at the
`
`
`5 We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we should ignore
`information in the Declaration of Dr. Sartori not discussed by Petitioner
`because they are improper incorporation by reference in violation of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). PO Resp. 3–4. First, we note that Patent Owner has
`not provided any examples or references to Dr. Sartori’s testimony that
`allegedly exceeds the Petition’s arguments. We also note that on the full
`record before us, Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr.
`Sartori on the full scope of his Declaration. See Ex. 2006. Accordingly, we
`decline Patent Owner’s request that we ignore citations to Dr. Sartori’s
`Declaration not explicitly discussed by Petitioner.
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`interrupt times” as recited in claim 1 and related claims 11, 21, and 31. Pet.
`16–17. Similarly, Petitioner provides sufficient supporting evidence that
`AMIBIOS discloses “performing a second task between the successive
`interrupt times.” Pet. 17; Ex. 1001, 14:40–41. Petitioner acknowledges that
`the ’202 patent describes the second task as “any normal BIOS operation.”
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:35–38). Petitioner identifies multiple BIOS-
`related tasks that are performed between the successive INT 08h interrupts.
`Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003, 10, 89; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 96, 161).
`With respect to claims 9, 19, and 29, Petitioner has shown
`persuasively that AMIBIOS discloses “[t]he method of claim 1 wherein
`enabling the interrupt signals comprises: configuring an interrupt controller
`to generate the interrupt signals at the predetermined interrupt times,” as
`recited in claim 9 and related claims 19 and 29. Pet. 15, 20–22; Pet. Reply
`10. Petitioner has provided convincing evidence and testimony that the Intel
`8254 Programmable Interrupt Timer described in AMIBIOS discloses the
`limitations of dependent claim 9. Pet. 15, 20 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 98). We
`also find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence that dependent
`claims 10, 20, 30, 39, and 40 are disclosed in the AMIBIOS periodic
`scheduling of INT 08h. Pet. 20–23.
`For the reasons above, we find that Petitioner has presented
`convincing evidence and argument to show by a preponderance of the
`evidence that AMIBIOS discloses claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, 29–31, 39, and 40
`of the ’202 patent, as set forth in the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply. We
`address Patent Owner’s contentions regarding these challenged claims
`below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the preamble of the claims are limiting for
`independent claims 1, 11, and 21, and require “the performance of
`‘multitasking in a basic input and output system (BIOS) by a processor.’”
`PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner further argues that AMIBIOS fails to anticipate
`an interrupt that is generated or processed by the CPU as recited in the
`preamble. Id. at 5. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that INT 08h in
`AMIBIOS is generated by hardware devices and is not a processor based
`interrupt, because “‘[w]hen a hardware device or program needs the
`processor, it sends a signal or instruction to the processor, requesting a
`certain service or task.’” PO Resp. 5 (quoting Ex. 1003, 89).
`We agree with Patent Owner that the preamble of claim 1, which
`recites “multitasking in a basic input and output system (BIOS) by a
`processor” is limiting. We determine that, when read in the context of the
`claims and the patent Specification the preamble of claim 1 “give[s] life,
`meaning, and vitality” to the claims, “indicat[ing] a reliance on both the
`preamble and the claim body to define the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l,
`Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 1989)); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
`Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that
`preamble language limits claim when it recites “the essence of the invention
`without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic
`exercise”).
`With respect to the processor limitations in independent claims 1, 11,
`and 21, we agree with Petitioner that AMIBIOS discloses that INT 08H is
`enabled by a processor. Pet. Reply 3–4. We agree with Petitioner that
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`AMIBIOS discloses “a system timer hardware interrupt (IRQ0) from a
`system timer to the Intel processor” that is vectored to “Interrupt Service
`Routines (ISRs) that generally reside in the BIOS.” Pet. Reply 3–4 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 89) (emphasis omitted). We also credit the testimony of Patent
`Owner’s witness, Dr. Shahin Nazarian, who testified that the hardware
`interrupts and ISRs in AMIBIOS are executed in the processor. Ex. 1016,
`25:8–10 (agreeing that ISRs are code executed by the processor), 150:2–13
`(same), 161:15–163:17 (agreeing that “the processor would execute the INT
`08h system timer ISR” and that the hardware interrupts prompts the
`processor to execute tasks in BIOS). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that AMIBIOS discloses to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art that the hardware interrupt prompts the processor to
`execute tasks in BIOS, and discloses enabling “by a processor.” See Ex.
`1016, 161:15-163:18; Ex. 2006, 32:2–7; Pet. 14.
`In contrast to the preamble of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, claim
`31 does not recite “BIOS” or “multitasking” in either the preamble or the
`body of the claim. Dec. 13–14; see Ex. 1001, 14:33–42, 15:1–12, 15:45–57,
`16:23–34. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner admitted that claim 31 has a
`fatal deficiency as it does not recite the BIOS and multitasking limitations.
`Tr. at 24:14–19 (stating that “[claim 31] ha[s] a fatal deficiency of not
`specifying the BIOS. So [Patent Owner is] limiting our argument today to 1,
`11, and 21). We agree with Patent Owner’s admission that claim 31, which
`is not limited to BIOS, is anticipated by AMIBIOS. Accordingly, based on
`Patent Owner’s admission, we find that independent claim 31 and its
`dependent claims, 39 and 40, are anticipated by AMIBIOS.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner has failed to show that
`AMIBIOS discloses “performing a first task in response to the interrupt
`signals at the interrupt timers” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, 21,
`and 31. PO Resp. 5–7. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that “[t]he
`subject claims require that a first task be performed in response to the
`interrupt signals—not that the [INT 08h] signal itself performs such task.”
`PO Resp. 6.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, which fail to
`address the four tasks Petitioner describes that meet the “first task” as recited
`in the claims. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Pet. 16–17). For example, we agree
`with Petitioner that AMIBIOS discloses incrementing the system timer and
`running user-supplied routines as first tasks in response to the interrupt. See
`Pet. 16, 17 (citing Ex. 1003, 102); Ex. 1016, 122:15–22, 127:21–128:7,
`158:2–5. Patent Owner’s arguments are based on a requirement that
`AMIBIOS disclose directly “performing a first task in response to the
`interrupt signals at the interrupt timers,” such that there are no intermediate
`steps between the interrupt and the performance of the task. Tr. 38:7–39:11,
`40:1–42:3. We disagree that “performing a first task” as claimed is so
`limited. Indeed, Patent Owner admits the claim requires “that a first task be
`performed in response to the interrupt signals.” PO Resp. 6. We find that
`Petitioner has convincingly shown that AMIBIOS discloses tasks performed
`in response to an interrupt signal. Specifically, Petitioner demonstrates by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the INT 08h interrupt vectors to user-
`supplied routines and increments a timer, both of which disclose the claimed
`“first task” limitation of claims 1, 11, 21, and 31. Pet. Reply 6–7, 11–12;
`Pet. 17; Ex. 1003, 102; Ex. 1004, 1; Ex. 1010 ¶ 93; Ex. 1016, 163:4–17.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we also do not understand
`Petitioner to assert that tasks associated with setting up the timer in
`AMIBIOS are the claimed “first task.” Petitioner argues instead that setting
`up the timer discloses “enabling interrupt signals at predetermined times” as
`recited in the claims. Pet. Reply 5. We agree with Petitioner on this point,
`finding persuasive the cross examination testimony of Patent Owner’s
`witness, Dr. Nazarian, that supports the argument that AMIBIOS discloses
`“enabling interrupt signals at predetermined times,” as recited in the
`challenged independent claims, because it discloses a programmable interval
`timer that generates system timer hardware interrupt IRQ0. Ex. 1016,
`160:15–24 (interval timer programmed by CPU), 170:15–172:4 (interval
`timer generating hardware interrupts).
`We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`“housekeeping tasks” that are “unalterable, mandatory and uninterruptable”
`are not the claimed “first tasks.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner’s argument is
`neither persuasive nor commensurate with the scope of the claims, which
`broadly recite tasks and do not exclude the type of tasks run based on such
`attributes.
`Petitioner has also presented convincing argument and evidence that
`AMIBIOS discloses “performing a second task between successive interrupt
`times” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 21. Pet. 17–20; Ex. 1003,
`89; Ex. 1010 ¶ 96; Reply 9–10. We note that a preferred embodiment in the
`’202 patent describes the second task as “normal BIOS operations.”
`Ex. 1001, 11:35.6 Patent Owner’s expert agrees that POST (Power On Self
`
`
`6 Specifically, the ’202 patent states that:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`Test)7 is a normal BIOS operation that takes place before loading the
`operating system, and is disclosed in AMIBIOS. Ex. 1016, 185:22–186:3;
`Pet. Reply 9. Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence
`that AMIBIOS discloses “the performing a second task” limitation of the
`challenged claims.
`With respect to dependent claims 10, 20, 30 and 40, which recite
`“wherein enabling the interrupt signals comprises scheduling an interval
`timer to generate the interrupt signals at the predetermined interrupt times”
`(Ex. 1001, 14:64–67), Patent Owner contends that the hardware interrupt is
`unalterable and is not scheduled or configured by AMIBIOS (PO Resp. 7–
`8). We disagree, finding that Patent Owner misreads the requirements of
`dependent claims 10, 20, 30 and 40. These dependent claims do not require
`that the hardware interrupt is alterable or configurable. Based on the record,
`we find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence that AMIBIOS
`schedules an interval timer (e.g., Intel 8254) to generate interrupt signals at
`the predetermined interrupt time of 18.2 times per second. Ex. 1003, 102;
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 100; Ex. 1016, 158:14–159:6; Ex. 2006, 32:5–7. The
`
`
`The normal second task 514 includes code to perform the
`normal BIOS operations. These normal BIOS operations usually
`take longer to complete than the initial BIOS operations
`performed by the initial code 510. Examples of these normal
`BIOS operations include complete memory tests, initialization of
`peripheral devices
`such as mass
`storage controllers,
`communication interface devices.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:34–40.
`7 The ’202 patent states that “Power On Self Test (POST) refers to the
`instructions that are executed to configure and test the system hardware prior
`to loading an OS.” Ex. 1001, 3:26–28.
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`preponderance of the evidence also shows th

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
throbber

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.

throbber

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 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

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