Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 44
`
`Entered: December 6, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge EASTHOM.
`Opinion Concurring by Administrative Patent Judge ARPIN.
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`AFTER REHEARING
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Micron Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1 and 8–10 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,169,503 B1 (“the ’503 patent,” Ex. 1001). Pet. 1. Innovative Memory
`Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We instituted trial for claims 1 and 8–10 (the “challenged claims”).
`Paper 10 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner then
`disclaimed claim 1 and filed a Response. Paper 23 (“PO Resp.”), 2 n.1.
`Petitioner followed with a Reply. Paper 25 (“Pet. Reply”). The record
`includes a transcript of the Oral Hearing. Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`We issued a First Final Written Decision. Paper 40 (“1st FWD”).
`Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 41
`(“Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”). Based on the Rehearing Request,
`the Board withdrew the First Final Written Decision as set forth in the
`Decision on Rehearing. Paper 42 (Withdrawal of Final Written Decision
`and Authorization of Sur-Reply) (“Rehearing Decision” or “Reh’g Dec.”).
`As set forth in the Rehearing Decision, we granted Patent Owner’s request
`for additional briefing in the form of a Sur-Reply (Paper 43). See Reh’g
`Dec. 5–6; Sur-Reply.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision After Rehearing issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). After
`reconsidering the record in light of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply and Rehearing
`Request, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 8–10 of the ʼ503 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`According to the parties, a co-pending lawsuit involves the ’503
`patent and other patents owned by Patent Owner: Innovative Memory Sys.,
`Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 14-cv-1480 (D. Del. 2014). See Pet. 2; Paper 6, 1.
`Petitioner filed petitions challenging the patentability of certain
`subsets of claims in patents involved in the Delaware litigation: (1) U.S.
`Patent No. 7,045,849 (Case IPR2016-00322); (2) U.S. Patent No. 7,495,953
`B2 (Case IPR2016-00323); (3) U.S. Patent No. 7,886,212 B2 (Case
`IPR2016-00324) (institution denied); (4) U.S. Patent No. 7,000,063 B2
`(Case IPR2016-00325) (institution denied); (5) U.S. Patent No. 6,324,537
`B1 (Case IPR2016-00326) (terminated, adverse judgment requested by
`patent owner); (6) U.S. Patent No. 7,085,159 B2 (Case IPR2016-00327)
`(terminated, adverse judgment requested by patent owner); and (7) U.S.
`Patent No. 6,901,498 B2 (Case IPR2016-00330). See Pet. 2–3; Paper 6, 1.
`B. The ’503 Patent
`The ’503 patent describes analog-to-digital converters (“ADCs”).
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. An ADC converts an analog signal, such as a voltage, to
`a digital value. Id. at 1:14–17. For example, an analog audio or image
`signal may be converted into digital form by quantizing digital samples of
`the signal as represented by a number of bits. See id. at 1:14–42.
`Instead of using comparators, in order to obtain relatively higher
`speed, lower power, and smaller circuit areas, the ’503 patent describes
`using a plurality of transistors having different threshold voltages (referred
`to alternatively as memory or reference cells) that conduct at such different
`threshold voltages in response to an analog input voltage. Id. at 2:24–63.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`These threshold voltages may be within read only memories (ROMs) or
`within programmable transistors. See id. at 2:60–63, 3:6–16.
`The ROMs or transistors may be arranged in different types of arrays.
`Id. at 2:60–3:23. For example, “transistors having programmable threshold
`voltages . . . may be in an array including multiple rows and columns of
`memory cells.” Id. at 3:14–16. However, “[o]ther array configurations are
`possible.” Id. at 4:39–40. In one embodiment, “ADC 300 uses a row of
`reference cells.” Id. at 4:37.
`Figure 5B, reproduced below, depicts a disclosed embodiment having
`multiple rows of memory cells or programmable transistors in ADC 500:
`
`With respect to Figure 5B, to convert an analog signal Ain into a
`signal in digital format Dout, “sense circuit 522 generates a pulse for each
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`reference cell RC1 to RC7 that conducts. Counter 538 counts pulses from
`sense circuit 522 and outputs the resulting count as signal Dout.” Ex. 1001,
`7:5–8.
`Figures 5A and 5B show that Ain connects to all of the rows, such
`that embodiments represented by those figures use all the rows
`simultaneously in a specific digital conversion. The Specification also
`describes modifying embodiments including those represented by Figures
`5A and 5B, such that “[i]nstead of simultaneously applying analog input
`voltage Ain to all of the reference cells associate with a conversion, the
`ADC applies signal Ain only to [sic] reference cell (or one row of reference
`cells) at a time.” See id. at 7:11–14. At least one such embodiment includes
`a row decoder to select successive rows. See id. at 7:14–16. In an
`embodiment that selects successive rows, “signal CSEL initially has a value
`that selects one of the rows associated with the desired conversion, and
`circuit 740 determines the conductivity states of the reference cells in the
`current row. . . . The control circuit continues to change signal CSEL until a
`row is found in which some reference cells conduct and others don’t
`conduct.” Id. at 10:14–23 (discussing Figure 7A and AADAC 700).1
`
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 AADAC refers to a dual converter (which uses the same reference cells)
`for both an analog to digital and digital to analog conversion. See Ex. 1001,
`9:32–51.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Independent challenged claims 8 and 9, and dependent claim 10,
`
`remain in the trial. Claims 8 and 9 follow:
`8. A converter comprising:
`
`an array of reference cells, the reference cells having a
`plurality of threshold voltages;
`
`a sense circuit coupled to the array; and
`
`an encoder coupled to the sense circuit, wherein the
`encoder generates a multi-bit digital output signal that represents
`a value that depends on which of the reference cells conduct
`when an analog input signal is applied to a set of reference cells,
`wherein the encoder comprises a counter coupled to count pulses
`from the sense circuit, the multi-bit digital output signal being a
`count of the number of reference cells that conduct.
`
`9. A converter comprising:
`
`an array of reference cells, the reference cells having a
`plurality of threshold voltages, wherein the array contains a
`plurality of rows;
`
`a sense circuit coupled to the array; and
`
`an encoder coupled to the sense circuit, wherein the
`encoder generates a multi-bit digital output signal that represents
`a value that depends on which of the reference cells conduct
`when an analog input signal is applied to a set of reference cells;
`and
`a row decoder coupled to the array, the row decoder
`
`selecting a row of reference cells to which the analog signal is
`applied.
`Ex. 1001, 11:20–32, 12:20–33, 12:34–47.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted trial on claims 1 and 8–10 of the ’503 patent, challenged
`on alleged grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Patent Owner
`subsequently disclaimed claim 1. PO Resp. 2 n.2. The grounds remaining
`in the trial follow:
`References
`Seligson2 and Bucklen3
`Seligson, Bucklen, and
`Yonemaru4
`Seligson and Yonemaru 9 and 10
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`8
`8
`
`See Pet. 3–4; Inst. Dec. 6, 27–28.
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D
`(Ex. 1003, the “Baker Declaration”) and the Reply Declaration of R. Jacob
`Baker, Ph.D (Ex. 1030, the “Baker Reply Declaration”). Patent Owner
`relies on the Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D (Ex. 2001, the
`“Madisetti Declaration”).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`The claims of an unexpired patent must be interpreted using the
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`
`                                                            
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,376,935 (issued Dec. 27, 1994) (Ex. 1005).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 4,591,825 (issued May 27, 1986) (Ex. 1007).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,187,483 (issued Feb. 16, 1993) (Ex 1006). 
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under this
`standard, absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases carry their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Most of the claim terms do not require express construction because
`they do not raise a controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need
`be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy” and noting that “the stage at which the claims are
`construed may vary with the issues, their complexity, the potentially
`dispositive nature of the construction, and other considerations of the
`particular case”).
`1) “selecting a row”
`Claim 9 recites “a row decoder coupled to the array, the row decoder
`selecting a row of reference cells to which the analog signal is applied.”
`(Emphasis added). Focusing partly on the indefinite article “a,” Petitioner
`contends that “selecting a row” means selecting “one or more rows.” Pet.
`Reply 5 (emphasis added) (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223
`F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Patent Owner disagrees and argues that
`claim 9 “require[s] that the row decoder selectively apply the analog input
`signal to a particular row of reference cells, i.e., depending on the range of
`the analog signal.” PO Resp. 29. Patent Owner similarly contends that “the
`row decoder recited in claim 9 selects from the plurality of rows of reference
`cells a single row of reference cells that is to receive the analog input
`signal.” Id. at 27.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`Addressing the indefinite article “a” in a claim (as recited in claim 9),
`KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356, supports Petitioner’s argument as follows:
`This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite
`article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one
`or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
`“comprising.” See Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d
`973, 977 . . . (Fed. Cir.1999); Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122
`F.3d 1019, 1023 . . . (Fed. Cir.1997); North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v.
`American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1575–76 . . . Fed.
`Cir.1993); see also Robert C. Faber, Landis on Mechanics of
`Patent Claim Drafting 531 (3d ed. 1990). Unless the claim is
`specific as to the number of elements, the article “a” receives a
`singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the
`patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article. See Abtox,
`122 F.3d at 1023 . . . . Under this conventional rule, the claim
`limitation “a,” without more, requires at least one.
`. . . .
`
`Moreover, standing alone, a disclosure of a preferred or
`exemplary embodiment encompassing a singular element does
`not disclaim a plural embodiment.
` “[A]lthough
`the
`specifications may well indicate that certain embodiments are
`preferred, particular embodiments appearing in a specification
`will not be read into the claims when the claim language is
`broader than such embodiments.” Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v.
`Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 . . . (Fed. Cir.
`1994). Thus, as the rule dictates, when the claim language or
`context calls for further inquiry, this court consults the written
`description for a clear intent to limit the invention to a singular
`embodiment.
`Id. (emphasis added).
`Claim 9 does not recite “selecting a [single] row.” Accordingly, in
`line with the “conventional rule,” “selecting a row” means “selecting at least
`one row.” See KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356. KCJ Corp. also shows that
`absent a clear disclaimer (or lexicographic definition), Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`argument that “the embodiments disclosed in the ‘503 Patent . . . select[ ] . . .
`a single row of reference cells” fails to support Patent Owner’s narrow
`reading of claim 9. See PO Resp. 27; 223 F.3d at 1356.
`Furthermore, prior to the “selecting a row” phrase, claim 9 recites
`“when an analog input signal is applied to a set of reference cells” (emphasis
`added). Specifically, claim 9 recites
`
`an encoder coupled to the sense circuit, wherein the
`encoder generates a multi-bit digital output signal that represents
`a value that depends on which of the reference cells conduct
`when an analog input signal is applied to a set of reference cells;
`and
`a row decoder coupled to the array, the row decoder
`
`selecting a row of reference cells to which the analog signal is
`applied.
`(Emphases added).
`In context, the “set of reference cells” includes (at least one of) “a row
`of reference cells.” Given that claim 9 recites “when an analog signal is
`applied to a set of reference cells” (emphasis added), the language implies
`that “selecting a row of reference cells to which the analog signal is applied”
`(emphasis added) includes one or more rows of the set.5 In other words,
`“the analog signal” refers back to “when an analog signal is applied to a set
`of reference cells.” As discussed in the next section, this latter phrase
`indicates the whole “set of reference cells” has an analog signal applied to it
`in order to generate the digital output signal.
`
`                                                            
`5 Apparatus claim 9, drawn to a converter, does not require the “analog
`signal,” thereby rendering the phrases “selecting a row of reference cells to
`which the analog signal is applied” and “to which the analog signal is
`applied” statements of intended use.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`Figures 3, 4, 5A, and 5B clearly show all of the rows (and the whole
`set of reference cells) connected to Ain. The Specification states “[t]he set
`of threshold voltage[s] in the conversion array controls the conversion or
`conversions implemented.” Ex. 1001, 2:63–65.
`Therefore, and as explained more fully in the next section, claim 9
`reasonably includes a row decoder that selects one or more rows that have an
`applied analog signal.
`The Specification explains that
`transistors having programmable threshold voltages . . . may be
`in an array including multiple rows and columns of memory
`cells. In one embodiment, the transistors are in a conversion
`array having multiple rows, where each row contains transistors
`with a sequence of threshold voltages that defines a different
`conversion. A conventional row decoder can select a row
`accessed from the conversion array during a conversion and
`thereby select from among multiple conversions implemented in
`the converter.
`Ex. 1001, 3:14–23 (emphases added).
`As the foregoing quotation and other portions of the Specification
`show, the row decoder selects a row or rows to perform a specific type of
`conversion (for example, linear or non-linear conversions). See id. at 2:66.
`As noted above, the entire set in an array can be used for any given type of
`conversion: “The set of threshold voltage[s] in the conversion array controls
`the conversion or conversions implemented.” See id. at 2:63–65; cf. id. at
`4:39–42 (describing other embodiments that “do not require simultaneous
`application of the same control gate voltage to all reference cells”).
`Describing a particular embodiment associated with Figure 7A, the
`Specification explains that “multiplexer 714 selects analog input signal Ain,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`and row decoder 712 selects from array 710 a row identified by a
`conversion select signal CSEL and applies a signal Vrow from multiplexer
`714 to the selected row.” Id. at 9:33–34. Patent Owner relies on Figure 7A
`and contends “[r]ow decoder 712 further prevents Ain from being applied to
`any other row of reference cells.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:32–39; Ex.
`2001 ¶¶ 61–64). Dr. Madisetti makes a similar statement. See Ex. 2001
`¶ 64.
`Even if the embodiment of Figure 7A supports Patent Owner’s
`construction of selecting a single row, it provides insufficient basis to limit
`the plain language of claim 9 of selecting a row. The Specification supports
`the plain meaning of claim 9 in several ways. For example, the
`Specification narrowly refers to selecting “only” a “row of reference cells”
`in the “conversion array including a column of reference cells,” as follows:
`Another alternative to ADC has a conversion array
`including a column of reference cells that are associated with a
`conversion. Instead of simultaneously applying analog input
`voltage Ain to all of the reference cells associate with a
`conversion, the ADC applies signal Ain only to [sic] reference
`cell (or row of reference cells) to which signal Ain is applied.
`For this embodiment, bias and select circuits include a row
`decoder to select the reference cell (or row of reference cells) to
`which signal Ain is applied.
`Ex. 1001, 7:11–17 (emphases added).
`This Specification language that describes an embodiment that selects
`“the . . . row,” which refers back to “only [sic a] . . . row,” suggests that
`claim 9 recites broader language. In particular, claim 9 recites “when an
`analog signal is applied to a set of reference cells” and “a row to which the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`analog signal is applied” (which refers back to “an analog signal” in the first
`clause).
`Further supporting the broader construction of claim 9, Petitioner
`provides persuasive evidence that typical row decoders select “one or more
`rows.” Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1029, 29; 1030 ¶¶ 21–23). Petitioner points
`out that “the Summary of Invention expressly states that the ‘503 [p]atent
`employs ‘[a] conventional row decoder [to] select a row accessed from the
`conversion array.’” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:16–23 (emphasis by
`Petitioner)). Dr. Baker persuasively demonstrates that conventional row
`decoders commonly select a location in an array, which may include one or
`more rows, thereby supporting the broader construction. See Ex. 1030
`¶¶ 21–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:16–23; Ex. 1029, 29; 1031, 54–55).
`Dr. Madisetti does not disagree, and, if anything, agrees that the
`claims cover conventional converters. For example, Dr. Madisetti testifies
`“[t]he claims of the ‘503 Patent generally cover converters in which the
`multi-bit digital output signal depends on which reference cells conduct
`when an analog input signal is applied to a set of the reference cells.”
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 60 (emphasis added). Dr. Madisetti also summarizes
`embodiments in the Specification and concludes that claim 9 “claims a
`converter in which a row decoder selects a particular row of reference cells.”
`Id. ¶ 63; see PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 60–63). This testimony does
`not contradict Petitioner or Dr. Baker, because Petitioner’s claim
`construction (i.e., “one or more rows” or equivalently “at least one row”)
`includes selecting only a single (“particular”) row. Moreover, claim 9 does
`not recite selecting a “particular” row, contrary to Dr. Madisetti’s testimony.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`Claim 12 depends from claim 9 via intervening claim 10. See
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d. 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`(When construing claims, “[f]irst, we look to the words of the claims
`themselves, both asserted and unasserted, to define the scope of the patented
`invention.” (Emphasis added.)). Claim 10 recites, in pertinent part, “the
`converter of claim 9, further comprising . . . a conversion select signal that
`selects from among a plurality of conversions that the converter
`implements.” Claim 12 recites “[t]he converter of claim 10, wherein at least
`one conversion in the plurality of conversions corresponds to multiple rows
`in the array.” (Emphases added.)
`As Petitioner argues, claim 9 must be broader than claim 12 by virtue
`of the dependency of claim 12. See Pet. Reply 7–8. Claim 12 also appears
`to be broad enough to embrace a converter that either is capable of selecting
`all of the rows simultaneously or selecting one row at a time. See id. at 8
`(“Tracking claim 12, the Specification describes embodiments in which the
`conversions involve multiple rows. ‘In an alternative embodiment of
`ADDAC 700, multiple rows of array 710 contain reference cells for a
`single conversion.’” (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:4–6, citing id. at 10:4–13)
`(emphasis by Petitioner)) & n.2 (arguing claim 12 lacks necessary recited
`structure for the sequential conversion: “column lines and sense circuitry”).
`The cited passage explains that “[u]sing multiple rows for a conversion
`allows higher resolution analog signals and more bits in digital signals.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:6–8.
`In any event, even if dependent claim 12 requires sequential selection
`of rows, that would imply (by virtue of claim dependency) that claim 9 does
`not. As noted above, the Specification generally describes embodiments
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`associated with Figures 3, 4, 5A, and 5B and other embodiments that do not
`select rows for connection to Ain (i.e., Ain connects to all of the rows). See
`Ex. 1001, 7:11–14. As discussed further in the next section, modified
`embodiments, including modified versions of Figures 5A and 5B, may
`include a row decoder to select a row to which to apply signal Ain, but in
`contrast to claim 9, the Specification uses narrow language to make clear a
`row decoder applies Ain “only to . . . one row . . . at a time.” See id. at 7:14–
`15.
`Claims 9 and 12 appear to cover (but not necessarily require) the
`
`sequential row selection noted above by Petitioner. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–12.
`The Specification indicates that, in one sequential row selection
`embodiment, “signal CSEL initially has a value that selects one of the rows
`associated with the desired conversion.” Ex. 1001, 10:14–16 (emphasis
`added). “If all of the reference cells in the selected row conduct or do not
`conduct, control circuity (not shown) changes signal CSEL to select another
`row corresponding to the desired conversion.” Id. at 10:17–21 (emphases
`added). In other words, this alternative embodiment narrowly describes
`“selecting one of the rows” and then successively “select[ing] another row.”
`Id. at 10:14–21. Therefore, although claim 12 may correspond to this
`narrow successive row selection embodiment, this shows that claim 9
`embraces broader subject matter of a conventional recited row decoder that
`does not include a row select signal (i.e., CSEL as disclosed and noted
`above). For the additional and similar reasons explained above, claim 9
`employs broader selecting language (i.e., “selecting a row”) than the CSEL
`embodiment (i.e., “selects one of the rows” (id. at 10:14–21)). See
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`2004) (“a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may
`not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the
`embodiment”).
`It follows that the disclosed embodiments do not overcome the plain
`and ordinary meaning of “selecting a row.” See KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at
`1356 (“indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of
`‘one or more,’”; “particular embodiments appearing in a specification will
`not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than such
`embodiments”; and “when the claim language or context calls for further
`inquiry, this court consults the written description for a clear intent to limit
`the invention to a singular embodiment”). As explained above, claim 9
`employs a conventional row decoder that typically includes selecting plural
`rows. And claim 9 does not recite what narrower dependent claims 10 and
`12 recite, namely, a “terminal for a conversion select signal,” which implies
`circuitry in claims 10 and 12 for selecting successive single rows using the
`row decoder.
`In other words, the Specification does not show, by implication or
`expressly, the requisite intent to disavow or redefine clearly the plain and
`ordinary meaning of “selecting a row” (or “row decoder”). See Thorner v.
`Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To
`act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of
`the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.”)
`(quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002)). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single
`embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the
`patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Thorner, 669
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`at 1365 (quoting Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d
`1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`Based on the foregoing discussion, Petitioner shows persuasively that
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “selecting a row” is “selecting at
`least one row.”
`2) “the row decoder selecting a row of reference cells to which the
`analog signal is applied.”
`Patent Owner contends “selecting a row of reference cells to which
`the analog signal is applied” “requires that the row decoder select a row of
`reference cells to receive the analog input signal.” Reh’g Req. 5 (emphasis
`added). As Patent Owner correctly notes, in the First Final Written
`Decision, we determined “[c]laim 9 ‘simply requires’ ‘that any rows that are
`selected – whether one or more than one – have an analog signal applied to
`them.’” Reh’g Req. 5 (quoting 1st FWD 31; Pet. Reply 7). By its plain
`terms “is applied” is not restricted either to “to be applied,” as Patent Owner
`urges, or to “already is applied,” as our First Final Written Decision
`determines. In other words, the plain meaning includes both options.
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner contends “[t]he Specification nowhere
`states that Ain is applied, at any time, to all rows.” See Reh’g Req. 5. To
`the contrary, the Specification, as noted above and in the First Final Written
`Decision, discloses multiple embodiments where that occurs. See 1st FWD
`10 (“Figures 3, 4, 5A, and 5B [of the ’503 patent] clearly show all of the
`rows (and the whole set of reference cells) connected to Ain.”)
` In its Sur-Reply, Patent Owner contends no embodiments include
`row encoders with rows already having Ain connected, as follows:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`There is not a single embodiment disclosed in the
`specification wherein a row decoder selects a row from the array
`that already has the analog signal applied to it. A “construction
`which excludes the preferred embodiment is ‘rarely, if ever
`correct.’” PPC Broadband,
`Inc. v. Corning Optical
`Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
`quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this case, Petitioner’s claim
`construction does not read on any embodiment disclosed in the
`specification.
`Sur-Reply 2 (emphasis added).
`Although Patent Owner focuses on Petitioner’s alleged claim
`construction, the adopted claim construction does not exclude any
`embodiments. Rather, as noted above, “is applied to” includes “already
`applied to” and “to be applied to.” We indicated clearly, as we stated in our
`First Final Written Decision that claim 9 encompasses both options. For
`example, as we stated, “[c]laim 9 neither precludes selecting a particular row
`to provide an output nor requires selecting a particular row to receive the
`analog signal under the broadest reasonable claim construction.” 1st FWD
`32; see also FWD 34 (discussing “Patent Owner’s narrower claim
`construction”); Inst. Dec. 23 (indicating both options apply: “[A]ccording to
`Petitioner’s showing on this preliminary record, using Yonemaru’s encoder
`and select switches to select different rows of programmable transistors in
`Seligson’s circuit would have been obvious for the purpose of expanding
`comparisons and sensing different analog ranges, while providing a known
`array configuration for utilizing available chip space.”); infra Section III
`(Motion to Exclude, citing PO Resp. 27 and determining Patent Owner was
`aware of both options.).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`Furthermore, even if Patent Owner’s construction reads on an
`embodiment, as noted above, embodiments typically do not narrow the plain
`meaning of claim terms.6 See SuperGuide Corp., 358 F.3d at 875 (“a
`particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
`into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment”). As
`indicated above, claim 9 recites broader subject matter than the
`embodiments it covers. The plain meaning of “is applied to” simply is not
`limited to “to be applied to” (i.e., in the future). And as discussed in the
`preceding section, prior to the “selecting a row” phrase, claim 9 recites
`“generat[ing] digital output signal . . . when an analog input signal is applied
`to a set of reference cells.” Specifically, claim 9 recites
`
`an encoder coupled to the sense circuit, wherein the
`encoder generates a multi-bit digital output signal that represents
`a value that depends on which of the reference cells conduct
`when an analog input signal is applied to a set of reference cells;
`and
`a row decoder coupled to the array, the row decoder
`
`selecting a row of reference cells to which the analog signal is
`applied.
`(Emphases added).
`
`                                                            
`6 Patent Owner asserts in its Rehearing Request that we mischaracterized
`aspects of Figure 7A to support our claim construction. Reh’g Req. 6–7.
`Nevertheless, we stated “[e]ven if the embodiment of Figure 7A somehow
`were to support Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, the
`Specification also tracks the broader construction of claim 9,” and relied on
`the broader teachings of the Specification and the language of claim 9, as we
`do here. See 1st FWD 12, Section II.A.1. In this Final Written Decision
`After Rehearing, we clarify that we do not rely on any reasoning related to
`biasing or noise that Patent Owner alleges we mischaracterized with respect
`to interpreting Figure 7A. See Reh’g Req. 6–7.  
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00320
`Patent 6,169,503 B1
`
`
`The phrase “selecting a row of reference cells to which the analog
`signal is applied” (emphasis added) refers back to “generat[ing] a . . . digital
`output signal when an analog signal is applied to a set of reference cells.”
`This latter phrase not only shows the whole “set of reference cells” (for a
`given conversion type) has an analog signal applied thereto, it also shows the
`row decoder selects one or more rows of that set (dedicated to the specific
`type of conversion such as linear, non-linear, etc.) to generate the d