Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`2018-1831
`
`IN THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.
`Appellee
`
`UNITED STATES,
`
`Intervenor
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OFFICE, PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NO. IPR2017-00116
`
`PRINCIPAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED
`
`Matthew D. Powers
`Azra Hadzimehmedovic
`Alex Chan
`Yi Chen
`TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 650
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 802-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 802-6001
`
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Nathan Lowenstein
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`1880 Century Park East, Suite 815
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 307-4500
`Facsimile: (310) 307-4509
`
`Appellant
`for
`Counsel
`Innovations Limited
`
`Polaris
`
`December 21, 2018
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 1
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Counsel for Appellant Polaris Innovations Limited (“Polaris”) in Appeal No. 2018-
`1831 certifies the following:
`
`1.
`
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`Polaris Innovations Limited.
`
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption
`2.
`is not the real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`
`Quarterhill Inc.
`
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
`percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me
`are:
`
`
`Wi-LAN, Inc.
`
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared
`4.
`for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or
`are expected to appear in this court (and who have not or will not enter an
`appearance in this case) are:
`
`Parham Hendifar, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this
`5.
`or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by
`this court’s decision in the pending appeal are:
`
`Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., 8:16-cv-00300
`(C.D. Cal).
`
`Dated: December 21, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Matthew D. Powers
`Matthew D. Powers
`
`
`
`i
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 2
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Introduction............................................................................................... 2
`
`The 150 Patent .......................................................................................... 2
`
`The Inter Partes Review ........................................................................... 7
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`9
`
`11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards ....................................................................................... 11
`
`The Board Erred In Construing “A Register Circuit . . . Configured To
`Receive One Of The Copies Of The Incoming Clock Signal From The
`Clock Regeneration Circuit” To Allow The Copy Received By The
`Register Circuit To Have A Different Frequency Than The Incoming
`Signal ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`1. The Board’s Construction Is Contrary To The Claim Language ............ 12
`
`2. The Board’s Construction Is Contrary To The Prosecution History ....... 16
`
`3. The Board’s Construction Is Contrary To The Specification .................. 20
`
`4. The Board’s Construction Is Contrary To The Extrinsic Evidence ......... 23
`
`5. The Board Failed To Justify Its Mistaken Construction And Procedurally
`Violated The APA ................................................................................. 25
`
`C.
`
`Lee Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious The Register Circuit
`Configured To Receive One Copy Of The Incoming Clock Signal Having
`A Same Frequency As The Incoming Clock Signal................................. 29
`
`ii
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 3
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`1. Lee Expressly Teaches The Register Circuit Receiving A Clock Signal
`With Half Of The Frequency Of The Incoming Clock Signal Just Like
`The Art Distinguished In Prosecution .................................................... 29
`
`2. Lee Does Not Make It Obvious To Replace The Clock Signal Having
`Half Of The Frequency With The Clock Signal Having The Same
`Frequency Of The Incoming Clock Signal ............................................. 31
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Lee Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious The Register Generating
`Copies Of The Incoming Command And Address Signals ...................... 43
`
`Lee Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious “The Clock Signal
`Regeneration Circuit And The Register Circuit [That] Are Integrated On
`A Common Chip In The Common Chip Packing” Recited In Claim 5 .... 47
`
`The Board Members Could Not Constitutionally Issue A Final Agency
`Decision Eliminating Patent Rights Without Having Been Appointed By
`The President And Confirmed By The Senate ......................................... 53
`
`1. PTAB Judges Who Decide IPRs Are Incontestably “Officers” Of The
`United States .......................................................................................... 54
`
`2. Because PTAB Judges Issue Final IPR Decisions Eliminating Patent
`Rights, They Must Be “Principal Officers” ............................................ 56
`
`3. Principal Officers Must Be Nominated By The President And Confirmed
`By The Senate ........................................................................................ 58
`
`4. The Final Written Decision Must Be Set Aside On The Basis Of The
`Board Members’ Improper Appointment ............................................... 59
`
`VI. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 4
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Tr.,
`764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 39
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 33, 39, 48
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 11
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 36
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 14
`Buckley v. Valeo,
`424 U.S. 1 (1976) .............................................................................................. 54
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 22
`Collin’s Case,
`14 Ct. Cl. 568 (1878) ........................................................................................ 57
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`671 F. Supp. 1369 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) .................................................................. 39
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ......................................................................... 38
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ................................................................................ 55, 57
`Dickinson v. Zurko,
`527 U.S. 150 (1999) .......................................................................................... 11
`Edmond v. United States,
`520 U.S. 651 (1997) .......................................................................................... 59
`Fin Control Sys. Pty., Ltd. v. OAM, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 14
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) .......................................................................................... 58
`Freytag v. Commissioner,
`501 U.S. 868 (1991) .............................................................................. 55, 58, 59
`iv
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 5
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 21
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 22
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 22
`In re Benno,
`768 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ......................................................................... 38
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................. 43
`In re Kuhle,
`526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) ............................................................................... 42
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 51
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 11, 34
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 48
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`744 F. 3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 11
`Lucia v. SEC,
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) ................................................................................ 55, 59
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 51
`Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`672 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 20
`MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.,
`847 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 19
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 14
`Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,
`138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) ................................................................................ 57, 58
`Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 41
`
`v
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 6
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 7 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 39
`Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp.,
`272 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 49
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341, (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 28
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ...................................................................................... 28
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 33
`Sipco, LLC v. Abb, Inc.,
`No. 6:11-CV-0048 LED-JDL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106659 (E.D. Tex. July
`30, 2012) ........................................................................................................... 36
`Swimways Corp. v. Zuru, LLC,
`No. 2:13cv334, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31571 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2014) .......... 36
`United States v. Germaine,
`99 U.S. 508 (1879) ............................................................................................ 54
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................... 22
`Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. v. Baby Trend, Inc.,
`727 F. App’x 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 20
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(6) ............................................................................................... 55
`35 U.S.C. § 3(c) .................................................................................................... 56
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ................................................................................................ 54
`35 U.S.C. § 314(d) ................................................................................................ 57
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5) ............................................................................................ 55
`35 U.S.C. § 316(c) ................................................................................................ 54
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .................................................................................................... 55
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)-(b) .......................................................................................... 54
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b) ................................................................................................ 57
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .............................................................................................. 56, 57
`
`vi
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 7
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 8 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(5) ............................................................................................ 55
`35 U.S.C. § 328 .................................................................................................... 55
`35 U.S.C. § 329 .................................................................................................... 56
`35 U.S.C. § 6 ........................................................................................................ 55
`35 U.S.C. § 6(a) .............................................................................................. 55, 58
`35 U.S.C. § 6(b) .................................................................................................... 55
`35 U.S.C. § 6(c) .................................................................................................... 57
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 .................................................................................................. 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52 .................................................................................................. 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 .................................................................................................. 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62 .................................................................................................. 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 .................................................................................................. 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d) ............................................................................................ 57
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) ............................................................................................. 57
`5 U.S.C. § 2102(a) ................................................................................................ 56
`5 U.S.C. § 7521 .................................................................................................... 56
`Other Authorities
`2 Op. O.L.C. 58 (1978) ......................................................................................... 56
`Constitutional Provisions
`U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1 .......................................................................................... 58
`U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2 .......................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 8
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 9 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No appeal from this Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) has previously been before
`
`this Court or any other court.
`
`The Court has identified sua sponte the following appeals as companion cases
`
`to this appeal, to be assigned to the same merits panel and argued on the same day
`
`as the present appeal:
`
`Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., No. 18-1768
`
`(Fed. Cir.); and
`
`Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Limited, No. 18-1778
`
`(Fed. Cir.)
`
`The following pending action will be directly affected by this Court’s decision
`
`in this appeal: Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc.,
`
`8:16-cv-300 (C.D. Cal.). That case is currently stayed pending resolution of IPR
`
`proceedings, including among others the IPR that is the subject of this appeal and
`
`the IPRs that are the subject of the two companion cases listed above.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 9
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 10 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) of the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued its Final Written Decision (“FWD”)
`
`in the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) on February 13, 2018.
`
`Appx1-55. Polaris filed a timely notice of appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 142
`
`and 319 on April 16, 2018. Appx536-541. This Court has jurisdiction under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 141(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). The decision appealed from is final.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`
`
`Whether the Board’s finding that Claims 1–5, 6, and 8–11 of the U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,334,150 B2 (“150 Patent”) are obvious should be reversed or vacated because:
`
`1.
`
`The Board erred by adopting an incorrect construction of the limitation
`
`found in all canceled claims—“a register circuit . . . configured to receive one of the
`
`copies of the incoming clock signal”—contrary to the definitional claim language,
`
`the specification, the prosecution history, and the testimony of both parties’ experts;
`
`2.
`
`The Board erred by basing its unpatentability determination on
`
`numerous factual findings on obviousness unsupported by substantial evidence; and
`
`3.
`
`The Board was not nominated and appointed by the President, and by
`
`and with the advice and consent of the Senate, even though the Board’s judges have
`
`duties, salaries, and means of appointment specified by federal statutes, exercise
`
`significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, have power to render
`
`1
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 10
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 11 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`final decisions that extinguish rights of patent owners, are not subject to peremptory
`
`removal, and issue decisions that are immune from review by the Director or
`
`Secretary of Commerce, thus violating the Appointments Clause of the U.S.
`
`Constitution.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
`A.
`Introduction
`The Board’s FWD (Appx1-55) rests on an erroneous claim construction;
`
`arguments that were absent from the petition, and that were addressed on the merits
`
`by Kingston in the reply after all substantive written submissions from Polaris had
`
`been spent; and factual determinations on the merits that were not based on
`
`substantial evidence. Each of these errors warrants reversal.
`
`Further, even holding these errors aside, the Board’s FWD cancelling
`
`Polaris’s patent rights was a violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S.
`
`Constitution, because the Board members acted as Principal Officers even though
`
`they were never nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate.
`
`The 150 Patent
`
`B.
`The 150 Patent is directed to improvements in dynamic random access
`
`memory (“DRAM”) modules, often referred to as “DIMMs.” Appx548 (1:20-64,
`
`2:5-12). The 150 Patent discusses two types of signals that are important to the
`
`operation of a DIMM: the “clock signal” (often abbreviated as a “Cl” or “CLK”
`
`signal) and
`
`the “command and address signals” (often abbreviated as
`
`2
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 11
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 12 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`“command/address” or “CA” signals). Appx548 (2:24-32); Appx1056 (¶ 43). As
`
`illustrated in Figure 1 of the 150 Patent, the clock (“Cl”) signals and the command
`
`and address (“CA”) signals are distinct signals and are carried on “clock signal lines”
`
`and “CA signal lines” respectively on a DIMM. Appx543 (color annotations
`
`added).1
`
`The clock signal synchronizes the operations of the memory chips (DRAMs)
`
`on a DIMM. Appx548 (1:44-46, 2:64-67). The CA signals communicate the
`
`
`
`
`1 All highlighting is solely to assist the Court in its review, and does not denote
`confidential material under Federal Circuit Rule 27(m)(1). Emphasis is added
`throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`3
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 12
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 13 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`command and address information from the controller to the DRAMs, including for
`
`example a “read” command to read data from the DRAMs and a “write” command
`
`to write data into the DRAMs. Appx1055-1056 (¶ 42). As shown in Figure 1, a
`
`number of DRAMs are mounted onto and connected with the module, which is then
`
`connected to a memory controller on the mainboard of a computing device through
`
`a series of connectors (referred to in the patent as “pin contacts” or “pins”).
`
`Appx1059 (¶ 48). It is critical that in each clock cycle, the controller that provides
`
`the command and address to the DRAMs and the DRAMs that store and retrieve the
`
`data upon receipt of the command and address from the controller are synchronized
`
`with the clock signal. Appx1057 (¶ 44); Appx1059 (¶ 48).
`
`To have higher memory capacity and faster data transfer speed, more DRAM
`
`chips are required per DIMM and more modules need to be connected to the memory
`
`controller. Appx1060-1061 (¶¶ 49-51). Providing signals from the memory
`
`controller to drive more DIMMs and DRAMs increases the number of pins.
`
`Appx548 (1:29-32). Further, using differential signal transfer required for higher
`
`data transfer rate also increases the number of pins. Id. (1:33-41). Before the
`
`invention of the 150 Patent, provision of two copies of differential CA and CLK
`
`signals to the DRAMs would require “the wide routing of the twice [sic] as many
`
`CA and CL lines” and would “limit the installation space for installing the passive
`
`components” and “the space for routing the data signal to the semiconductor memory
`
`4
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 13
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 14 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`chips to an excessive degree, not to mention the increased number of pins.” Id. (2:14-
`
`20).
`
`The 150 Patent solves this problem by, importantly, including on the DIMM
`
`a clock signal regeneration circuit that generates copies of an incoming clock signal
`
`with the same frequency, and a register circuit that temporarily stores the incoming
`
`CA signals and generates copies of the incoming CA signals with the same
`
`frequency; and supplying the generated copies of the signals to the DRAM chips.
`
`Appx551(7:2-47). This local multiplication of the incoming clock signal and CA
`
`signals on the memory module allows supplying only one incoming signal from the
`
`memory controller to the DIMM, and reduces additional pins and routing necessary
`
`for supplying additional signals directly from the memory controller to the DIMM
`
`and DRAM chips. Appx550 (6:6-21). Generation of copies of signals having the
`
`same frequency as the incoming signals also allows synchronizing the operation of
`
`the DIMM to the incoming signals. Appx548 (2:64-67).
`
`The invention of the 150 Patent also places the clock signal regeneration
`
`circuit and the register circuit in a common chip packing, and supplies one of the
`
`copies of the incoming clock signal from the clock signal regeneration circuit to the
`
`register circuit, as illustrated in Figure 2 of the 150 Patent below.
`
`5
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 14
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 15 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`
`
`See Appx544 (color annotations added). Receipt by the register of a copy of the
`
`clock signal having the same frequency allows the CA signals to be synchronized
`
`with the clock signal. Appx548 (2:64-67). This combination of the circuits in the
`
`common chip packing saves space in the densely packed DIMM to accommodate
`
`additional DRAM chips and other components, such as capacitors. Appx549 (3:18-
`
`29). Similarly, integrating both circuits on a common chip further reduces the
`
`footprint of these circuits. Id. (3:46-51); Appx550 (6:35-38). Also, placing both
`
`circuits in a common chip packing or on a common chip improves heat distribution.
`
`Id. (3:1-18).
`
`In sum, the invention of the 150 Patent provides a memory module that
`
`supplies the CA and Cl signals to the memory chips in a space-saving and pin-
`
`6
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 15
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 16 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`contact-saving manner and at the same time allows synchronization and transfer of
`
`the CA and Cl signals at a high speed. Appx548 (2:47-67, 2:18-32).
`
`C. The Inter Partes Review
`Appellee Kingston filed an IPR petition (the “Petition”) based on the
`
`following four grounds:
`
`1. Dodd (U.S. Pat. No. 6,530,006) as rendering Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-10
`
`obvious under §103.
`
`2. Dodd in view of Keeth (U.S. Pat. No. 7,123,046) as rendering Claims 3
`
`and 11 obvious under §103.
`
`3. Lee (U.S. Pat. No. 6,898,726) as rendering Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-10
`
`obvious under §103.
`
`4. Lee in view of Keeth as rendering Claims 3 and 11 obvious under §103.
`
`Appx63. The Board’s FWD found all challenged claims obvious under the third and
`
`fourth grounds. Appx54.
`
`As relevant to this appeal, Kingston argued in the Petition that “the register . . .
`
`configured to receive one of the copies of the incoming clock signal from the clock
`
`regeneration circuit” was met by Lee’s disclosure of “WCLK/2” signal received by
`
`the register. Appx104. The Petition also stated that Lee’s “C/A single bus that
`
`branches” a C/A signal into two signals shown in Lee’s Figure 4 disclosed that the
`
`register circuit generates two copies of the incoming CA signals as claimed.
`
`7
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 16
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 17 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`Appx106. The Petition further argued it was “a design choice” whether to use a
`
`single bus that branches into two signals or use two buses” as the claims require. Id.
`
`Kingston further argued that placing the circuits in a common chip packing as in all
`
`claims, and further in a common chip as in Claim 5, was also a “design choice.”
`
`Appx103-104. Additionally, Kingston proposed to construe the term “having a same
`
`frequency” to mean “with no intended modification from the frequency of the
`
`incoming signal.” Appx75.
`
`The Board instituted review on all challenged claims and grounds. Appx193;
`
`Appx221. While declining to explicitly construe “having a same frequency,” the
`
`Board found that the 150 Patent claims allow “intermediary frequency adjustments”
`
`to the copies of the signals based on the disclosure of “multipli[cation] by a factor
`
`of 1:X” in the specification. Appx200.
`
`In its Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition, Polaris provided documentary
`
`and expert evidence to rebut all instituted grounds. Appx230-302. Polaris also
`
`argued that canceling the claims would violate the Appointments Clause. Appx302-
`
`303.
`
`In its Reply, Kingston raised, for the first time, several new contentions,
`
`including a new claim construction. Appx326-327. The Board denied Polaris’s
`
`request to address these untimely contentions in Kingston’s Reply and only allowed
`
`8
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 17
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 18 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`Polaris to file a non-argumentative two-page list identifying these new issues.
`
`Appx346; Appx347-351.
`
`The Board subsequently found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious
`
`in view of Lee alone, or in combination with Keeth for two dependent claims, and
`
`cancelled all challenged claims, without addressing Polaris’s constitutional
`
`argument in the FWD. Appx51; Appx53. The Board also found that the new
`
`proposed claim construction and arguments in Kingston’s Reply were not untimely,
`
`and adopted them in relevant parts as the basis for its decision. See Appx53-54;
`
`Appx14; Appx10; Appx26.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Board’s decision to cancel all challenged claims of the 150 Patent should
`
`be reversed or at a minimum vacated and remanded, for at least the following reasons.
`
`First, the Board erred by adopting an incorrect construction that allows “one
`
`of the copies of the incoming clock signal” that the register is configured to receive
`
`to have a different frequency from the incoming clock signal, even though the claim
`
`expressly and only recites “the copies of the incoming clock signal having a same
`
`frequency as the incoming clock signal.” This claim interpretation is also inconsistent
`
`with the teachings of the specification; it ignores the prosecution history that confirms
`
`the claims were intended to define copies as having the same frequency; and it is
`
`contrary to the testimony of both parties’ experts.
`
`9
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2037
`Page 2037 - 18
`IPR2017-00116, Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1831 Document: 31 Page: 19 Filed: 12/21/2018
`
`Second, the Board erred in finding that receipt of a clock signal having half
`
`of the frequency of the incoming clock signal by a register in Lee meets the claims
`
`under its erroneous construction. The Board also erred in holding that even under
`
`the proper claim construction Lee rendered the claims obvious, by, in particular,
`
`reading one of Lee’s claims contrary to Lee’s express teachings, and so expansively
`
`to render it meaningless and Lee’s system inoperable.
`
`Third, the Board erred by making an unsupported finding that Lee renders
`
`obvious the claimed register circuit configured to generate copies of the CA signals,
`
`contrary to Lee’s disclosure of more CA signal lines going into the register than
`
`coming out, which, in fact, points away from the register making copies as claimed.
`
`Fourth, the Board erred by finding it obvious to integrate the register circuit
`
`and the clock signal regeneration circuits on a common