`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SK HYNIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETLIST, INC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 24, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and SHEILA F.
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSEPH MICALLEF, ESQUIRE
`KELLEY CONATY, ESQUIRE
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MEHRAN ARJOMAND, ESQUIRE
`Morrison Foerster, LLP
`707 Wilshire Blvd.
`Los Angeles, CA 990017
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 24,
`
`2018, at 1 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Madison Building
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you. Please be seated, and we should
`have Judges Clements and Siu joining us in a moment. Judge Clements?
`Judge Siu?
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: I'm here.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Judge Siu, can you hear us?
`JUDGE SIU: Yes, I'm here.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you. Good afternoon. We are here
`today, we actually have two afternoon sessions today. The first session
`which we'll be hearing now are the oral hearings for IPR2017-00667 and
`00668. This is the SK Hynix, a variety of different companies for Hynix,
`and then the Netlist. The first session will be approximately two hours and it
`will run until about 3 p.m. Then we're going to have a second session for
`IPR2017-00692 and it will be starting at about 3:10.
`I see we have counsel for all three cases in the room at the moment --
`I recognize you -- for Patent Owner, and I see we have the same Petitioner
`counsel for both sets of hearings this afternoon. Before we get started, we'd
`like to note the two cases came down from the Supreme Court this morning
`and one is the SAS case which changes how the Board has sometimes been
`addressing grounds that are brought by the petition to it. Let me know . . .
`we've had a short time to look at these cases so that includes everybody as
`we sit here today, so we are just going to address the issues that we have
`briefed in front of us for the hearing today. If the parties have something
`that they would like to bring to us in the near term and ask us for a call to
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`consider things that are related to SAS we will certainly consider a call at
`some future near term point. Okay? Everybody understand that? Would
`anybody like to comment on that, and I'll open it up to anybody at all, any of
`the counsel? Any comments on SAS?
`MR. MICALLEF: No comment from Petitioner, Your Honor, except
`perhaps congratulations on maintaining gainful employment.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Well, I won't comment on that but it's
`employment for probably many people in this room besides the judges for
`instance. But anyway here we are. We're at least all constitutional, we're all
`set on that. So let me turn back to the cases that we're going to hear in this
`first session, and can we have the parties' appearances for these cases, 667
`and 668 cases.
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes, Your Honor. I believe it's 677 and 678, but --
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Oh, sorry.
`MR. MICALLEF: That's okay. Joe Micallef for Petitioners and with
`me is my partner, Kelley Conaty, who's going to make the argument in these
`proceedings. A number of my colleagues are in the room too. My partner
`Brian Nester, my colleagues Wonjoo Suh and Sam Dillon, and from SK
`Hynix my clients, Mr. E. B. Rowe (phonetic), Mr. Sonjun Won (phonetic)
`are also in the room. Thank you.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you. And for Patent Owner, please.
`MR. ARJOMAND: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is
`Mehran Arjomand of Morrison Foerster for Patent Owner Netlist. I would
`just note that the IPR numbers are 2017-00667 and 00668.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. All
`right. And Petitioner, the way we're going to run this, Petitioner it's their
`case in chief so they are going to present their arguments. They can reserve
`some rebuttal time. We'll hear from Patent Owner in their response and then
`we'll hear, again, if any rebuttal time has been reserved. The parties have
`been given an hour each to address both the 667 case and 668 case. Thank
`you. If the parties have any discussions that are specific to either of the
`cases, please try to identify those as you go through it. I understand there's a
`lot of overlap in issues but to the extent there are differences any notations in
`the record will be helpful on that. If you're using demonstratives today, we
`have Judges Clements and Siu who are attending remotely, if you could refer
`to the demonstrative numbers it would be very helpful for them and also be
`helpful for the record and for the judges if you could stick to speaking in the
`microphone at the podium. Thank you, and if Petitioner is ready could you
`please proceed.
`MS. CONATY: Thank you, Your Honor. Kelley Conaty for the
`Petitioners. I would like to reserve 30 minutes time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Okay. What I'm going to do here is I'm going
`to give you the full 60 minutes and then we'll see how much is left that you
`have in your case in chief and we'll work from there. Okay. Thank you.
`MS. CONATY: As we've all noted, this proceeding is on two
`petitions related to the 537 patent and that is the 667 and 668 proceedings,
`and in the 667 proceeding the Board instituted trial on all three grounds. We
`see this on slide 2. One on anticipation by Amidi, one on obviousness in
`view of Amidi, and a third on the combination of Amidi and Klein.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`On slide 3 we see that in the 668 proceeding, the Board instituted trial
`on a combination of Amidi and Klein. As you saw in the reply brief,
`Petitioners have chosen to proceed on only the shared ground of obviousness
`in view of Amidi and Klein. That is ground C in the 667 proceeding. This
`Board therefore does not need to decide the grounds A and B. This shared
`ground of obviousness in view of Klein and Amidi was also at issue in
`related proceeding IPR2014-882 and 883 so the Board has actually already
`considered this combination. Those proceedings involved related patents
`with similar claims that included the selective isolation and the selective
`electrically coupling limitations that are at issue here today and these
`proceedings involved the same prior art references where Diablo
`Technologies made the same arguments of obviousness in view of Amidi
`and Klein, among others.
`Patent Owner likewise made the same arguments supported by the
`same expert. Logically nothing is different here. If anything, Petitioner's
`expert Dr. Stone has contributed additional more powerful arguments as to
`why Amidi and Klein render the claims of the 537 patent obvious. Those
`decisions were brought before the Board on remand from the Federal Circuit
`to consider a facts related construction of two terms, selectively electrically
`coupling as it appears in the 668 proceeding and the Federal Circuit
`construed that to mean coupling in response to a selection. Those decisions
`also considered the construction of the term selective isolating from the 667
`proceeding. It construed that to mean isolating in response to a selection.
`Our positions regarding obviousness in view of Amidi and Klein are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`consistent with both of the Federal Circuit's decision and the Board's
`decision on remand.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Counsel, going back to the selectively isolated
`term. Patent Owner seems to have adopted the construction of that term and
`do you have any issues remaining with selectively isolate because I don't
`think the Federal Circuit itself weighed in on selectively isolate, they said
`take guidance from our other decision on the other term’s construction. Do
`you have any issues at all with selectively isolate?
`MS. CONATY: We do not. On remand the Board had constructed
`that term to mean isolating in response to a selection very similarly to the
`selectively electrically coupling limitation and it's our position that Amidi
`and Klein under that construction for both terms renders the claims of the
`537 patent obvious.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you.
`MS. CONATY: Because I have a lot of slides here and I do not
`expect to go through all of them, I can move back and forth as we said to
`Your Honors and I can answer any questions that might arise but for now I
`would like to tell you I've got a roadmap of what I'd like to discuss here on
`slide 4. But again, if there are any questions and you do wish for me to jump
`around please just let me know.
`So moving to slide 6, I'm going to start with a very basic overview of
`the 537 patent. It's directed to memory modules and methods of using
`memory modules that provide both load isolation and memory domain
`translation. The isolation allows for an increase in memory capacity of the
`device without subjecting the computer system to an increased electrical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`load. The translation allows the computer system to interact with the
`memory module. It has an alternate configuration than the memory system
`expects, or that the computer system expects.
`So there are two claims that are relevant to the proceedings today and
`more specifically this one element from each of those two claims. On slide
`7 I've included claim 1 which is exemplary with respect to the claims at
`issue in the 667 proceeding. This claim is directed to a memory module that
`includes a circuit that selectively isolates the loads of the memory devices
`from the computer system. So everything not highlighted here on slide 7
`was disclosed in Amidi and the Patent Owner does not seem to contradict
`that. Rather, the dispute relates to the combination of Amidi and Klein with
`respect to this highlighted limitation of the circuit selectively isolating one or
`more of the loads.
`Claim 18 on slide 8 is exemplary with respect to the claims challenged
`by the 668 proceeding. Claim 18 is directed to a memory module that
`includes a device that is selectively electrically couples the data signal lines
`of various memory devices to a common data signal line and, again, the only
`disputed element is that which is highlighted on slide 8, the limitation related
`to selectively electrically coupling. The 537 patent explains that this circuit
`or device receives a set of input or command signals from the memory
`controller and performs rank isolation or rank translation, excuse me. It then
`generates a set of commands address signals that correspond to the number
`of ranks that are actually present in the system and as shown on slide 9,
`figure 4, the 537 patent explains that this logic element is also responsible
`for the selective isolation. As we see here circuit 40 uses switches 120A and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`120B to selectively isolate or to selectively electrically couple one or both of
`the data signal lines 102A or 102B.
`Now as we see on slide 10, the use of isolation switches was well
`known before the 2005 priority date of the 537 patent. This is reflected in
`the patent itself and in the JEDEC standard JESD79 which was Exhibit 1020
`in these proceedings. The 537 patent specification actually identifies
`(indiscernible) FET switches on the market from Texas Instruments that
`were compatible with the 537 patent embodiment and could be used to
`selectively isolate or selectively electrically couple as required by the claims.
`Likewise the JEDEC standard at page 7 describes the use of what's called
`the QFC signal to control isolation switches. So these switches were well
`known and the reason that is relevant today is because the only challenge
`raised by the Patent Owner is directed to the addition of these Klein FET
`switches to the memory module that is taught by Amidi.
`Moving to slide 12, I'd like to briefly give an overview of the primary
`reference, the Amidi patent. This is Exhibit 1006 in these proceedings. As
`with the 537 Amidi discloses a transparent four rank memory module for use
`in a two rank memory system. As Amidi explains because memory devices
`with lower density are cheaper and more readily available it can be
`advantageous to build a memory module using these lower densities, and as
`illustrated in figure 6 reproduced on slide 13 Amidi's memory module
`includes a complex programmable logical device, which is 604, a phase lock
`loop which is 606 and a register 608.
`On slide 14 the memory module in Amidi is coupled to the CPLD
`which includes internal decoding circuitry for determining which rank from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`the four ranks of memory to activate based on the address and command
`signals that were received from the memory controller. The CPLD
`translates these address and command signals and generates a new set of
`chip select signals compatible with the actual physical layout of the devices.
`The secondary reference in these proceedings is Klein and it's
`somewhat more relevant to the discussions today because this is the focus of
`much of the briefing in these proceedings. The Klein publication is directed
`to a method of reducing bus capacitance using transfer gate switches to
`decouple memory circuits from a data bus when they're not being accessed.
`Klein discloses that transfer gate switches can be FET switches as we see on
`slide 2. As noted earlier, commonly available FET switches were identified
`in the 537 patent as being responsible for the selective isolation or
`selectively electrically coupling limitations and likewise, as noted here in
`paragraph 26 shown on slide 16, bus circuits like those disclosed in Klein
`were well known to those of skill in the art in 2001.
`On slide 17 in these proceedings the Patent Owner has once again
`tried to characterize Klein as disparate embodiments arguing that the
`individual embodiments of control logic disclosed in Klein when combined
`with Amidi without modification would be inoperable without undue
`experimentation. But as explained in prior proceedings and in the papers
`here, and by Petitioner's expert Dr. Stone, the Klein publication discloses a
`menu of transfer gate implementations. It teaches a variety of design
`options. In fact figures 3 through 6 and figure 10 of the Klein publication all
`disclose potential embodiments with the invention including various
`arrangements of the isolation switches and of the control logic.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`On slide 18 we see that Klein likewise teaches that there are a variety
`of implementations for this control logic that is required to open and close
`the transfer gate switches. This control logic can be on module as shown in
`Klein figures 3 and 6. It can be off module as shown in Klein's figures 4 and
`5, or it can be inside the memory device itself which we see in figure 10.
`Klein's figures 8 and 9 are shown on slide 19 and the publication
`explains that figures 7, 8 and 9 illustrate potential limitations of decoders for
`controlling the opening and closing of the transfer gate switches. So as
`explained in the petitions and by Dr. Stone in his original declaration, one of
`skill in the art would understand that the examples shown in Klein's figures
`are intended to be flexible. They can be combined as is appropriate for the
`situation for that design.
`Indeed, on slide 20 we see Dr. Stone offer a specific example where
`he is combining figure 8 and figure 9 and he explained that you would
`combine figures 8 and 9, such that the control logic would include both the
`capabilities of the decoder circuit of figure 8 and the state machine logic of
`figure 9. As we see on slide 21, the Klein publication explicitly explains
`that such alterations do not depart from the spirit and central characteristics
`of the Klein publication and the Klein invention..
`Again, the Board separate from the claim construction issues has
`previously noted that Klein does not disclose disparate embodiments that
`teach away from each other. Rather, Klein provides examples that are
`intended to be versatile in their application. Indeed, as noted in figure 10 of
`Klein specifically shows a combination of the decoder embodiments.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`On slide 22 the issue of timing of the opening and closing of the
`transfer gate switches is also highly relevant to the issues before the Board
`today so I'd like to take a little additional time to address the disclosures for
`the proper timing of the opening and closing of these switches. The Patent
`Owner and its expert, Dr. Sechen, have argued that Klein is inoperable
`because one of skill in the art could not properly time the opening and
`closing of these FET switches without undue experimentation. But the
`proper timing of these switches was well know. The Patent Owner and its
`expert ignore Klein's explicit teaching with respect to timing and we see that
`on slide 22 in figure 1, and in paragraphs 22 and 23.
`The logic diagram of figure 1 explains how the switches couple and
`decouple a memory element from a bus based on when memory access to or
`from the selective memory element is performed. This figure and the
`disclosure accompanying this figure speak to a person of skill in the art that
`is reading in the Klein publication as a whole and one of skill in the art
`familiar with the JEDEC standard and familiar with the JEDEC command
`signals would understand how to best utilize the aspect of the control logic
`disclosed in Klein and how to adapt that logic to properly time the opening
`and closing of the transfer gate switches, of the well known transfer gate
`FET switches, and once again, the Board in the Diablo Technologies
`proceedings also found that Klein teaches the timing control of transfer gate
`switches. Now if there are no questions on the background of the patent
`itself, I'd like to explain a little bit more in detail about the proposed
`combination by Petitioners.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Let me just back you up counsel a little bit.
`Can you refer to paragraph 144 of your expert's declaration and also there
`was a declaration at 152 as well that talks about -- which the Patent Owner
`focuses in on -- about the commonly used chip select signals or RAS and so
`on, and essentially what Patent Owner globally is arguing is the deficiency
`of the petition as to the proofs, if you will, of the operability and do you
`have -- give me your best case on that, best legal case on that. Do you have
`a cite on that?
`MS. CONATY: I do not immediately have a cite on the particularity
`of our petition.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Yes, okay.
`MS. CONATY: I can certainly address it.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: All right. Well, let's just go to the declaration
`and the petition, okay? You mentioned paragraph 144, we've got 150.
`We've got language from the petition itself. Is there any other portions of
`the expert report or the petition that you're relying extensively on for the
`operability issue?
`MS. CONATY: For the operability issue? I believe it extends
`beyond in his petition where he actually shows -- if we could move to slide
`24 -- this appears a little bit later in his petition where he demonstrates the
`actual combination and how it would be operable, and I think we would cite
`to that as well, that discussion of how the Klein switches there in the boxes
`that are colored red and green would be added to the immediate memory
`module in order to perform the isolations that were the coupling.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Okay. Got you. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`MS. CONATY: Okay. Slide 24 does show Dr. Stone's original
`annotations of figure 4A. The figure shows that the Amidi module could be
`modified by adding these Klein switches. As is explained in the papers
`these switches would continue across the module but for clarity of the
`picture itself we have just shown them here in this manner on the two stack
`memory devices.
`But in this combination, the chip select from Amidi is going to be
`translated to activate the correct rank and here we see that each path would
`be controlled by a Klein switch and so at most, only one of the paths is
`active at one time. When a device is not selected, which is I believe is the
`green color here -- red would be the selective -- that corresponding path to
`the module pin is also not selected and that capacitive load of that path is
`isolated from the output pin as taught by Klein.
`Turning to slide 25. The 537 patent requires a circuit or device that
`performs the selective isolation or selective electric coupling and the
`required ranks of translation, and the petition has identified a circuit in
`Amidi as the CPLD, the register and the PLL. This is a circuit that performs
`the chip select translation in the combination and it is to this circuit that the
`Klein switch and Klein switch control circuitry would be added in the
`combination. In our petition we refer to this as an enhanced circuit or as Dr.
`Stone refers to it in his testimony, an enhanced CPLD, and he explained that
`this enhanced CPLD would include the Klein switches and control logic, and
`that the control logic would receive signals including the RAS, CAS, WE,
`CS address and bank address signals.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`
`As we see on slide 26, these signals are all received by the circuit
`identified as the CPLD, register and PLL in Amidi, and that's the
`combination. The 537 patent is directed to rank multiplication and isolation
`of loads using FET switches, the proposed combination as well known FET
`switches to the rank multiplication of Amidi. Both experts agree that one of
`skill in the art would be familiar with the JEDEC standard and that skilled
`artisan with experience in the design of memory systems and familiarity
`with the latest JEDEC standards would read Klein's teachings as a whole and
`they would be able to modify Klein's switches embodiments to be
`operational within the memory module disclosed by Amidi.
`One of skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination
`for many reasons, some of which are shown on slide 28. This combination
`involves the arrangement of old elements performing the same function with
`predictable results. As I explained earlier, the chip select functionality of
`Amidi permits the use of lower density cheaper memories with existing
`memory buses and the flexibility of the Klein circuitry allows for isolation
`of a variety of memory elements or segments as appropriate to that
`application. As we explained in the papers that can be the memory module,
`the rank or even as is on figure 10 the device itself, though performing this
`isolation can increase the speed at which memory accesses can be performed
`by isolating those memory devices that are not being accessed and removing
`the capacitive loading effects of those unaccessed memory devices.
`Looking at slide 30, the JEDEC standard itself would also provide
`motivation to make this combination. We see that Dr. Sechen does not
`dispute that one of skill in the art would be familiar with the JEDEC
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`standard and indeed, on slide 31, we see how we emphasize that such
`compliance with the JEDEC standard was important for the inter-operability
`between manufacturers with the benefit of increasing sales.
`As Your Honor referenced earlier, Netlist has argued again in this
`proceeding that the combination of Amidi and Klein would be inoperable
`without undue experimentation and to make this argument Netlist and Dr.
`Sechen limit the combination of Amidi and Klein to combining either figure
`7 or figure 8 with the disclosure of Amidi, and we see this on figure 37.
`Patent Owner and its expert, Dr. Sechen, argue that Dr. Stone's original
`declaration limited the combination of Amidi and Klein to the addition of a
`switch from either one of these two embodiments and the clearest way I can
`show you is to point to paragraph 144 again on slide 38, which is from his
`original declaration. This was cited in the petition and this is where Dr.
`Stone's example of the combination -- he provided an example of
`combinations -- his example was from figure 8 and figure 9. So in no way
`did he intend to limit the combination to be from either figure 7 and figure 8,
`and I think this is reflected in his entire declaration and in our papers as a
`whole that there was no intent to limit the combination, and as I've said
`Klein teaches a variety of design options.
`On slide 39 Dr. Stone expressly testified that it was at all times his
`intention to build that combination by using the teaching of Klein the way
`one of skill in the art would do so, and that if you take the pieces that are
`there the knowledge that that person has in how to design things and put
`them together and build a device that meets the timing requirements of
`Amidi and Klein. So, again, for the combination you would have the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`translated chip select signal from Amidi and figure 8 of Klein shows control
`logic using the RAS, CAS and WE command signals, and figure 9 shows
`control logic using address signals.
`Much was made during the briefing of whether or not it was
`reasonable for Dr. Sechen to limit the proposed combination to a
`combination with figure 7 or figure 8, and Dr. Stone repeatedly testified that
`this was an unreasonable reading of Klein as a whole, of our papers or of his
`declaration, that this reading was unreasonable. When asked if it was
`possible he certainly said it's possible because Dr. Sechen did do so but it
`was never his intention to limit it so and the declaration on its face
`contemplates the combination of the various figures in the system in an
`appropriate way that would make the Amidi module operable, as one of skill
`in the art would do so, and again on slide 40, we see that the Board
`previously rejected similar efforts to segregate Klein's teachings in this
`manner. As I noted before the Board found that the embodiments are not
`disparate embodiments that teach away from each other.
`So while Patent Owner's attack is presented on our Amidi Klein
`combination, when you look into their papers and into Dr. Sechen's
`declaration his real attack is on Klein itself and the fact that in his opinion
`every embodiment of the Klein publication would be inoperable. He
`contends that one of skill in the art would be unable to take the FET switches
`from Klein and combine them with Amidi without undue experimentation.
`Rather, it would require extraordinary skill or it would require the skill of an
`expert. These arguments are both immaterial and meritless. It's immaterial
`whether the Klein embodiments themselves are operable, but what's relevant
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`here is the teaching of Klein as a whole with how they speak to one of skill
`in the art and that one of skill in the art would be motivated to combine these
`(indiscernible) and FET switches from Klein to the memory modules of
`Amidi. We've already discussed that they would be motivated to do so and
`indeed recent decisions on remand and the 882 and 883 proceedings once
`again found that one of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the
`two proceedings. But it's likewise clear that they would be able to do so
`without undue experimentation.
`One of skill in the art, as defined by Dr. Stone in this proceeding, has
`at least two years professional experience in design of memory systems and
`familiarity with the latest JEDEC standards. One of skill in the art would
`not look to a single embodiment disclosed in Klein and indiscriminately
`insert that embodiment into the memory module of Amidi without any
`modification. Likewise the Klein publication teaches timing for the opening
`and closing of the FET switches. We saw that in figure 1 and in paragraphs
`22 and 23 of Klein as shown on slide 43. Klein does not have to explain
`every detail regarding the execution of the switch timing in order to render
`the 537 patent obvious because Klein speaks to one of skill in the art who
`has knowledge of that JEDEC standard, who has knowledge of the JEDEC
`timing diagrams and would know how to properly time isolation switches,
`and we see that on slide 44.
`On slide 45, we see that Dr. Sechen testified that the JEDEC standard
`is like a teaching document. It indicates how things should work. He
`explained that if you were designing a JEDEC compliant memory device
`you would certainly look at these timing diagrams. You would consider
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00667 and IPR2017-00668
`Patent 7,532,537
`
`them in the aggregate in a system like JEDEC that would inform that
`combination of Amidi and Klein references.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, I have a question about the 883
`decision on remand, and I know that the panel in that case just issued it on
`March 29th so it came in after the briefing. My question is how similar are
`Patent Owner's arguments in that case with the arguments in this case? It
`was a different patent but it was a continuation of this patent I see, and the
`claim language looks pretty similar. But did the decision in the 883 case
`depend in any way on the arguments Petitioner was making? In other
`words, they've relied on Amidi and Klein but I haven't compared their
`petition with your petition to see if they were relying on Klein in a different
`way than you're relying on it and I guess my question to you is does it matter
`or were the arguments that Patent Owner made in both cases the same?
`MS. CONATY: I understand, and I believe yes, the arguments would
`be the same, that the determination made in the 883 proceeding would apply
`here as well. My expectation is that Patent Owner would argue there is one
`additional argument that has been made in this proceeding in the Motion for
`Observation at Observation 14, and that's the argument that the 537 patent
`discloses Verilog code but it's not included in the Klein and the Amidi
`disclosures, and during his deposition Dr. Stone did address the Verilog code
`and explained that one of skill in the art would not require these excerpts of
`exemplary co
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
