UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 21, 2018
`_________________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and JOHN A. HUDALLA,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 21, 2018
`_________________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and JOHN A. HUDALLA,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` APPEARANCES:
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` PAUL ANDERSON, ESQ.
` CHETAN R. BANSAL, ESQ.
` Paul Hastings, LLP
` 875 15th Street, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 551-1948
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` KEVIN JONES, ESQ.
` TECHKNOWLEDGE LAW GROUP, LLP
` 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
` Redwood Shores, California 94065
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on June 21, 2018,
`commencing at 1:03 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Madison
`Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
` JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon. Please be seated. We'll
` wait a moment until Judge Turner comes on the screen from our San
` Jose office.
` Good afternoon. This is the oral argument -- a
` consolidated oral argument for two cases: IPR2017-01412 and
` 2017-01413. Both sides -- each side would get 45 minutes of
` argument time, and the petitioner may reserve some of that for
` rebuttal.
` Let's now go to introduction of counsel, beginning with
` Petitioner, followed by Patent Owner, please.
` MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Paul
` Anderson on behalf of Petitioner Samsung. With me is Chetan
` Bansal.
` JUDGE LEE: Anderson?
` MR. ANDERSON: Anderson.
` JUDGE LEE: I see. Thank you.
` MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Kevin Jones
` from the TechKnowledge Law Group, and lead counsel Greg Kaufman,
` also of TechKnowledge --
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
` MR. JONES: -- on behalf of Patent Owner, ProMOS.
` JUDGE LEE: Any time you're ready, Mr. Anderson, you can
` begin.
` MR. ANDERSON: Can I approach with a copy of the slides?
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
` MR. ANDERSON: If I could, I'd like to reserve 15
` minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. I'll give you a two-minute warning.
` MR. ANDERSON: Appreciate it.
` Good afternoon, Your Honors. Good morning, Judge
` Turner. I'm here representing Petitioner Samsung in the two IPR
` proceedings concerning patent 6,069,507. The Board initially
` instituted proceedings on with respect to claims 13 and 15 in both
` of the IPR proceedings. Following the SAS decision by the Supreme
` Court, the decision was modified to further include claims 10 and
` 11.
` If we could turn to slide 2, please. There are three
` grounds at issue in the two petitions or the two IPRs. In the
` 01412 proceeding, the two grounds are claims 10 and 11, as
` obvious over Donnelly and Iwamoto; claims 13 and 15, as
` anticipated by Jefferson. In 01413, it's all of claims 10, 11, 13
` and 15 as anticipated by Kim.
` With respect to all of these grounds, Patent Owner does
` not dispute that all of the claims are either anticipated or
` rendered obvious when the plain and ordinary meaning of the plain
` terms is applied. The dispute here is over the construction of
` two claim terms: One term in claim 10 and one term in claim 13.
` I'm going to start with claim 13 before moving on to
` claim 10 later. If you could turn to slide 3, please.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` Claim 13 is a method claim that includes two steps. The
` first step is determining whether a feedback clock signal in a DLL
` follows within a 180-degree phase difference behind an input clock
` signal. The second step in claim 13 is selecting a switch
` position according to that determining step or selecting a switch
` position includes selecting a first switch position when the
` feedback clock signal is found to follow behind the input clock
` signal within 180 degrees.
` If we could turn to slide 4. Slide 4 shows figure 2 of
` the '507 patent, and it's a little bit small, but if you look to
` the upper right of figure 2, you'll see a phase detector 12, and
` that's the first phase detector in the circuit, figure 2. On the
` bottom left, there's another phase detector. The second phase
` detector 30, and phase detector 30 receives an input clock signal,
` CKI from the top, and a feedback clock signal, CKF from the
` bottom.
` Second phase detector 30 makes a determination as to
` whether or not the feedback clock signal, CKF, follows within 180
` degrees behind CKI. And based on that determination, it controls
` the switch, 28, where switch 28 has two switch positions: Position
` 1 selects the non-inverted version of the input clock signal to
` provide that to the delay line whereas switch position 2 selects
` an inverted version of that input clock signal. And that inverted
` version is generated by inverter 26.
` If we could jump ahead to slide 13 really quickly.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` Slide 13 shows claim 1 of the '507 patent. Claim 1 is not a claim
` that's at issue in these IPR proceedings, but I think it's
` illustrious -- illustrative in terms of how the various features
` that are displayed in figure 2 of the '507 patent can be recited
` in a claim.
` And if you look at claim 1, it's a digital delay lock
` loop. It includes a first phase difference detector, and that was
` the phase detector 10 in the upper right -- or 12, pardon me, a
` second phase difference detector, which was -- which corresponds
` to the phase detector 30 in the lower left of figure 2. It
` recites the inverter that inverts the input clock signal, and it
` also recites the switch, 28, where the switch is controlled by the
` second phase difference detector for switching between the input
` clock signal and the inverted input clock signal in accordance
` with the second phase difference to provide the clock signal to
` the first phase difference detector.
` If we could jump back to slide 4. If you contrast claim
` 1 with what claim 13 recites, it's apparent that the drafter of
` claim 13 intended claim 13 to be very broad. Claim 13 simply
` recites the determination step where the determination is made as
` to the relationship between the feedback clock signal and the
` input clock signal. And then it -- based on that determination, a
` switch position is selected. And the selecting a switch position
` step within claim 13 is very limited in what it recites. It
` simply says that, if the condition of the feedback clock signal
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` following within 180 degrees behind the input clock signal is met,
` you select switch position 1. It doesn't indicate that you select
` a particular clock signal. It doesn't indicate what happens if
` the condition is not met such that the feedback clock signal
` doesn't follow within 180 degrees. The drafter of claim 13
` intended it to be very broad.
` If we could skip to slide 6, please. In the petitions,
` Patent Owner demonstrated that, under the plain and ordinary
` meaning of the terms within claim 13, the prior art disclosed
` these features. Notably, claim one was not challenged. Claim 13
` was. Patent Owner -- or sorry, Petitioner demonstrated that the
` Jefferson reference, performed the two steps that are recited in
` claim 13 -- and I'll be very brief -- as shown in slide 6, the
` flip-flop FF 2 at the bottom of figure 3-A of Jefferson performs
` the determining step. The reference clock corresponds to the
` input clock, and it's used to clock in the feedback clock signal
` that's applied at the D input of that flip-flop.
` Based on the sampling that that reference clock
` performs, a determination is made as to whether or not the
` feedback clock signal follows within 180 degrees. The output of
` that flip-flop, which is the determined step or the result of the
` determining step, is provided to logic block 188 in figure 3-A and
` the little excerpt from Jefferson on the right shows that
` Jefferson discloses that that logic block 188 can be implemented
` with an exclusive OR gate.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` If we could turn to slide 7. Slide 7 shows figure 3-A
` of Jefferson annotated to replace that logic block with an
` exclusive OR gate. The output of the flip-flop, FF 2, is provided
` on the lower input of the exclusive OR gate. And based on whether
` or not the feedback clock signal follows within 180 degrees, the
` input bead of the exclusive OR gate will control the exclusive OR
` gate such that it either outputs the other input in its true form;
` namely, A, or the other input in its complement form, A-barred.
` And as shown below in the representations that show how
` the exclusive OR gate functions as a switch, you can see that,
` when B is zero, the true value of A is output. And when B is 1,
` the complement is output.
` JUDGE LEE: Mr. Anderson, I think we understand the
` presentation in the petition, but the issue raised by Patent Owner
` is that none of the outputs of these flip-flops represent the
` clock signal and the inverted clock signal. So that's what I'm
` concerned about right now.
` MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
` JUDGE LEE: Can you -- I understand it's your position
` that the two steps of the claim do not require the -- anything
` about the input clock or the inverted clock based on the
` determination of the comparator.
` MR. ANDERSON: Correct. And this case turns completely
` on claim construction.
` JUDGE LEE: But can you explain why, then, did 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` examiner -- at least in one of the office actions -- say, The
` following is an examiner's statement for reasons for allowance.
` And then some language. And then, “More specifically, none of the
` prior art suggests nor teaches a switch controlled by the second
` phase detector for switching between the non-inverting input clock
` signal and the inverting input clock signal in accordance with the
` second phase detector to provide one of the said signals to the
` first phase detector.”
` MR. ANDERSON: My recollection is that that particular
` statement by the examiner was specific to claim 1, which
` explicitly recites those limitations.
` JUDGE LEE: Actually, it says -- right before that, it
` says, 1, 9, 16. If we look at the state of the claims at that
` time, we will see that it's actually claim 18 that would have that
` limitation.
` MR. ANDERSON: And if I recall correctly, claim 18
` eventually issues as claim 16. And claim 9 has nothing about
` selecting the switch position, and I believe claim 1 is the only
` claim that recites specifically selecting between a first input
` clock signal and a second input clock signal.
` Original claim 15, I believe, recited -- let me pull it
` up so I'm sure. And this is at Exhibit 1004, pages 26 to 27.
` Original claim 9 recited, "Maintaining further comprises selecting
` an inverted input clock signal as the input signal when the
` determined phase difference is greater than approximately 180
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` degrees."
` So claim 9 modified claim 8, which was independent. And
` claim 8 actually doesn't -- it does. It has "delaying the input
` clock signal to compensate for the phase difference."
` So the specific claims that the examiner points to
` include something akin to a selection between two clock signals.
` Claim 1 specifically recites it. Claim 9 recites selecting the
` inverted clock signal when it's further than 180 degrees out. And
` claim 18 also indicates the second switch position selects the
` inverted clock signal.
` So I wouldn't dispute that the examiner saw that switch
` position selecting between two clock signals in those claims, but
` that's clearly not the case in claim 13. And if you look at
` original claim -- well, it's actually a combination of 14 and 15
` that resulted in 13 -- it's limited to only selecting a first
` switch position according to the determining step. Claim 14 as
` issued, what was original claim 16, indicates that that first
` switch position corresponds to the input clock signal, the
` non-inverted version.
` Original claim 17 is the first place where you find out
` what happens if the condition isn't met, and that indicates the
` second switch position is selected. And notably, original claim
` 17, which issued as claim 15, doesn't depend from claim 14. It
` goes back to 13.
` So it --
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` JUDGE LEE: I'm trying -- what I'm trying to get at is
` why did the examiner allow the claim that issued as claim 13?
` That's what I'm really driving at. Do we know?
` MR. ANDERSON: I don't think it's clear from the
` prosecution history. There's not a plain statement from the
` examiner. The applicant at the time didn't argue that any of the
` limitations were not disclosed in the prior art. The file
` wrapper, what it provides is an initial rejection by the examiner,
` indicating that the maintaining feature, which is the topic we'll
` talk about with respect to claim 10, was not disclosed in the one
` prior art reference that was cited but was obvious in light of
` that prior art reference.
` And then the examiner indicated that there was a great
` deal of allowable subject matter. And in response to that office
` action, Applicant simply rolled all the dependent claims into
` the -- or all the independent claims into the dependents that the
` examiner indicated allowed -- included allowed --
` JUDGE LEE: Which application claim ended up as claim 13
` in the patent?
` MR. ANDERSON: Application -- a combination of claims 14
` and 15.
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. So the examiner does make a
` statement, claims 2 to 7, 9 to 13, and 16 to 18, but later on,
` there was, like, an interview, and that 16 should have been 15.
` So the examiner said 15 to 18 would have been allowable if
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` rewritten to overcome the indefiniteness rejection and to include
` all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
` MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
` JUDGE LEE: So perhaps that's why the applicant rewrote
` 15 and 14 all into an independent form.
` MR. ANDERSON: I believe so. And I think part of it
` also is 14 had an indefiniteness rejection with respect to one of
` the features in claim 14, and they deleted that feature.
` JUDGE LEE: I see. But still -- but we don't know why
` the examiner allowed 15 and 14.
` MR. ANDERSON: I think he indicated initially they had
` allowable subject matter on them, yes.
` JUDGE LEE: But there's, like, nothing like, I'm
` allowing it because it had this feature.
` MR. ANDERSON: No. And if you look at the notice of
` allowance, I mean, the indication there is that, you know, claim
` 15 was allowed because it includes maintaining the phase
` difference between the feedback clock signal and the input clock
` signal within 180 degrees, which is a feature that's not recited
` in that claim. It's recited in some other claims.
` JUDGE LEE: I see. So the examiner never said, with
` respect to patent claim 13, that he thought it had the clock and
` inverted clock feature in it.
` MR. ANDERSON: I don't believe that's in the file
` wrapper or would be evident from the file wrapper.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` And, again, it's hard to ascertain exactly what the
` patent -- or what the examiner was thinking, but what's clear is
` Applicant didn't make any representations in the file history, and
` Applicant made no representations in the specification that the
` plain and ordinary meaning of selecting a switch position should
` be anything other than it is. I mean, the law is clear that,
` absent some clear disclaimer or lexicography on the part of the
` applicant, the plain and ordinary meaning should apply. And
` Patent Owner can't point to anything in the file history or the
` specification that would justify a deviation from the plain and
` ordinary meaning of selecting a switch position.
` And I think claim 1 really highlights that the drafter
` of the claims knew how to recite selecting between a
` non-inverting -- a non-inverted and an inverted clock signal.
` That is clearly not in claim 13. And even the dependent claims
` that come off of claim 13 are not as explicit or as limiting as
` what's in claim 1.
` JUDGE LEE: I think the Patent Owner has an indirect
` argument that goes something like, The examiner indicated in the
` final notice of allowance that none of the prior art shows the
` maintaining limitation. And the Patent Owner says, Well, you have
` to read in my clock and inverting clock requirement because that
` is how I -- claim 13 would achieve the maintaining requirement.
` MR. ANDERSON: I understand that's the position they
` have taken. I don't think you can ascertain that from 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` prosecution history. There has to be some clear disclaimer in the
` prosecution history that would indicate that that's the position
` Patent Owner believed at the time.
` And I think, more importantly, it's not even clear as to
` how the examiner was viewing these claim terms in terms of the
` definition the examiner would have applied to these. So whereas
` Patent Owner believes certain constructions are appropriate for
` these terms, the constructions that they're putting forth are
` nowhere in the prosecution history. While the examiner might have
` believed there was something in these claim terms that warranted
` allowance of the claims, it's not clear that the specific language
` that the Patent Owner is trying to import into these claims is
` what the examiner had in mind.
` JUDGE LEE: Where is the maintaining limitation in claim
` 13?
` MR. ANDERSON: I don't believe it's in claim 13.
` JUDGE LEE: But, yet, the examiner said in the notice of
` allowance, for all claims, that none of the art includes the
` maintaining limitation. So how -- how do you explain that?
` MR. ANDERSON: My -- it's unclear, but my best
` explanation is, if you go back to the office action, the only
` feature that the examiner found was not recited in the prior art
` reference to -- he asserted the Butcher reference -- was the
` maintaining feature.
` And based on that, he rejected some of the original
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` claims. And when Patent Owner modified the pending claims in a
` way that satisfied the examiner's request in terms of putting
` allowable subject matter into the independent claims that were
` rejected -- specifically claim 8 was rejected -- it included the
` maintaining step -- that satisfied the examiner. And when he
` issued the notice of allowance, he indicated that the maintaining
` step has been -- as in the claims being allowed is not disclosed
` in the prior art. That's -- I think it's plausible.
` And if you look --
` JUDGE LEE: But that's incorrect, though. They didn't
` add the maintaining limitation into what became claim 13.
` MR. ANDERSON: I agree. The one thing that I think
` might provide a clue as to the examiner's thinking is if you look
` at pending claim 8 at the time, this was a claim that was rejected
` based on Butcher, and it included the maintaining step in its core
` form. Right? Simply maintaining the feedback clock signal within
` 180 degrees of the input clock signal.
` The examiner indicated that that claim was not
` allowable. It was rejected over Butcher. But the examiner
` indicated that claims 9 and 11, which specifically modified that
` maintaining step and put more oomph behind it, were allowable
` claims that included allowable subject matter. Both of those
` claims include additional aspects of the maintaining limitation
` and claim 11, of course, is the one that eventually issued as
` claim 10 that we'll look at in a short while, and it specifies
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` that the maintaining is performed using a loop that includes a
` phase detector, a shift register, and a delay line. Similarly,
` claim 9 included, as we discussed earlier, the fact that the
` inverted clock signal is selected when it doesn't follow within
` 180 degrees.
` So those -- it could be that the examiner is referring
` to the maintaining step in the shorthand, in the sense that claim
` 11 or claim 8 originally only recited maintaining, and now that
` the maintaining step has been fleshed out more through the
` addition of the matter that's in the dependent claims, that
` maintaining was not disclosed in Butcher.
` JUDGE LEE: I see. So -- in either case, it's not
` entirely clear, whatever we think.
` MR. ANDERSON: I agree. And I think what the take-away
` from this is, because the prosecution history is not clear and
` because the applicant did not make any overt statements in the
` prosecution history that says, Hey, we agree, the prior art
` doesn't disclose this maintaining feature for this reason, or the
` maintaining feature means this, and it's not disclosed in the
` prior art, Applicant at the time did nothing other than fold
` independent claims into dependent claims in order to get them
` allowed. There's no clear statement that would justify the
` deviation from the plain and ordinary meaning.
` JUDGE LEE: What about -- we said at DI that the
` maintaining limitation was added to overcome prior art, and I
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` think in your reply, you said that's not true. The maintaining
` limitation was always there in the independent claim; right? And
` then what happened was they just rewrote some of the dependent
` claims into independent form. So it is not the case that the
` maintaining limitation was added to overcome art; is that right?
` MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. I mean, I can understand
` how, looking at the file wrapper, you might have an initial
` perception that this maintaining feature was added, but, in fact,
` specifically with respect to the claim that issued as claim 10,
` which was pending claim 11, it depended from claim 8. Claim 8
` recited that feature -- independent claim 8 recited that feature
` so that when the examiner indicated claim 11 had allowable subject
` matter in it, it's sort of the inverse of adding the dependent
` claim feature to the independent claim. Instead, they took all
` the features from the independent claim and merged them into the
` dependent claim.
` JUDGE LEE: I see. So that made the dependent claim
` allowable by including the limitation from the independent claim.
` MR. ANDERSON: Correct, which was already part of the
` dependent claim.
` JUDGE LEE: So it is not the case that there was no
` maintaining limitation anywhere and then they added it to get some
` claims allowed.
` MR. ANDERSON: Correct. None of the claims were amended
` in a way that added subject matter to the claims. In fact, 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` one claim we discussed earlier that issued as claim 15, a feature
` was removed from that claim because it was found to be indefinite
` by the examiner. So nothing was added to the claims between the
` office action and the notice of allowance.
` JUDGE LEE: Do you want to get into claim 10?
` MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Shifting over to claim 10. So if
` you could please turn to slide 14. Technical difficulties. We
` apologize. I know you guys have a hard copy.
` Judge Turner, do you have a hard -- do you have a copy
` of the slides?
` JUDGE TURNER: I do.
` MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
` So looking at slide 14, this has got claim 10 on it.
` And claim 10, again, is a method claim. It has a few steps in it.
` First, there's a determination as to the phase difference between
` an input clock signal and a feedback clock signal. Then there's
` the maintaining the phase difference between the input clock
` signal and the feedback clock signal within approximately 180
` degrees, including adjusting the input clock signal with a loop
` that comprises a phase detector, a shift register, and a delay
` line where the determined phase difference is less -- when the
` determined phase difference is less than approximately 180
` degrees. And then there's a delay in the input clock signal step
` to compensate for the phase difference where the number of delay
` cells utilized is reduced by approximately one-half.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` And, again, Patent Owner does not dispute that these
` features are disclosed by Kim, and the combination of Donnelly and
` Iwamoto when the claim terms are given the plain and ordinary
` meaning. And I -- I could step through how the prior art shows
` these features, but I think it's adequate to summarize that
` wherein both of the IPRs, when we address the feature of
` maintaining the phase difference between the input clock signal
` and the feedback clock signal within approximately 180 degrees, we
` show two ways in which the two separate grounds demonstrated this
` maintenance of the phase relationship.
` Both of the prior art references -- the Donnelly
` reference and the Kim reference -- are delay lock loops where
` their objective is to maintain an output clock signal which, in
` those references, is the feedback clock signal, in very close
` alignment with an input clock signal.
` So the result of these delay lock loops is to have a
` feedback clock signal that is within a few degrees in phase of the
` input clock signal. And the Board recognized that there's jitter
` associated with that because it will either make it a little bit
` on the leading side or a little bit on the lagging side, and it
` will continually do that because that's as close as it can get to
` perfect alignment.
` So we demonstrated that both of the references
` maintained the phase relationship within 180 degrees by
` maintaining the phase relationship within a very few degrees. We
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` also demonstrated that the prior art references disclose this
` feature based on the fact that the feedback clock signal in these
` references is simply a delayed version of the input clock signal,
` and because the feedback clock signal is a delayed version of the
` input clock signal, that signal is -- it looks exactly like the
` input clock signal. It's just shifted in phase by some amount.
` And if it's shifted 180 -- or 190 degrees lagging, it's
` only leading by 170. So it's always within 180 degrees, and
` that's not necessarily true for two clock signals that have the
` same frequency and have the same period.
` Now, Patent Owner has argued that that renders that
` claim limitation superfluous and meaningless. We didn't treat it
` that way.
` JUDGE LEE: Just a second. There's something very
` important. How did you prove that, in the prior art, the
` frequency and period between the feedback and the original input
` is the same?
` MR. ANDERSON: We stepped through both the Donnelly
` reference and the Kim reference and showed how the input clock
` signal, how it progressed through the circuitry in each of those
` two references to eventually result in the output. And the only
` operations that were performed on those clock signals were
` delaying operation.
` JUDGE LEE: I see. So it's simply -- if you follow
` whatever is disclosed, the frequency and period would not be
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2017-01412 (Patent 6,069,507)
`CASE IPR2017-01413 (Patent 6,069,507)
`
` expected to change. It's not like an expressed statement isn't
` the reference that, Hey, the frequency and period is the same
` between these two.
` MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. We track the signal through the
` circuit to show that the frequency and period would remain the
` same through the entire loop, from input to output. I mean, it's
` an aside that maybe isn't relevant, but DLLs are different in some
` ways than PLLs in the sense that a phase lock loop can modify the
` frequency whereas a delay lock loop typically wouldn't.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you. And, also, isn't frequency just
` the inverse of period?
` MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
` JUDGE LEE: So when we're talking about two, we're
` actually talking about one item.
` MR. ANDERSON: Correct. If the frequency is the same,
` the period will be the same.
` There's also the issue of duty cycle. I don't think
` that comes into play here.
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. Sorry to interrupt you. You were
` going to say that --
` MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Patent Owner's position is based on
` the fact that within the DLL structures that we raised as prior
` art -- so Donnelly and Kim. Because the feedback clock signal --
` we showed that the feedback clock signal had the same frequency as
` t
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
