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 IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574
`
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,208,574
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574
`
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,208,574
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page(s)
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................. 2
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’574 PATENT ........................................................... 2
`IV. PROMOS’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .............................. 6
`A.
`Samsung’s Proposed Claim Constructions Are Unnecessary and
`Not Relevant to Any Issue to be Resolved by the Board ..................... 6
`The Construction of “Local Data Write Driver Circuit” is a
`“write driver circuit having definite spatial form or location” ............ 7
`The Construction of “Local Column Read Amplifier” is a
`“column read amplifier having definite spatial form or location” ..... 13
`V. A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD NOT COMBINE
`INOUE/MIN WITH HAMADE TO RENDER CLAIMS 4-18 AND
`21-27 OBVIOUS .......................................................................................... 14
`VI. A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD NOT COMBINE
`INOUE/MIN/HAMADE WITH OGAWA TO RENDER CLAIMS
`11-13 AND 18 OBVIOUS ........................................................................... 18
`VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS REGARDING
`CONSTITUTIONALITY ............................................................................. 22
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronics, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 9
`
`In re: CSB-System Int’l, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................ 17, 18, 20, 22
`
`EMI Grp. N. Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`157 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Fin Control Systems Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Inline Plastics Corp. v. Easypak,
`LLC, 799 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 8, 11
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 8, 9, 11
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 17, 18, 22
`
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 22
`
`In re: Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
`No. 16-712, 2017 WL 2507340 (U.S. June 12, 2017) ........................................ 22
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`
`ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc.,
`833 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 8, 11
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 8, 11
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner ProMOS Technologies, Inc. hereby responds to Samsung’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review seeking cancellation of claims 4-18, and 21-27 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,208,574 (Ex. 1001).
`
`The Board should find that all challenged claims are not invalid. For claims
`
`4-10, 14-17, and 21-27, Samsung has combined Inoue with and Min and Hamade,
`
`and for claims 11-13 and 18 Samsung has combined Inoue with Min, Hamade, and
`
`Ogawa. The Board should reject Samsung’s proffered combination of the Inoue/Min
`
`system with both Hamade and Ogawa, because each of Hamade and Ogawa are
`
`incompatible with the goals and structure disclosed by Inoue. Inoue is directed to a
`
`sense amplifier circuit designed to consume less power. Hamade describes a
`
`structure that achieves the opposite result – it achieves greater speed by adding a
`
`four-transistor drive circuit for each bit line pair, and in doing so consumes greater
`
`power. Similarly, Ogawa describes a circuit that would increase power consumption
`
`by using an additional decoder which would worsen the very problem that Inoue
`
`sought to overcome. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the
`
`references in the way suggested.
`
`In addition to its invalidity arguments, Samsung proposed a construction of
`
`the terms “local data write driver circuit” and “local column read amplifier”
`
`requiring these structures to be “associated with only one latch circuit.” The Board
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`has adopted this construction in its institution decision. But this is an unnecessary
`
`claim construction that the Board did not, and does not, need to reach to resolve the
`
`issues in this trial. ProMOS does not dispute that the combined Inoue/Min/Hamade
`
`or Inoue/Min/Hamade/Ogawa systems have a “local data write driver circuit” and a
`
`“local column read amplifier” under either its construction or under Samsung’s
`
`proposed construction. Rather, Samsung’s claim construction efforts are merely an
`
`effort to obtain an advisory ruling that furthers its non-infringement case in the
`
`district court, nothing more.
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`ProMOS submits that the Board should hold that claims 4-18, and 21-27 are
`
`patentable over the cited art.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’574 PATENT
`As explained by Mr. Gervasi in his supporting declaration, the ’574 patent
`
`relates to an improved sense amplifier arrangement in a Dynamic Random Access
`
`Memory (“DRAM”). Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶ 22. A DRAM is a memory
`
`device having thousands of memory cells arranged in rows and columns. Ex. 1001
`
`(’574 Patent) at col. 1:18-21, 1:35-41, 2:15-21. Each memory cell is formed of a
`
`capacitor holding a state (either a “1” or a “0”) and resides at the intersection of a bit
`
`line pair (typically arranged in rows) and a word line (typically arranged in columns).
`
`Id. at col. 1:28-29. In these prior art structures, a single sense amplifier was typically
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`associated with each column, and assists in reading from and writing to its connected
`
`memory cells. Id. at col. 1:40-46.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’574 patent depicts three sense amplifiers:
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Sense amplifier 10 contains cross-coupled transistors 12, 14, 18, and 20,
`
`which connect to bit line pair BLI and BLI. Ex. 1001 (’574 Patent) at col. 1:51-2:1.
`
`On a read, the memory cell discharges onto its corresponding bit lines, and the sense
`
`amplifier senses the state of the bit lines and amplifies the signal for transmission to
`
`the device output drivers. Id. at col. 1:41-44. On a write to a memory cell,
`
`complementary states are provided to the sense amplifier by write driver circuits and
`
`the sense amplifier charges the bit lines according to the provided states, thus writing
`
`data into the memory cell. Id. at col. 1:44-46.
`
`In large memories having thousands of columns and rows, a chip may have
`
`thousands of sense amplifiers. Ex. 1001 (’574 Patent) at col. 2:15-21. Each sense
`
`amplifier presents a capacitive load which interacts with the intrinsic resistance of
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`the line to slow signal transmission. Id. at col. 2:23-29. This causes voltage drops
`
`on the end of a line furthest from the driver that are slower than on the near end,
`
`causing a slow-down in overall memory speed. Id. at col. 2:29-54. Similarly, there
`
`may be intersymbol interference delays associated with pattern sensitivities where,
`
`for example, a “0” is read after a series of “1”s on a shared line. Because the “1”s
`
`cause a large current to flow through sense amplifiers, the decline in voltage at the
`
`far end (where a “0” is read, in this example) will be slowed substantially while
`
`waiting for an adequate current to flow. Id. at col. 2:55-67.
`
`The ’574 patent therefore localizes the data write driver circuit and read
`
`amplifier so that each data write driver circuit and read amplifier is driving much
`
`fewer sense amplifiers. Figures of the ’574 patent show a sense amplifier connected
`
`with a local data write driver circuit and a local read amplifier.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 5 and 8.
`
`The local data write driver circuits in the above figures are transistors 128,
`
`130, 132, and 134. Id. at col. 7:15-16. The local read amplifier is transistors 150,
`
`152, 154, and 156. Id. at col. 7:42-43. These local write driver circuits and local
`
`read amplifiers, and the signals controlling them, may be shared among several sense
`
`amplifiers on the device. Id. at col. 7:19-24. The specification also states that the
`
`“local data write driver transistors 128-134 can be shared with other column
`
`circuits . . .” Id. at col. 7:55-57.
`
`Making the data write driver and read amplifier local reduces the resistive-
`
`capacitive load on the line and allows less variance between the speed of voltage
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`drop on the near end versus the far end of the line, making the lines less sensitive to
`
`pattern sensitivities.
`
`IV. PROMOS’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`Samsung’s Proposed Claim Constructions Are Unnecessary and
`A.
`Not Relevant to Any Issue to be Resolved by the Board
`
`In its petition, Samsung presented constructions for the claim terms “local
`
`data write driver circuit” and “local column read amplifier.” Petition at pp. 9-16.
`
`Neither of these constructions, however, are necessary to the present trial, which is
`
`focused on the validity of the challenged claims. Promos does not dispute that these
`
`limitations are disclosed by the prior art combinations submitted by Samsung, under
`
`either Samsung’s proposed constructions or ProMOS’s proposed constructions.1
`
`Thus, by presenting this question to the Board, Samsung is not seeking to resolve an
`
`issue that matters in this inter partes review. Instead, it is seeking an advisory
`
`opinion from the Board that is relevant only to infringement issues before the district
`
`court.
`
`
`1 The Inoue/Min/Hamade/Ogawa system discloses at least one write driver circuit
`
`and one read amplifier for a corresponding sense amplifier, meeting both Samsung’s
`
`1:1 construction, as well as Promos’s construction “[h]aving a definite spatial form
`
`or location.” See, infra.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`Because there is no dispute about these claim limitations, the Board should
`
`not construe these terms. As a general rule, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem.
`
`Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Petition at 14; Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`v. Cellport Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015); EMI Grp.
`
`N. Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887, 895 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (stating that a claim
`
`term’s construction is “irrelevant” because it did not affect the underlying dispute
`
`between the parties). Samsung acknowledges, but ultimately disregards, this well-
`
`known legal principle. Petition at p. 9. Because the resolution of the parties’ claim
`
`construction dispute is immaterial to the questions of validity presented to the Board,
`
`there is no need to construe these terms, and the Board should withdraw its
`
`preliminary claim construction for these terms.
`
`B.
`
`The Construction of “Local Data Write Driver Circuit” is a “write
`driver circuit having definite spatial form or location”
`
`To the extent the Board believes it should construe the the term “local data
`
`write driver circuit,” the term should be construed as “a write driver having a definite
`
`spatial form or location.” This language was previously adopted as the construction
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`of the term “local data write driver circuit” by the Board during ex parte prosecution
`
`of a related patent. Ex. 1006 (’270 file history) at p. 299.2
`
`The invention in the ’574 patent brings data write driver circuits closer to the
`
`sense amplifiers, and whether the write driver circuits have a 1:1 relationship with a
`
`single sense amplifier, as proposed by Samsung, or are located “within a definite
`
`spatial form or location” of a subset of sense amplifiers does not affect the fact that
`
`either embodiment carries out the goals of the patent – reducing delay differences
`
`and pattern sensitivities. Ex. 1001 (’574 Patent) at col. 2:49-67; Ex. 2001 (Gervasi
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 32-38.
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction seeks to impermissibly read a limitation
`
`from a preferred embodiment into its proposed construction. Inline Plastics Corp.
`
`v. Easypak, LLC, 799 F.3d 1364, 1368-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ScriptPro LLC v.
`
`Innovation Assocs., Inc., 833 F.3d 1336, 1340-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Liebel-Flarsheim
`
`Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904-909 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa
`
`N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1326-28 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is axiomatic that even if
`
`only a single embodiment is offered in a patent, the claims should not be limited to
`
`
`2 The ’270 Patent shares the same parent application, serial no. 07/976,312 as
`
`the ’574 patent. The ’270 patent is before the Board in Inter Partes review 2017-
`
`00036, where this issue was also addressed. Paper No. 10.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`that embodiment, absent strong evidence to the contrary. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co.,
`
`358 F.3d at 906. Samsung offers no such evidence, and indeed, in this case, the
`
`patentee has not limited its claims to the embodiment with a write driver connected
`
`to only a single sense amplifier.
`
`Because the ’574 patent will expire during the pendency of this proceeding,
`
`claim construction proceeds under the precepts of Phillips. In re: CSB-System Int'l,
`
`Inc., 832 F.3d 1335, 1340-43 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this context, the claim is given the
`
`ordinary meaning it would have to a person skilled in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As part of the construction process, the
`
`Board should consider the intrinsic record – in this case, the specification and
`
`original prosecution history of a patent related to the ’574 patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,088,270 (“’270 patent”). Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic,
`
`Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed.Cir. 2001) ("The prosecution history of a related
`
`patent can be relevant if, for example, it addresses a limitation in common with the
`
`patent in suit."). The intrinsic record supports ProMOS’s construction.
`
`During prosecution of the ’270 patent, the Board explicitly construed this
`
`term. Ex. 1006 (’270 file history) at p. 299. On appeal, the Board considered the
`
`meaning of the term “local data write driver circuit,” rejected Promos’s arguments
`
`to the contrary, and held that this term should be construed as “data write driver
`
`circuits that have a definite spatial form or location.” Id. Like the ’270 patent,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`the ’574 patent specification explicitly states that the “local data write driver
`
`transistors 128-134 can be shared with other column circuits as long as they have
`
`separate column write signals.” Ex. 1001 (’574 Patent) at col. 7:55-57. Samsung’s
`
`construction would exclude this described embodiment that permits shared local data
`
`write drivers. Finally, the patent discloses that the data write signals that control the
`
`write driver circuits are associated with several sense amplifiers, again supporting
`
`the conclusion that in some embodiments the write drivers may be shared among
`
`many sense amplifiers. Id. at col. 7:19-24.
`
`Samsung raises four points in its efforts to narrow the construction of this
`
`term: the grammar of the claims; the structure in Figure 5; the use of the term
`
`“global” to describe a column select signal; and patent owner’s arguments during ex
`
`parte prosecution of patents related to the ’574 Patent. Petition at pp. 10-14. But
`
`these citations, taken alone or in combination, do not rise to the level of disavowal
`
`necessary to limit this claim term to one of the specific embodiments described in
`
`the specification.
`
`Samsung’s grammatical argument is based on the language of the claims
`
`which recite a relationship between “each” sense amplifier and “a pair” of local data
`
`write driver circuits.” But nowhere do the claims require that the local data write
`
`driver circuits be associated with only one sense amplifier – in other words, the
`
`claims certainly do require each sense amplifier must couple to a pair of local data
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`write driver circuits, but do not specify that the local data write driver circuits cannot
`
`be coupled to several other sense amplifiers.
`
`As to Figure 5, this figure shows one example of the claimed invention, with
`
`a single sense amplifier and its connections. Ex. 1001 (’574 Patent) at col. 6:6-7
`
`(“FIG. 5 illustrates a preferred sense amplifier 100”); Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration)
`
`at 26. The presence of this figure, however, does not justify limiting the claim to the
`
`embodiment shown in the figure. Inline Plastics Corp., 799 F.3d at 1368-71;
`
`ScriptPro LLC, 833 F.3d at 1340-42; Liebel-Flarsheim Co., 358 F.3d at 904-909;
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1326-28.
`
`Samsung then relies on the usage of the term “global” in a discussion about
`
`the column select signal YW in an effort to define a completely different term –
`
`“local.” This language states: “this is a ‘global’ signal (meaning that in a preferred
`
`embodiment YW is connected to several sense amps in a subarray).” Ex. 1001 (’574
`
`Patent) at col. 11:26-28. Simply because the patentee described the YW signal’s
`
`connection to several sense amplifiers as “global” does not mean that the term
`
`“local” requires write drivers to be associated with only a single latch circuit. The
`
`terms “global” and “local” are not necessarily opposites, and in the ’574 patent
`
`specification they are used with reference to different signals carrying different
`
`information with different functions and electrical characteristics.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`Finally, Samsung relies on file history from the parent application, and
`
`related ’270 patent, neither of which clearly supports its position:
`
`Samsung argues that ProMOS disavowed claim scope during prosecution
`
`history of the related ‘270 patent (Petition at 13-14), but as noted above these
`
`statements made during prosecution of the related patent were explicitly
`
`acknowledged and rejected by the Patent Office. The Patent Office said “[w]e
`
`disagree with the appellant and also disagree with the examiner. The appellant errs
`
`by attempting to read limitations from the specification into the claims . . . [t]hings
`
`that are local, ‘hav[e] a definite spatial form or location . . . each of the claims recites
`
`data write driver circuits that have a definite spatial form or location.” Ex. 1006 (’270
`
`file history) at pp. 298-299.
`
`Similarly, Samsung points out that during prosecution of the parent
`
`application to the ’574 patent, applicant argued that transistors in prior art were not
`
`local drive transistors because they drive lines connected to several sense amplifiers.
`
`Petition at pp. 13-14. But this statement was made about the prior art figures in
`
`the ’574 patent itself. Ex. 1005 (parent patent prosecution history) at pp. 166-168.
`
`And in those figures the transistors at issue (24 and 26) drive long lines LP and LN
`
`which are connected to every single sense amplifier in a row. Ex. 1001 (‘574 patent)
`
`at Figs. 1, 2. This explanation cannot be interpreted to mean that any time a transistor
`
`connects to more than one sense amplifier, it is necessarily global.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`The Board should not construe this term, but if it does, it should reject
`
`Samsung’s attempt to improperly limit the term to a preferred embodiment.
`
`C. The Construction of “Local Column Read Amplifier” is a “column
`read amplifier having definite spatial form or location”
`
`“[T]he same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be
`
`given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution
`
`history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.”
`
`Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here,
`
`the term “local” should take on the same meaning when used throughout various
`
`claims of the ’574 patent, and in every case it should not be limited to only a single
`
`latch circuit. Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶¶ 39-41.
`
`The specification of the ’574 patent supports this conclusion. It describes an
`
`embodiment where the signals supplied to the local read amplifier and local drive
`
`transistor(s) are supplied to multiple sense amplifiers: “the data read signals DR and
`
`DRB are shared among or applied to many sense amplifiers on the memory device.”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’574 Patent) at col. 7:23-24.
`
`Therefore, the term “local column read amplifier” should be construed to
`
`mean “column read amplifier having definite spatial form or location.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`V. A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD NOT COMBINE
`INOUE/MIN WITH HAMADE TO RENDER CLAIMS 4-18 AND 21-27
`OBVIOUS
`
`Samsung contends that the combination of Hamade with the Inoue/Min
`
`system would render obvious claims 4-18 and 21-27, relying on Hamade for the
`
`“local column read amplifier” element. Not so. To the contrary, a person skilled in
`
`the art would not combine Hamade with the Inoue/Min system in the manner
`
`proposed by Samsung because the Hamade invention consumes more power and
`
`thus runs counter to the Inoue’s express goals.
`
`Inoue’s stated purpose is to provide a circuit that consumes only a small
`
`amount of power when sensing – it has nothing to do with reducing propagation
`
`times or pattern sensitivities. Ex. 1007 (Inoue) at p. 3; Ex. 2003 (Baker deposition
`
`transcript) at 75:12-16, 76:5-9, 107:8-108:1; Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶¶
`
`44-45. Inoue does this by turning off a current path that is not needed during a write
`
`operation. Ex. 1007 (Inoue) at p. 3.
`
`Hamade is directed to an improved high-speed read amplifier that is
`
`associated with each bit line pair. Ex. 1009 (Hamade) at col. 1:8-15, 3:5-7, 7:17-19,
`
`9:55-58. Figure 1 of Hamade – the invention – is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`In the figure shown above, a drive circuit 9 includes four transistors which
`
`amplify the potentials of the associated bit lines, and pass data from bit line pair BL
`
`and /BL to data line pair RL and /RL. Id. at col. 2:40-4:10, 7:17-19. Load Transistors
`
`Q14 and Q15 in load circuit 8 then pull either RL or /RL low, causing the output
`
`value “to next stage” to be an amplified high or low state. Id. at col. 7:58-62.
`
`When initiating a column read associated with a particular bit line pair, signal
`
`Yi is used to enable transistors Q18 and Q19. Id. at col. 3:50-61. One of transistors
`
`Q16 or Q17 will also be activated, depending on which of the bit lines has a higher
`
`voltage. Id. at col. 3:55-4:10. This causes one of the data lines RL or /RL to be
`
`pulled to ground through either transistors Q16/Q18, or Q17/Q19. Id. at col. 3:67-
`
`4:2. Accordingly, if BL is high then /RI is grounded and therefore RI is relatively
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`high. If BL is low then RI is grounded and therefore /RI is relatively high. In the
`
`instance where /RI is low, load transistors Q14 and Q15 will be activated and thus
`
`cause the output (connected to RI) to be pulled high. Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration)
`
`at ¶¶49-50. Conversely, if /RI is relatively high, then load transistors Q14 and Q15
`
`are not activated and the output (connected to RI) will be pulled low through
`
`transistors Q17 and Q19. Id.
`
`Every single bit line pair has the four drive circuit 9 transistors, and each
`
`column shares local transistors Q14/Q15. Ex. 1009 (Hamade) at Figs. 1, 7, col. 1:47-
`
`48; 2:49-3:7, 7:14-27, 7:42-8:7; Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶¶ 48-49. This
`
`adds at a minimum four additional transistors for every single bit line, and associated
`
`current consumption and power requirements. The operation of the load circuit 8
`
`and drive circuit 9 in Hamade therefore consumes greater power than otherwise
`
`would be necessary, for example if the data path was global, as in the prior art. Ex.
`
`2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶¶ 48-51.
`
`Samsung’s expert Dr. Baker agrees that implementing the Hamade invention
`
`in the Inoue/Min system increases the complexity by using additional circuitry not
`
`otherwise present. Ex. 2003 (Baker deposition transcript) at 103:11-13, 106:20-
`
`107:1. And he suggests that implementing Hamade would in fact increase power
`
`consumption. Id. at 105:10-19.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`While the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 416 (2007) has liberalized the combination of references in the obviousness
`
`context, there still must be evidence in the record that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would be motivated to combine the references. In re: Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d
`
`1376, 1381-85 (Fed. Cir. 2016). When the references teach away from the proposed
`
`combination, the claimed invention is more likely to be nonobvious. KSR, 550 U.S.
`
`at 416. A lack of motivation to combine the references “is especially strong where
`
`the prior art’s teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have combined the known elements.” DePuy Spine,
`
`Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(declining to combine a second reference having a rigid pedicle screw with a first
`
`reference because the first reference warned that a rigid screw increases the
`
`likelihood that the screw would fail, causing the device to not operate for its intended
`
`purpose); see also McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1353-56 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001).
`
`Here, not only are the Inoue and Hamade references directed at completely
`
`different improvements, but Hamade’s putative improvement – the addition of a
`
`four-transistor drive circuit for each bit line pair – negates the very purpose of Inoue,
`
`which is to decrease power consumption. A person of skill in the art who wanted to
`
`implement the power-saving techniques of Inoue would not do so by adding
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`additional power-consuming circuitry to the chip. DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1326-
`
`27; see also McGinley, 262 F.3d at 1353-56; Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶¶
`
`54-55.
`
`Because the combination of Hamade’s circuitry with Inoue/Min would defeat
`
`the very purpose of Inoue, the Board should find that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would not combine the references as proposed by Samsung, and should find
`
`that claims 4-18 and 21-27 are patentable.
`
`VI. A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD NOT COMBINE
`INOUE/MIN/HAMADE WITH OGAWA TO RENDER CLAIMS 11-13
`AND 18 OBVIOUS
`
`Samsung
`
`contends
`
`that
`
`the
`
`combination of Ogawa with
`
`the
`
`Inoue/Min/Hamade system would render obvious claims 11-13 and 18, relying on
`
`Ogawa for the claim elements that recite details regarding the write control signal
`
`provided to the data write driver circuit. Samsung relies on two of Ogawa’s
`
`embodiments, the prior art embodiment (Figure 12) and Ogawa’s invention (Figure
`
`2). E.g., Petition at p. 71. Neither embodiment would be combined by a person
`
`skilled in the art with the Inoue/Min/Hamade system as proposed by Samsung. The
`
`reason is that the Ogawa invention consumes greater power and thus runs counter to
`
`the express goals for Inoue.
`
`Inoue’s stated purpose is to provide a circuit that consumes only a small
`
`amount of power when sensing – it has nothing to do with reducing propagation
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`times or pattern sensitivities, the goals of the claimed invention at issue. Ex. 1007
`
`(Inoue) at p. 3; Ex. 2003 (Baker deposition transcript) at 75:12-16, 76:5-9, 107:8-
`
`108:1; Ex. 2001 (Gervasi Declaration) at ¶¶ 44-45. Inoue does this by turning off a
`
`current path that is not needed during a write operation. Ex. 1007 (Inoue) at p. 3.
`
`First, as to Ogawa’s prior art embodiment, Figure 12, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not look to the prior art embodiment and combine it with the
`
`Inoue/Min/Hamade system. Rather, Ogawa teaches away from using the
`
`embodiment of Figure 12, stating that:
`
`“Because the reading operation of the next cycle is also carried
`out at [the same] time, preparation operation for the next reading
`operation is necessary in this cycle . . . However, firstly the column
`decoder for writing must be operated in this cycle. The operation of the
`column decoder must be carried out twice during the cycle of 20 ns-50
`ns. These decoder operation can not be carried out simultaneously
`because there is only one column decoder in a conventional
`semiconductor memory device. It can not be helped that memory cycle
`time TA2 required for the first reading operation when changing from
`the writing operation to the reading operation is longer than memory
`cycle time TA1 or TA3 of a normal pipe line processing. In order to
`avoid delay of memory cycle time TA2, a step must be taken to cease
`the reading operation temporarily, i.e. to process the cycle succeeding
`the writing cycle as a dummy cycle.
`It was therefore not possible to reduce the memory cycle time in
`switching even if pipe line processing is used in case where the writing
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01415
`Patent No. 6,208,574
`
`
`the reading operation are frequently switched
`
`operation and
`alternately.”
`Ex. 1010 (Ogawa) at col. 5:23-48.
`“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the applicant.” DePuy Spine
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
