Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`Entered: November 8, 2018
`
`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 B1
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`Entered: November 8, 2018
`
`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 B1
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`On May 12, 2017, Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., filed a
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute inter partes review of claims 4‒18 and
`21‒27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,208,574 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’574 patent”). In an
`initial decision, we instituted inter partes review of each of the challenged
`claims. Paper 6 (“Dec. Inst.”).
`ProMOS Technologies Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 10, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 12,
`“Reply”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We determine that Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4‒18 and 21‒27
`of the ’574 patent are unpatentable.
`B.
`Related Matters
`Petitioner concurrently filed a Petition challenging claims 1‒3 and
`30‒37 of the ’574 patent in IPR2017-001414. Pet. 1. Petitioner identifies
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,270 (“the ’270 patent”) as related to the ’574 patent.
`Pet. 2. Petitioner indicates that the ’270 patent is the subject of inter partes
`review in IPR2017-00036. Id.
`Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner asserted the ’574 patent against
`Petitioner in ProMOS Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No.
`1:16-cv-00335-SLR-SRF (D. Del.). Pet. 1. Petitioner indicates Patent
`Owner has also asserted the following patents in that action: U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,069,507; 6,172,554; 6,562,714; 7,375,027; and 6,559,044. Id.
`Petitioner concurrently filed IPR petitions challenging the other asserted
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`patents in the following inter partes review proceedings: IPR2017-01412,
`IPR2017-01413, IPR2017-01416, IPR2017-01417, IPR2017-01418, and
`IPR2017-01419. Id.
`Petitioner also filed several IPR petitions involving patents asserted
`by Patent Owner against Petitioner in ProMOS Technologies, Inc. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., No. 1:15-cv-00898-SLR-SRF (D. Del.). Pet. 1‒2.
`Petitioner identifies the following inter partes review proceedings for the
`patents involved in that suit: IPR2017-00032, IPR2017-00033, IPR2017-
`00035, IPR2017-00036, IPR2017-00037, IPR2017-00038, IPR2017-00039,
`and IPR2017-00040. Id.
`C.
`The ’574 Patent
`The ’574 patent relates to sense amplifiers in integrated circuit
`memories. Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. Integrated circuit memories often include a
`large number of memory cells set forth in a memory array. Id. at 1:14‒15.
`Memory arrays are often organized into rows and columns. Id. at 1:35‒36.
`Rows represent the memory cells located along a word line. Id. at 1:36‒37.
`Columns are organized perpendicularly to the rows and represent the
`memory cells located along a bit line. Id. at 1:37‒40. Generally, each
`column is connected to a sense amplifier. Id. at 1:40‒41. In a large memory
`cell with thousands of columns and rows, the voltage that reaches sense
`amplifiers at different ends of the array may be appreciably different as a
`result of resistance along the lines, causing inefficient or slow operation. Id.
`at 2:15‒39. The ’574 patent relates to additional circuitry that may be
`connected to the sense amplifiers to alleviate these issues. Id. at 4:61‒5:39.
`One embodiment of the ’574 patent is represented in Figure 5, which
`is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts sense amplifier 100 having a latch formed by
`transistors 112, 114, 118, and 120. Id. at 6:6–9. Node 102 is coupled to the
`gate electrodes of P-channel transistor 112 and N-channel transistor 118.
`Node 102 is also coupled to the source-drain path of pass transistor 124. Id.
`at 6:28‒31. Node 104 is coupled to the gate electrodes of P-channel
`transistor 114 and N-channel transistor 120. Id. at 6:9–13. Node 104 is also
`coupled to the source-drain path of pass transistor 122. Id. at 6:28‒31. Pass
`transistors 122 and 124 are driven by column write select signal YW. Id. at
`6:15–16.
`Transistor 122 is coupled to node 126 between the source of local data
`write driver transistor 128 and the drain of local data write driver transistor
`130. Id. at 6:32–35. Transistors 128 and 130 are N-channel transistors
`having their source-drain paths coupled in series. Id. at 6:35–36. The drain
`of transistor 128 is coupled to VCC and the source of transistor 130 is
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`coupled to ground. Id. at 6:36–38. Data write signal DW is coupled to the
`gate electrode of transistor 128, and its complement DWB is coupled to the
`gate electrode of transistor 130. Id. at 6:38–40. Transistors 132 and 134 on
`the opposite side of sense amplifier 100 have a similar arrangement, though
`DW and DWB are applied oppositely. Id. at 6:40–47.
`Figure 5 also depicts local sense amplifier drive transistors 140 and
`142. Id. at 7:16‒18. Transistor 140 is coupled to the source electrodes of
`transistors 112 and 114. Id. at 6:53‒55. The source electrode of transistor
`140 is coupled to VCC (or LATCHP). Id. at 6:55‒56. The gate of transistor
`140 is coupled to LPB, which is the logical complement of LATCHP. Id. at
`6:56‒57. Transistor 142 is similarly configured with N-channel transistors
`118 and 120, but the gate electrode of transistor 142 is coupled to signal
`LNB, the logical complement of LATCHN. Id. at 6:59‒65.
`The lower portion of Figure 5 also depicts a local column read
`amplifier comprising N-channel transistors 150, 152, 154, and 156. Id. at
`6:66‒7:1. The source-drain paths of transistors 150 and 152 are coupled in
`series, and the drain electrode of transistor 150 receives signal DRB, the
`logical complement of a data read signal DR. Id. at 7:1‒4. The gate
`electrode of transistor 150 is coupled to column read signal YR. Id. at 7:7‒8.
`The source electrode of transistor 152 is coupled to ground. Id. at 7:4‒5.
`The gate electrode of transistor 152 is coupled to node 104. Id. at 7:5‒7.
`The source-drain paths of transistors 154 and 156 are similarly
`configured, being coupled in series between data read signal DR and ground
`on the right side of the figure. Id. at 7:8‒10. The gate electrode of transistor
`156 is coupled to node 102. Id. at 7:11‒13.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`Petitioner notes that the ’574 patent claims priority to an earlier
`application filed on November 12, 1992. Ex. 1001, at [62]. As discussed
`below, Petitioner establishes that the asserted references qualify as prior art
`assuming that November 12, 1992, is the priority date of the ’574 patent.
`See Pet 4.
`Claim 4 of the ’574 patent is independent and reproduced below:
`4.
`A sense amplifier arrangement for an integrated circuit
`memory comprising, for each of a plurality of sense amplifiers:
`a sense amplifier latch circuit having a pair of nodes to
`which respective bit lines may be coupled;
`a local column read amplifier responsively coupled to the
`sense amplifier, and receiving at least one data read signal; and
`a local data write driver circuit coupled to receive write
`data during a write operation at a gate electrode of a transistor in
`said data write driver circuit and to apply a signal based upon
`receiving said write data to one of said latch circuit nodes.
`Ex. 1001, 13:46‒58.
`
`D.
`Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. S58-128087,
`published July 30, 1983 (Ex. 1007, “Inoue”);1
`UK Patent Application Publication No. G.B. 2246005A,
`published January 15, 1992 (Ex. 1008, “Min”);
`
`1 Petitioner relies on a certified English translation of Inoue. Exhibit 1007
`includes an English language version of Inoue (pages 1‒6), the Japanese
`language version of Inoue (pages 7‒10), a declaration certifying the English
`translation (page 11), and a certified correction to the translation (page 12).
`Our citations refer to the certified English translation of Inoue (pages 1‒6 of
`Exhibit 1007).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`Hamade, U.S. Patent No. 5,323,349, filed August 28,
`1992, issued June 21, 1994 (Ex. 1009, “Hamade”); and
`Ogawa, U.S. Patent No. 5,293,347, filed December 30,
`1991, issued March 8, 1994 (Ex. 1010, “Ogawa”).
`
`Petitioner also relies upon the testimony of Dr. R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1002.
`E.
`The Asserted Ground
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Inoue, Min, and Hamade
`§ 103(a)
`4‒10, 14‒17, 21‒27
`Inoue, Min, Hamade, and
`Ogawa
`
`11‒13, 18
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The ’574 patent has expired. We review expired patent claims
`according to the standard applied by the district courts. See In re Rambus
`Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, we apply the principles
`set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look
`principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language
`itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (see Pet.
`12‒13) to construe the limitation “local data write driver circuit” in claims 1,
`4, and 30 to mean “a data write driver circuit that is associated with only one
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`latch circuit.” Dec. Inst. 8‒10. We were persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence
`from the specification of the ’574 patent that local write driver circuits are
`connected to or associated with a single latch circuit. Id. at 9 (citing Ex.
`1001, 4:61‒63, 5:29‒36, 6:5–13, 7:15–16, 11:25–31, Fig. 5). We also were
`persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed construction was consistent with
`arguments made by the patentee during prosecution. Id. at 9‒10 (citing Ex.
`1006, 274; Ex. 1005, 166–68). We also determined that Petitioner’s
`proposal was consistent with the Board’s prior construction from an ex parte
`appeal of the application that matured into the related ’270 patent, where
`“local” was defined as having “a definite spatial form or location.” Id. at 8‒
`9.
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute that “a local write
`driver circuit” is disclosed by the cited prior art combination under any
`asserted construction, including Petitioner’s proposed construction and the ex
`parte appeal construction proposed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 6. Instead,
`Patent Owner argues “the resolution of the parties’ claim construction dispute
`is immaterial to the questions of [unpatentability] presented to the Board, [so]
`there is no need to construe [this] term[].” Id. at 7. Patent Owner
`characterizes this claim construction issue as being “relevant only to
`infringement issues before the district court,” such that any construction we
`adopt would amount to an advisory opinion. Id. at 6. Thus, Patent Owner
`argues we should withdraw our preliminary claim construction of “local write
`driver circuit,” or adopt the Board’s earlier construction from the ex parte
`appeal. Id. at 7‒13.
`In its Reply, Petitioner urges us to maintain the construction from our
`Institution Decision because “there is a dispute between the parties as to the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`proper construction of [this] term[].” See Reply 2. Petitioner asserts the
`evidence of record supports our preliminary construction. Id. at 2‒6.
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Whether the prior
`art teaches a “local write driver circuit” is not disputed in this proceeding. See
`PO Resp. 6. Because Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response, as is
`its right,2 we construed “local write driver circuit” in our Institution Decision
`anticipating that this construction might affect the outcome of this case. Now
`that we have the benefit of Patent Owner’s positions from its Response, we
`see no reason to explicitly construe the term. Importantly, our reviewing
`court has stated that “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)). In the absence of
`any controversy about Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions for a “local
`write driver circuit,” we determine that no construction is necessary.
`In our Institution Decision, we also adopted Petitioner’s proposed
`construction (see Pet. 16‒21) for the limitation “local column read
`amplifier” in claims 1, 4, and 30. Dec. Inst. 10. However, for the same
`reasons as discussed above for “local data write driver circuit,” we
`determine that neither this limitation, nor any other terms, requires explicit
`construction.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner is not required to file a Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.107(a) (“The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the
`petition”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`As to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner states:
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention of the ’574 patent (‘POSITA’) would have had at least
`a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field,
`and at least two to three years of experience in design of
`semiconductor memory circuits.
`Pet. 5. Petitioner also states that “[m]ore education can supplement practical
`experience and vice versa.” Id. at 5. Petitioner’s position is supported by
`Dr. Baker’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 20) and is not disputed by Patent Owner.
`We find Petitioner’s proposed level of skill vague because it relies on the
`qualifier “at least.” The qualifier makes the range of education and the
`range of working experience unacceptably broad. We adopt Petitioner’s
`articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as we credit the
`declaration of Dr. Baker (Ex. 1002 ¶ 20), but without inclusion of the
`qualifier “at least.”
`C. Ground 1: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 4‒10, 14‒16, and
`21‒27 over Inoue, Min, and Hamade
`We have reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by
`Petitioner and Patent Owner. Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 4‒10, 14‒16, and 21‒27 would have been obvious
`over Inoue, Min, and Hamade.
`1.
`Inoue
`Inoue is a Japanese patent application publication directed to “a
`semiconductor device that consumes only a small amount of transient power
`when writing to a flip-flop.” Ex. 1007, 3. Figure 6 of Inoue is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a CMOS flip-flop circuit having supply terminals
`VDD, nodes N1–N3, N-channel transistors QN1–QN10, P-channel transistors
`
`QP1–QP3, and clocks ϕ1–ϕ4. Id. at 3–4. D and D(cid:3365) are input terminals. Id. at 4.
`
`The circuit in Figure 6 may be applied to a sense amplifier in a dynamic
`memory, wherein nodes N1 and N2 correspond to bit lines and transistors
`QN6–QN9 correspond to the output stage for the data input buffer. Id.
`We agree with Petitioner (Pet. 4) that Inoue qualifies as prior art under
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)3 because Inoue’s publication date of July 30,
`1983, is more than one year before the earliest possible priority date for the
`’574 patent, which is November 12, 1992. See Ex. 1001, at [62]; Ex. 1007,
`at [43].
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the priority
`date of the ’270 patent is before the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 apply.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`2. Min
`Min is a United Kingdom patent application publication directed to a
`sense amplifier driving circuit for controlling sense amplifiers of a high-
`density semiconductor memory device. Ex. 1008, Abstract. Figure 3B of
`Min is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3B depicts a memory device with a plurality of sense
`amplifiers SA1‒SAN. Ex. 1008, 1:4‒8, Fig. 3B. Each sense amplifier is
`coupled to a bit line pair (BLL and BLR). Ex. 1008, 2:5‒15, Fig. 3B. Each
`sense amplifier is also coupled to a positive power supply (VCC) via driving
`transistor Q10i and to ground (VSS) via driving transistor Q20i. Id. at 21:1‒
`13, Fig. 3B. Min discloses a common driving signal from driving transistors
`Q10i and Q20i. Ex. 1008, Fig. 3B.
`We agree with Petitioner (Pet. 4) that Min qualifies as prior art under
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Min’s publication date of January 15,
`1992, is before the earliest possible priority date for the ’574 patent, which is
`November 12, 1992. See Ex. 1001, at [62]; Ex. 1008, at [43].
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`Hamade
`3.
`Hamade discloses a semiconductor memory device. Ex. 1009, 1:8‒9.
`Figure 1 of Hamade is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a “main part” of the device, depicting a pair of bit
`lines BL and /BL and their associated circuitry. Id. at 3:1‒5, 7:10‒13, Fig.
`1. Each bit line pair is associated with n-type sense amplifier 2 and p-type
`sense amplifier 3. Id. at 1:47‒52, 7:4‒13, Fig. 1. Drive circuit 9, which
`includes transistors Q16‒Q19, is provided for each bit line pair. Id. at 7:14‒
`19, Fig. 1. Drive circuit 9 “amplifies the potentials of the associated bit
`lines.” Id. Drive circuit 9 “operate[s] to amplify the potentials on bit lines
`BL and /BL during a read operation, and allow[s] one of read only data lines
`RI and /RI to be discharged to ground during a read operation.” Pet. 29. We
`agree with Petitioner (Pet. 4) that Hamade qualifies as prior art under at least
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hamade’s filing date of August 28, 1992, is
`before the earliest possible priority date for the ’574 patent, which is
`November 12, 1992. See Ex. 1001, at [62]; Ex. 1009, at [22], [45].
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`Independent claim 4
`4.
`Claim 4 recites, “[a] sense amplifier arrangement for an integrated
`circuit memory comprising.” Petitioner asserts that Inoue discloses this
`feature. Pet. 17.
`In particular, Petitioner asserts “Inoue discloses ‘a semiconductor
`device’ comprising a sense amplifier with a flip-flop circuit. The circuit in
`figure 6 of Inoue is for a sense amplifier in a dynamic memory.” Id.
`(citations omitted). Petitioner further asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan
`“would have understood that ‘dynamic memory’ in Inoue refers to a
`dynamic random access memory (DRAM), which is an integrated circuit
`memory.” Id. Dr. Baker’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. Ex.
`1002, ¶ 68. We find Dr. Baker’s testimony on this point persuasive and
`afford it substantial weight. Patent Owner has not argued anything to the
`contrary with respect to these claim limitations. We are persuaded that
`Inoue discloses “[a] sense amplifier arrangement for an integrated circuit
`memory comprising.”
`Claim 4 further recites “for each of a plurality of sense amplifiers: a
`sense amplifier latch circuit having a pair of nodes to which respective bit
`lines may be coupled.” Petitioner asserts that Inoue in combination with
`Min discloses this limitation. Pet. 17‒27.
`Inoue discloses a “semiconductor device” in a “dynamic memory.”
`Ex. 1007, 3‒4. Inoue discloses an embodiment, illustrated by Figure 6, with
`multiple sense amplifiers, where each comprises a CMOS “F/F” or “latch”
`that includes a pair of internal nodes “N1 and N2 correspond[ing] to bit
`lines.” Ex. 1007, 4. However, Petitioner concedes that Inoue does not
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`expressly disclose a plurality of sense amplifiers or a plurality of bit line
`pairs corresponding to such sense amplifiers. Pet. 20.
`Min discloses a semiconductor memory device with a plurality of
`sense amplifiers SA1‒SAN. Ex. 1008, 1:4‒8, Fig. 3B. Each sense amplifier
`is coupled to a bit line pair (BLL and BLR). Ex. 1008, 2:5‒15, Fig. 3B. Each
`sense amplifier is also coupled to a positive power supply (VCC) via driving
`transistor Q10i and to ground (VSS) via driving transistor Q20i. Ex. 1008,
`21:1‒13, Fig. 3B. Min discloses a common driving signal from driving
`transistors Q10i and Q20i. Ex. 1008, Fig. 3B.
`Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been
`motivated to implement Inoue’s figure 6 circuit in a multi-column memory
`system to create a dynamic memory having a plurality of bit line pairs with
`each of bit line pairs coupled to a respective sense amplifier.” Pet. 21.
`Specifically, Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
`motivated to implement Inoue’s circuitry of Figure 6 to implement a multi-
`column DRAM with multiple sense amplifiers as taught by Min because
`practical DRAMs had multiple columns. Pet. 22. Petitioner further asserts
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it beneficial to use common
`drive signals for the drive transistors as set forth in Min to reduce the
`amount of circuitry and, therefore, chip area, when compared to separate
`clock signals for each latch circuit. Pet. 24. Dr. Baker’s testimony supports
`these assertions. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 34‒37, 73, 77. We find Dr. Baker’s
`testimony on this point persuasive and afford it substantial weight.
`Petitioner further asserts modifying Inoue’s apparatus to use a
`plurality of sense amplifiers and a plurality of bit line pairs as set forth in
`Min would have been straightforward for an ordinarily skilled artisan
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`because Inoue’s Figure 6 embodiment describes a single sense amplifier
`with a single bit line pair and Min discloses a plurality of sense amplifiers,
`each coupled to respective bit line pairs. Pet. 24‒25. According to
`Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to
`incorporate Inoue’s sense amplifier into Min’s multi-column memory. Id. at
`25. Petitioner asserts such a combination would have been a predictable
`combination of known components according to known methods, and would
`have been consistent with working DRAM features. Id. at 25‒26. Dr.
`Baker’s testimony supports these assertions. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 74, 78. We find
`Dr. Baker’s testimony on this point persuasive and afford it substantial
`weight.
`In an obviousness analysis, there must be articulated reasoning with a
`rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Petitioner has articulated reasoning with
`a rational underpinning to support applying Inoue’s sense amplifier to a
`practical multi-column memory because working DRAMs use multi-column
`arrangements and Min’s common driving signals for multiple sense
`amplifiers and their corresponding bit line pairs would help reduce the
`amount of circuitry in such a memory, thereby reducing the chip area. Dr.
`Baker’s testimony amply supports this rationale. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 72‒77. We
`find Dr. Baker’s testimony on this point persuasive and afford it substantial
`weight. Patent Owner has not argued anything to the contrary with respect
`to these claim limitations.
`Thus, we are persuaded that the combination of Inoue and Min
`discloses “for each of a plurality of sense amplifiers: a sense amplifier latch
`circuit having a pair of nodes to which respective bit lines may be coupled”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`the teachings of Inoue and Min as proposed by Petitioner.
`Claim 4 further recites “a local column read amplifier responsively
`coupled to the sense amplifier, and receiving at least one data read signal.”
`Petitioner concedes “[t]he combined Inoue-Min system does not expressly
`disclose this feature.” Pet. 27. However, Petitioner asserts that the Inoue-
`Min system in combination with Hamade discloses this limitation. Pet. 27‒
`35.
`
`Hamade discloses a semiconductor memory device. Ex. 1009, 1:7‒9.
`Figure 1 of Hamade is shown below.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a “main part” of such a device and depicts a pair of bit
`lines BL and /BL and their associated circuitry. Id., 3:1‒5, 7:4‒12, Fig. 1.
`Each bit line pair is associated with n-type sense amplifier 2 and p-type
`sense amplifier 3. Id., 1:47‒52, 7:4‒13, Fig. 1. Dr. Baker testifies that an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that, collectively, these sense
`amplifiers form a latch similar to the latch in Inoue’s Figure 6. Ex. 1002,
`¶ 86.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`Hamade further discloses a drive circuit 9 comprised of transistors
`Q16‒Q19 is provided for each bit line pair. Ex. 1009, 7:14‒19, Fig. 1. Drive
`circuit 9 “amplifies the potentials of the associated bit lines.” Id. Petitioner
`asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood drive circuit 9 to
`constitute a “column read amplifier” as claimed because drive circuit 9
`“operate[s] to amplify the potentials on bit lines BL and /BL during a read
`operation, and allow[s] one of read only data lines RI and /RI to be
`discharged to ground during a read operation.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1009,
`3:61‒4:10, 8:8‒31, 8:52‒54). Petitioner asserts “drive circuit 9 is provided
`for each column because it is provided for each bit line pair (Ex. 1009, 7:22‒
`23), which is “related to memory cells in one column of the memory cell
`array.’ (Id., 1:36‒39 (emphasis added), 7:4‒9.).” Pet. 29. Petitioner asserts
`the drive circuit 9 “would receive signals on read only data lines RI and /RI
`(‘receiving at least one data read signal’) in the combined system.” Id. at
`32‒33 (citing Ex. 1009, 7:35‒39, Fig. 1). Dr. Baker’s testimony supports
`these assertions. Ex. 1002, ¶ 87; see also id. ¶¶ 82‒95. We find Dr. Baker’s
`testimony on this point persuasive and afford it substantial weight. Patent
`Owner has not argued anything to the contrary with respect to these claim
`limitations. We are persuaded that the combination of Inoue, Min, and
`Hamade discloses “a local column read amplifier responsively coupled to
`the sense amplifier, and receiving at least one data read signal.”
`Petitioner further asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
`motivated to combine the Inoue-Min system with Hamade’s drive circuit at
`each column because Hamade discloses that drive circuit 9 is provided for
`each bit line pair. Pet. 29. Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have known how to assemble and implement all of the relevant
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`circuitry into the combined system without undue experimentation. Id.
`Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Hamade
`to modify the Inoue-Min system because the combined Inoue-Min system
`does not disclose read circuitry that would typically be found in a practical
`DRAM. Id. at 34. According to Petitioner, the combined Inoue-Min-
`Hamade system would allow “fast reading of the data carried by the bit
`lines.” Id. Petitioner asserts the combination would use known components
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. Id. at 34‒35.
`Patent Owner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would not combine
`Hamade with the Inoue-Min system because the combined system would
`consume more power, which is contrary to Inoue’s express goal of providing
`a circuit that consumes a small amount of power when sensing. PO Resp.
`14, 17‒18 (citing Ex. 1007, 3; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 44‒45; Ex. 2003, 75:12‒16,
`76:5‒9, 107:8‒108:1). Patent Owner asserts Hamade’s high-speed read
`amplifier uses at least four additional transistors with each bit line pair,
`increasing current consumption and power requirements compared to a
`system with a global data path. Id. at 14‒16 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:8‒15, 3:5‒7,
`7:17‒19, 9:55‒58; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 48‒51).
`In an obviousness analysis, there must be articulated reasoning with a
`rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d at 988. Petitioner has articulated reasoning with a rational
`underpinning to support applying Hamade’s drive circuit 9 to the combined
`Inoue-Min system, namely adding the drive circuit would allow “fast
`reading of the data carried by the bit lines.” Pet. 34. Dr. Baker’s testimony
`amply supports this rationale. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84‒99. For example, Dr. Baker
`testifies an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`the combined Inoue-Min system to implement Hamade’s drive circuit 9
`because Hamade discloses that drive circuit 9 is provided for each bit line
`pair. Id. ¶ 90 (citing Ex. 1009, 7:17‒18). Dr. Baker testifies an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have looked to Hamade to augment and improve the
`capabilities of the combined Inoue-Min system because Hamade teaches
`circuitry and functionality applicable to a column of memory such as in the
`combined Inoue-Min system. Id. ¶¶ 97‒98. Dr. Baker testifies an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have recognized that the combined Inoue-Min system
`does not disclose read circuitry for reading data carried by bit lines that
`would typically be found in a practical DRAM, and Hamade discloses such
`circuitry for reading data at a high rate of speed. Id. ¶ 97. We find Dr.
`Baker’s testimony on this point persuasive and afford it substantial weight.
`Patent Owner’s argument that adding Hamade’s drive circuit to the
`combined Inoue-Min system would defeat the intended purpose of Inoue is
`unpersuasive for two reasons. First, adding Hamade’s drive circuit to the
`combined Inoue-Min system would not affect Inoue’s circuitry that achieves
`the desired decrease in power consumption. Specifically, Inoue teaches
`disabling transistors QP3 and QN10 to reduce power consumption during a
`write operation. Ex. 1013, 116:24‒118:3. Inoue teaches that conventional
`prior art circuits do not have these transistors. Id. Petitioner’s proposed
`combination would not modify this portion of Inoue’s circuitry, maintaining
`the reduced power consumption achieved by Inoue’s teachings. See Reply
`9‒10. Thus, the proposed combination does not defeat the intended purpose
`of Inoue because it maintains the circuitry that achieves the desired decrease
`in power consumption.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01415
`Patent 6,208,574 B1
`
`
`Second, even if adding Hamade’s drive circuit to the combined Inoue-
`Min system caused additional power consumption, an ordinarily skilled
`artisan may embrace this tradeoff to achieve the speed increase taught by
`Hamade. The test for obviousness is not whether the goals and objectives of
`every prior art reference can be accomplished by a proposed combination of
`prior art teachings. Rather, an ordinarily skilled artisan may be motivated to
`pursue the desirable properties taught by one prior art reference even if that
`means foregoing the benefits taught by another prior art reference. See In re
`Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Medichem, S.A. v.
`Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of
`action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does
`not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). This is particularly true
`where, as here, the claims at issue do not require the benefit that is arguably
`lost in the combination. See id. Indeed, a prior art reference must be
`considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited
`to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to prote
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
