Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 72
`
`
` Entered: April 9, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 72
`
`
` Entered: April 9, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Background
`A.
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 1‒25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,687 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’687 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). FG SRC LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Paper
`15 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner also filed a
`Reply (Paper 19) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 20).
`On April 12, 2019, we issued a Decision ordering that an inter partes
`review of claims 1‒25 of the ’687 patent “is hereby instituted with respect to
`all grounds set forth in the Petition.” Paper 21 (“Dec.”), 47. After
`institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 36,
`“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 50, “Pet. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s
`Sur-Reply (Paper 59, “PO Sur-Reply). Petitioner and Patent Owner also
`filed Motions to Exclude Evidence (Papers 60 (“Pet. Mot.”), 61
`(“PO Mot.”)), Oppositions to the Motions (Papers 62 (“Pet. Opp. Mot.”), 63)
`and Replies to the Oppositions (Papers 66, 65). Petitioner and Patent Owner
`presented oral arguments on February 4, 2020, and a transcript has been
`entered into the record. Paper 71 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. In this Final Written
`Decision, after reviewing all relevant evidence and arguments, we determine
`
`
`1 Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, originally named as Patent Owner, assigned
`the ’687 patent to DirectStream, LLC on May 21, 2019. Paper 33, 1.
`DirectStream, LLC assigned the ’687 patent to FG SRC LLC on January 22,
`2020. Paper 69, 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the
`evidence, that claims 1‒17 of the ’687 patent are unpatentable, but has not
`met its burden with respect to claims 18–25.
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`The parties indicate that the ’687 patent currently is involved in SRC
`
`Labs, LLC et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-00321 (W.D.
`Wash.), which was transferred from SRC Labs, LLC et al. v. Microsoft
`Corp., Civil Action No. 1-17-cv-01172 (E.D. Va.). Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 4–
`5. The following proceedings, before the Board, also involve the same
`parties: IPR2018-01599, IPR2018-01600, IPR2018-01601, IPR2018-01602,
`IPR2018-01603, IPR2018-01604, IPR2018-01605, IPR2018-01606, and
`IPR2018-01607.2
`
`The ʼ687 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`C.
`The ’687 patent discloses “systems and methods for accelerating web
`site access and processing utilizing a computer system incorporating
`reconfigurable processors operating under a single operating system image.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:30–34. The ’687 patent discloses that many electronic
`commerce web sites use various methods to vary content based on the
`demographics of a user. Id. at 1:37–40. Such demographic data can be
`obtained by requesting that the visitor respond to one or more questions or
`using “click stream” processing to infer the interests of the visitor from
`previous sites they have visited. Id. at 1:41–47. However, according to the
`’687 patent, studies show that the average user waits only a maximum of
`
`
`2 We consolidated IPR2018-01602 and IPR2018-01603 with IPR2018-
`01601. We also consolidated IPR2018-01606 and IPR2018-01607 with
`IPR2018-01605.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`twenty seconds or so for a web page to be updated. Id. at 1:52–54. In view
`of this, the ’687 patent discloses it is vitally important for the updating of
`page content (e.g., according to the visitor’s interests) to be completed as
`rapidly as possible. Id. at 1:54–55. The ’687 patent discloses that known
`web servers use standard microprocessor based servers, which limits their
`maximum performance due to the inherent limitations of such devices. Id. at
`1:58–63.
`The ’687 discloses “a system and method for accelerating web site
`access and processing utilizing a multiprocessor computer system
`incorporating one or more microprocessors and a number of reconfigurable
`processors operating under a single operating system image.” Id. at 2:6–10.
`As a result, algorithms for processing demographic data may be loaded into
`the reconfigurable processors (e.g., specially adapted field programmable
`gate arrays (“FPGAs”)), which permits an algorithm to be implemented in
`hardware gates instead of software. Id. at 2:18–25. This allows the
`processing of data up to 1000 times faster than a standard microprocessor
`based server. Id. The ’687 patent also states that reconfigurable processors
`can be used to accelerate electronic commerce in other ways, such as by
`performing decryption algorithms up to 1000 times faster than a
`conventional microprocessor, which allows for faster web site access and the
`use of more robust data encryption techniques. Id. at 2:48–60. According to
`the ’687 patent, the use of “hybrid computer systems with a single system
`image of the operating system for web site hosting allows the site to employ
`user selected hardware accelerated versions of software algorithms currently
`implemented in a wide array of e-commerce related functions,” which
`results in an easy to use system and shorter site visitor waiting periods. Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`at 2:66–3:6.
`A simplified illustration of a representative operating environment
`300 is disclosed in Figure 12:
`
`
`Figure 12 illustrates how “a number of personal computers 302 or
`other computing devices are coupled to either the typical web site server 306
`(in a prior art implementation) or the reconfigurable server 308 (in
`accordance with the system and method of the present invention) through the
`Internet 304.” Id. at 20:47–51. In the ’687 patent, typical web site server
`306 is replaced by reconfigurable server 308 including one or more industry
`standard processors and one or more reconfigurable processors, all of which
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`are controlled by a single system image of an operating system. Id. at
`20:36–46.
`Figure 13 of the ’687 patent depicts a flowchart for a conventional
`data processing sequence:
`
`
`In conventional data processing sequence 310, a number “N” of
`demographic data elements are input and processed by typical web site
`server 306. Id. at 20:52–57. The N data elements are serially processed
`(step 314) until the last of the data elements is determined and processed
`(step 316). Id. at 20:58–60. After this data processing period, typical web
`site server 306 can select new web page content that is specifically adapted
`to a particular visitor (step 318) and display that content (step 320). Id. at
`20:63–67.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`Figure 14 of the ’687 patent depicts a flowchart for a data processing
`sequence according to the invention of the ‘687 patent:
`
`
`According to the ’687 patent, use of reconfigurable servers 308 in
`Figure 12 provides a significantly faster data processing sequence because
`reconfigurable server 308 can process individual data elements in parallel
`due to a single reconfigurable process instantiating more than one processing
`unit tailored to a job, as opposed to reusing one or two processing units
`located within a microprocessor. Id. at 21:1–14.
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒25 of the ’687 patent. Pet. 21–70.
`Claims 1, 11, and 18 are the independent claims at issue. Claim 1, 11, and
`18 are illustrative of the challenged claims and are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`1. A method for processing data at an internet site comprising:
`providing a reconfigurable server at said site incorporating at
`least one microprocessor and at least one reconfigurable
`processing element;
`receiving N data elements at said site relative to a remote
`computer coupled to said site;
`instantiating N of said reconfigurable processing elements at
`said reconfigurable server; and
`processing said N data elements with corresponding ones of
`said N reconfigurable processing elements.
`Ex. 1001, 21:51‒62.
`
` 11. An internet processing acceleration service comprising:
`a reconfigurable server coupled to said internet, said server
`comprising at least one microprocessor and at least one
`reconfigurable processor; and
`a single system image of an operating system controlling said
`at least one microprocessor and at least a portion of said at least
`one reconfigurable processors;
`said service instantiating N of said at least a portion of said at
`least one reconfigurable processors for substantially parallel
`processing of N data elements received by said server.
`Id. at 22:22–34.
`
`18. A process of accelerating access time of a remote computer
`to an internet site comprising:
`providing a reconfigurable server at said site incorporating at
`least one microprocessor and at least one reconfigurable
`processor;
`transmitting N data elements from said remote computer to
`said server;
`substantially concurrently processing said N data elements
`with N of said at least one reconfigurable processors;
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`selecting a content of said internet site in response to said N
`data elements; and
`transmitting said content to said remote computer.
`Id. at 22:50–62.
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth grounds of
`
`unpatentability of claims 1‒25 of the ’687 patent as follows (see Pet. 21–
`70):3,4
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1‒5, 8–12, 16–19, 22–25
`
`1025
`
`Obelix6
`
`1–25
`
`1–10, 16, 17, 22, 23
`
`5, 12, 13, 19
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Obelix
`
`Obelix, Spencer7
`Obelix, Perkins,8
`with or without Spencer
`
`
`3 Petitioner supports its challenge with the Declaration of Harold
`Stone, Ph.D. Ex. 1003.
`4 All references to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 herein are pre-AIA.
`5 Petitioner challenges these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b). Pet. 17.
`6 Knezevic et al., The Architecture of the Obelix – An Improved Internet
`Search Engine, Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on
`System Sciences, IEEE (2000) (Ex. 1005, “Obelix”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 5,577,241, issued November 19, 1996 (Ex. 1007,
`“Spencer”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 7,072,888 B1, filed June 16, 1999, issued July 4, 2006
`(Ex. 1008, “Perkins”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`7, 15, 21
`
`8, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23
`
`10–17, 24
`
`2–4, 13, 25
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Obelix, Leong,9
`with or without Spencer
`Obelix, Curtis,10
`with or without Spencer
`Obelix, Davis,11
`with or without Spencer
`Obelix, Skillen,12
`with or without Spencer
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`The parties agree that the ’687 patent has expired. Pet. 10; Prelim.
`Resp. 16. Accordingly, we apply the district court claim construction
`standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). In district court, claim terms
`are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the
`context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to
`this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`9 Leong et al., A Bit-Serial Implementation of the International Data
`Encryption Algorithm IDEA, IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable
`Custom Computing Machines, pp. 122–131 (2000) (Ex. 1009, “Leong”).
`10 U.S. Patent No. 6,278,992 B1, filed February 17, 1999, issued August 21,
`2001 (Ex. 1010, “Curtis”).
`11 U.S. Patent No. 6,230,307 B1, issued May 8, 2001 (Ex. 1011, “Davis”).
`12 U.S. Patent No. 6,098,065 A, filed February 13, 1997, issued August 1,
`2000 (Ex. 1012, “Skillen”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We
`determine that the following terms require construction.
`“an internet site”
`1.
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method for processing data at an internet site,”
`and claim 18 similarly recites “[a] process of accelerating access time of a
`remote computer to an internet site.” Petitioner argues that “an internet site”
`should be construed to mean “a location publically accessible on the
`Internet.” Pet. 10. Petitioner asserts that although the term “internet site” is
`not described by the ’687 patent specification, the term “internet” is used in
`its ordinary meaning of a “system of interconnected computer networks
`generally accessible by the public.” Id. Petitioner further asserts that the
`term “site” means “a location at an address on the [World Wide] Web from
`which Web documents may be retrieved or received.” Id. (citing Exs. 1015,
`1016). Accordingly, Petitioner construes the term “an internet site” to mean
`“a location publically accessible on the Internet.” Id.
`As discussed in our Decision on Institution, we are persuaded by
`Petitioner that “an internet site” means “a location publically accessible on
`the Internet.” Dec. 15. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued
`we should construe “an internet site” as “a web site accessed using a URL”
`(Prelim. Resp. 16–17), which we rejected. Dec. 14–15. However, in its
`Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s interpretation of “an
`internet site.” Although the ’687 patent discusses replacing a “web site
`server” with a “reconfigurable server,” we see no reason to limit the scope of
`“an internet site” to a World Wide Web address or site. Rather, “an internet
`site” may include a “web site,” but we find no evidence requiring “an
`internet site” to be limited to only a “web site.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`The parties do not further argue the meaning of “an internet site.” We
`see no reason to depart from our construction in our Decision on Institution.
`Accordingly, we construe “an internet site” to mean “a location publically
`accessible on the Internet.”
`“receiving N data elements at said site” / “N data elements received
`2.
`by said server” / “transmitting N data elements from said remote computer”
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving N data elements at said site.” Similarly,
`claim 11 recites “N data elements received by said server,” and claim 18
`recites “transmitting N data elements from said remote computer.” Patent
`Owner and Petitioner propose different meanings for “N data elements.”
`PO Resp. 17–19; PO Sur-Reply 4–12; Pet. Reply 8–9.
`Patent Owner asserts that the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`limitation is “N data elements are those provided in real-time for the current
`user.” PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner argues that the specification supports
`this construction because the ’687 patent is directed to accelerating web site
`access and processing. Id. at 17–19 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract (“[o]ne or
`more reconfigurable processors may be utilized, for example, in accelerating
`site visitor demographic data processing, real time web site content
`updating, database searches and other processing associated with ecommerce
`applications”), 1:30–34, 2:6–7, 1:41–51, 1:52–58, 20:63–67, 2:28–3:6,
`21:21–23, Fig. 13, Fig. 14); see PO Sur-Reply 9; Ex. 2095 ¶¶ 151–157.
`Petitioner argues that “[a] ‘data element’ is a single unit of data,” and
`“[t]he ordinary meaning of ‘N data elements’ is therefore multiple units of
`data of number ‘N.’” Pet. Reply 8. Petitioner argues that the “ordinary
`meaning simply does not require ‘in realtime for the current user,’” and such
`a narrowing limitation is not supported by the specification. Id. at 8–9.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`We agree with Petitioner’s arguments that, in light of the ’687 patent
`specification, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “N data elements”
`does not require being provided in real-time for the current user. Although
`the ’687 patent specification describes accelerated web site access and
`processing, the ’687 patent specification does not require or disclose that the
`data elements have to be received or transmitted in real-time to a current
`user. Accordingly, we construe these limitations under their plain and
`ordinary meaning to require receiving or transmitting “multiple units of data
`of number ‘N.’” See Pet. Reply 8.
`“instantiating”
`3.
`Claim 1 recites “instantiating N of said reconfigurable processing
`
`elements,” and claim 11 similarly recites “said service instantiating N of said
`at least a portion of said at least one reconfigurable processors.”
`
`Petitioner argues that the “term ‘instantiating’ should be construed to
`mean creating, such as by configuring, a particular structure.” Pet. 11.
`Petitioner identifies only one instance that the ’687 patent specification uses
`“instantiating,” where the ’687 patent specification describes that “the
`processing units are created within the reconfigurable server by the process
`of instantiation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 21:7–14). Petitioner argues that a
`person with ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that structures
`are created within reconfigurable hardware such as the FPGAs of [the ’687
`patent] by configuring them.” Id. (citing Ex. 1017, 81–89; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–
`65). Patent Owner does not propose a construction of the term
`“instantiating.”
`
`As discussed in our Decision on Institution, we are persuaded that the
`term “instantiating” should be construed to mean “creating, such as by
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`configuring, a particular structure.” Dec. 16. The parties do not further
`argue the meaning of “instantiating.” We see no reason to depart from our
`construction in our Decision on Institution.
`“N [data elements]” and “[instantiating] N [. . . reconfigurable
`4.
`process[ors]/[ing elements]]”
`Claim 1 recites “receiving N data elements” and “instantiating N of
`
`said reconfigurable processing elements.” Claims 11 and 18 recite similar
`limitations.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of these
`limitations is “[t]he processing units are configured in parallel, and the
`number of reconfigurable processing units is at least equal to the number of
`data elements received in real-time for the current user.” PO Resp. 19–21
`(citing Ex. 2095 ¶¶ 159–162). Patent Owner argues that the ’687 patent
`specification describes that “the patent improves upon prior art by matching
`each data element to a processing unit to process all of the N data elements
`in a single iteration.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:5–23; Ex. 2095 ¶¶ 161–
`162). Patent Owner argues that a person with ordinary skill in the art would
`recognize that “the same mathematical variable generally indicates that a
`single value governs the value” and Petitioner’s expert agrees that the use of
`“N” indicates that “the number of processing units should be at least the
`same as the number of data elements, not less.” Id. at 20–21 (citing
`Ex. 2048, 120:13–121:7).
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s narrow construction is not
`supported by the intrinsic record. Pet. Reply 9–11. Petitioner argues that
`Patent Owner’s construction is flawed as to three parts: 1) “configured in
`parallel,” 2) “at least equal to,” and 3) “in real-time for the current user.” Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`First, Petitioner argues that the ’687 patent specification and claims describe
`“substantially parallel processing of N data elements” but do not disclose
`parallel configuration of the processing units/elements. Id. at 10 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 22:30–33, 21:5–23). As such, Petitioner argues there is no basis
`for reading “configured in parallel” into the claims. Id. Second, Petitioner
`asserts that the “claims require N data elements and N processing elements
`to process that data.” Id. Petitioner, however, argues that because the
`claims use “comprising” and thus are open-ended, they encompass a system
`with less processing units/elements than data elements. Id. That is,
`Petitioner argues that “a prior art system that included 7 data elements and 6
`processing elements would include ‘N data elements’ and ‘N processing
`elements’ for N=2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.” Id. at 10–11. Third, similar to the
`arguments discussed above, Petitioner argues the phrases “real-time” and
`“current user” are not in the claims and appear only once in the specification
`in an unrelated context. Id. at 11; see supra Section II.A.2.
`
`We agree with Petitioner’s arguments, and decline to limit the scope
`of the phrases “receiving N data elements” and “instantiating N of said
`reconfigurable processing elements” to require reconfigurable processing
`elements “configured in parallel,” data elements “at least equal to” the
`number of reconfigurable processing elements, or data elements in
`“real-time for the current user.” Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that
`the scope of the claims is not limited to Patent Owner’s proffered
`construction. Accordingly, we determine that the phrases have their plain
`and ordinary meaning encompassing a system with less processing
`units/elements than data elements, with no requirement of configuration in
`parallel or real-time operation for the current user.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`5.
`
`“[processing said N data elements with] corresponding ones of said N
`reconfigurable processing elements”
`Claim 1 recites “processing said N data elements with corresponding
`ones of said N reconfigurable processing elements.”13
`Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`limitation is “[e]ach of the N data elements has a corresponding one of the N
`reconfigurable processing elements which processes that data element.”
`PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner argues that the ’687 patent specification
`discloses processing all data elements in a single iteration, and, therefore,
`supports this interpretation. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstr., 1:52–63,
`21:5–23, Fig. 14; Ex. 2095 ¶ 166); see also PO Sur-Reply 13 (“N data
`elements are sent to a corresponding processing element, and they are all
`processed concurrently in ‘1 iteration’ to produce new content to be selected
`and displayed.”). That is, Patent Owner argues that the ’687 patent “requires
`that the N reconfigurable processing elements have a corresponding data
`element from the N data elements . . . requiring a 1-to-1 correlation.”
`PO Resp. 36 (bolding omitted).
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 requires “only that the data elements be
`‘processed’ with corresponding processing elements; it never states that each
`data element ‘has’ a corresponding processing element.” Pet. Reply 11.
`Petitioner asserts that the ’687 patent specification does not support that
`“a data element ‘has’ a processing element.” Id. at 11–12.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`the “corresponding ones of” limitation merely requires that data elements are
`
`
`13 Independent claims 11 and 18 do not recite this limitation.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`“processed” with corresponding processing elements, and does not require
`that each data element “has” a corresponding processing element such that
`there is a 1-to-1 relationship between the data element and processing
`element. Patent Owner’s narrow construction is based on processing of all
`N data elements in a single iteration. PO Resp. 21–22, 36 (citing Ex. 1001,
`Fig. 14). Although Figure 14 of the ’687 patent discloses one processing
`unit per data element to achieve processing of all data elements in a single
`iteration, we do not find any language in the claims requiring a single
`iteration. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing
`in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has
`broader effect.”). Accordingly, we decline to import a single iteration
`requirement from the exemplary embodiment described in the specification
`into the claims.
`According to its plain and ordinary meaning, we construe the
`limitation of “processing said N data elements with corresponding ones of
`said N reconfigurable processing elements” to require that “N data elements
`are processed by corresponding processing elements.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`
`6.
`
`“substantially parallel processing” / “substantially concurrently
`processing”
`Claim 11 recites “instantiating N of said at least a portion of said at
`least one reconfigurable processors for substantially parallel processing of N
`data elements.” Claim 18 recites “substantially concurrently processing said
`N data elements with N of said at least one reconfigurable processors.”14
`Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of these
`limitations is “[e]ach of the N reconfigurable processing units is instantiated
`in parallel to process the N data elements at substantially the same time.”
`PO Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:52–63, 21:5–23, Fig. 14;
`Ex. 2095 ¶¶ 167–168). Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill
`would understand that “during the duration of a single processing iteration,
`all of the data elements are being processed by all of the processing units.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 2095 ¶ 169); see PO Sur-Reply 12.
`Petitioner argues that claims 11 and 18 require parallel processing of
`data, not parallel instantiation of processing units. Pet. Reply 12 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 22:34–50). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction,
`therefore, improperly imports a limitation into the claims. Id.
`We disagree with Patent Owner. The claims plainly require parallel
`or concurrent “processing” of data (i.e., N data elements), not parallel
`instantiation of processing units. Id.
`As such, we construe the limitation of “instantiating N of said at least
`a portion of said at least one reconfigurable processors for substantially
`parallel processing of N data elements” to require that the data elements are
`
`
`14 Claim 1 does not recite “parallel” or “concurrently” processing.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`processed in parallel at substantially the same time. Similarly, we construe
`“substantially concurrently processing said N data elements with N of said at
`least one reconfigurable processors” to require that the data elements are
`processed at substantially the same time. No further interpretation is
`necessary.
`
`Remaining Terms and Limitations
`7.
`We determine that no other express claim construction analysis of any
`claim term is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in
`controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art for a challenged
`patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the
`prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations
`are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational
`level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654,
`666–667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every
`case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id.
`Petitioner’s declarant, Harold Stone, Ph.D., testifies that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’687 patent would have had “an
`advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering, or computer science
`with substantial study in computer architecture, hardware design, and
`computer algorithms,” and “at least two years’ experience working in the
`field,” or alternatively “a bachelor’s degree covering those disciplines and at
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`least three years working [in] the field.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45).
`According to Dr. Stone,
`[s]uch a person would also have been knowledgeable about the
`programming, design and operation of computer systems based
`on
`reconfigurable components
`such as FPGAs
`(field
`programmable gate arrays) and CPLDs (complex programmable
`logic devices). That person would also have been familiar with
`hardware description languages such as VHDL that could be
`used to configure FPGAs and CPLDS that serve as components
`of reconfigurable computer systems.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 45.
`Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute the level of education and
`skill promoted by Petitioner’s expert in the ’687 Patent,” and Patent Owner’s
`declarant, Houman Homayoun, Ph.D., states “[i]n general, I would agree to
`the level of education and skill” promoted by Petitioner’s expert. PO Resp.
`16 (citing Ex. 2095 ¶ 135). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary
`skill also “would have considered all of the state of the art in the design of
`computer architecture, including for example, the issues of reconfigurable
`programming, processor speed, FPGA speed, benchmarking, bottlenecking,
`and cost/benefit analysis of overhead introduction as applied to HPC
`applications.” PO Resp. 7–8, 16 (citing Ex. 2095 ¶¶ 99–106, 134–148;
`Ex. 2136, 41, 45, 67–74, 363–387).
`We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting
`evidence regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would
`have considered when reading the asserted references. Patent Owner’s
`arguments pertain more to its criticism of Dr. Stone’s analysis as allegedly
`failing to understand the problems solved by the ’687 patent and being based
`on “hindsight bias” than a dispute over the “level” of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01594
`Patent 6,434,687 B1
`
`See PO Resp. 7–16 (arguing that “Dr. Stone’s own prior written admissions
`concur that [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would consider these issues
`. . . . But Petitioner ignored this basic analysis any [person of ordinary skill
`in the art] should have undertaken. The fundamental flaw of Petitioner’s
`arguments is the hindsight bias . . . to focus on FPGAs as the solution to
`problems in high performance computing”). It suffices at this point to
`conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the
`technical education and work experience set forth in Dr. Stone’s declaration
`(and agreed to by Dr. Homayoun). See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-
`Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The person of
`ordinary skill is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the
`pertinent prior art.”). What that individual would have considered in
`evaluating particular references and making potential combinations, though,
`is an issue we address below in evaluating Petitioner’s grounds of
`unpatentability.
`Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review
`of the ’687 patent and the types of problems and prior art solutions described
`in the ’687 patent, as well as the sophistication of the technology described
`in the ’687 patent, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had (1) an advanced degree in electrical or computer
`engineering, or computer science with substantial study in computer
`architecture, hardware design, and computer
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
