Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`QUALCOMM INC. AND QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,443,216
`
`TITLE: HARDWARE AUTOMATIC PERFORMANCE STATE
`TRANSITIONS IN SYSTEM ON PROCESSOR SLEEP AND
`WAKE EVENTS
`
`Issue Date: May 14, 2013
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 
`I. 
`II.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1 
` 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
` 
`III.  Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 104(a) ...................................... 3 
`IV. 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Challenged Claim ................ 3 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`V. 
`
`Reasons for the Relief Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................................ 5 
` 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`1. 
`2. 
`
` 
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................... 11 
`Construction of Claim Terms ................................................... 11 
` 
`
` 
` 
`VI.  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 of the ’216 Patent Are Unpatentable ................ 25 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 27 
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 37 
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 38 
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 39 
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................ 40 
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 40 
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 41 
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................ 41 
`
` 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 45 
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 53 
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 54 
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 54 
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................ 55 
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 56 
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 56 
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................ 56 
`
` 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 59 
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 64 
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 65 
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 66 
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................ 66 
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 67 
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 67 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`1. 
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`
`1. 
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`
`1. 
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................ 67 
`VII.  Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 68 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Qualcomm Inc.
`
`and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners” or “Qualcomm”)
`
`request inter partes review of claims 8 and 9 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,443,216 (“the ’216 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Apple, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner” or “Apple”). Because the Challenged Claims are unpatentable over the prior
`
`art, inter partes review should be instituted, and the Challenged Claims should be
`
`cancelled.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
` Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. are the real parties-in-
`
`interest.
`
` Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’216 Patent and its Related Patents (U.S. Pat. No. 8,271,812, the parent
`
`from which the ’216 Patent issued as a continuation, and its child U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,656,196, which is a continuation of the ’216 Patent) are involved in the following
`
`pending litigation that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-1375 (S.D. Cal.) (“’1375 Case”).
`
`Petitioners are filing IPR petitions directed to the Related Patents (U.S. Pat.
`
`Nos. 8,271,812 and 8,656,196) concurrently with the filing of this petition.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`John A. Marlott, Reg. No. 37,031
`JONES DAY
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 269-4236
`jamarlott@jonesday.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew W. Johnson, Reg. No. 59,108
`JONES DAY
`One Mellon Center
`500 Grant Street
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`(412) 394-9524
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`John M. Michalik, Reg. No. 56,914
`JONES DAY
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 269-4215
`jmichalik@jonesday.com
`Thomas W. Ritchie, Reg. No. 65,505
`JONES DAY
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 269-4003
`twritchie@jonesday.com
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at the address
`
`above. Qualcomm also consents to electronic service by email at the email addresses
`
`listed above.
`
`
`Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`The undersigned representative of Petitioners authorizes the Board to charge
`
`the $15,500 Petition Fee, as well as any additional fees, to Deposit Account 501432,
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`ref: 178774-680003. Eight claims are being reviewed, so $15,000 in post institution
`
`fees are due for a total of $30,500.
`
`III. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’216 Patent is available for inter partes review, and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Apple filed and served
`
`its first amended answer and counterclaims in the ’1375 Case, first asserting
`
`infringement of the ’216 Patent by Petitioners, on November 29, 2017. ’1375 Case,
`
`ECF No. 97. This petition is being filed within one year of service of Apple’s first
`
`amended answer and counterclaims, and shortly after the District Court issued a claim
`
`construction order adopting certain of Apple’s positions regarding the breadth of the
`
`’216 Patent’s claims.
`
`IV. Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Challenged Claim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioners request review and cancellation of claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 of
`
`the ’216 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Statutory Grounds and Prior Art on
`Which the Challenge is Based
`Petitioners request inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`set forth below and request that each of the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable
`
`and cancelled. An explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`provided in the form of the detailed description that follows, indicating where each of
`
`the claim elements can be found in the prior art. Additional explanation and support
`
`for each ground of rejection is set forth in Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti,
`
`Ph.D.), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Basis for Rejection
`’216 Patent Claims
`1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0043965 to
`Mandelblat (“Mandelblat”)
`1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Mandelblat in view
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,363,523 (“Kurts”)
`1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kurts in view of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,369,815 (“Kang”)
`
`The ’216 Patent issued May 14, 2013 from the ’217 Application, which claimed
`
`
`
`priority to the application filed on April 7, 2010 that matured into U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,271,812. Accordingly, the earliest date to which the ’216 Patent could claim priority
`
`(hereinafter the “earliest effective filing date”) is April 7, 2010.
`
`Mandelblat was filed August 22, 2005, published February 22, 2007, and is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`Kurts was filed August 31, 2004, issued April 22, 2008, and is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`Kang was filed February 24, 2004 and issued May 6, 2008, and is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`V. Reasons for the Relief Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`42.104(b)(4)
` Overview of the ’216 Patent and its Technology
`The ’216 Patent is related to transitioning the performance states of
`
`performance domains and their components in response to a processor’s going to sleep
`
`or waking up. Id. at Abstract, 1:37–62. Power management is performed using a
`
`programmable power management unit (“PMU”).
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, discloses “an integrated circuit (IC) 10” that
`
`includes performance domains. Id. at 3:34–38.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In Figure 1, “[t]he integrated circuit 10 includes a set of performance domains
`
`14A-14F. Each performance domain 14A-14F includes at least one component of the
`
`integrated circuit 10, and a given performance domain may include more than one
`
`component.” Id. 3:37–41. Further, as shown, certain performance domains may have
`
`specific functionality and associated components. Id. at 3:45–52.
`
`“The integrated circuit 10 also includes a power management unit (PMU)
`
`28 . . . .” Ex. 1001, 3:52–53. “The PMU 28 may be configured to control transitions
`
`between performance states for the various performance domains 14A-14F.” Id. at
`
`4:1–3. The PMU 28 may transition the performance states of one or more of the
`
`performance domains 14A-14F in response to a processor either “entering a sleep
`
`state” and going to sleep, or “exiting the sleep state” and “waking” up. Id. at 4:2–
`
`4:12. “In one embodiment, the PMU 28 may detect that the processor 16A-16B is
`
`entering/exiting the sleep state, and may cause corresponding transitions in the
`
`performance domains.” Ex. 1001, 5:52–54.
`
`“A performance domain may be one or more components that may be
`
`controlled by the PMU 28 as a unit for performance configuration purposes.” Ex.
`
`1001, 4:19–21. “[T]he PMU 28 may be configured to establish a corresponding
`
`performance state for each performance domain.” Ex. 1001, 4:21–23. “The
`
`performance state may include any combination of performance characteristics for the
`
`components in a corresponding performance domain.” Id. at 4:36–38. “A
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`performance characteristic may be any configurable setting for a component that
`
`affects the performance of that component.” Id. at 4:38–40. For example, a
`
`component’s clock frequency or supply voltage level may be a performance
`
`characteristic of that component. Id. at 4:40–42. When the clock frequency or
`
`operating voltage is changed, power consumption and the performance state of the
`
`domain also changes. Id. at 5:1–4. “In the case of voltage and clock frequency
`
`changes, the PMU 28 may communicate the new settings to the clock/voltage control
`
`unit 32.” Id. at 5:64–66. The ’216 Patent discloses other characteristics that qualify
`
`as a performance characteristic, id. at 4:40–67, 5:3–5:23, including memory size. Id.
`
`at 4:45–47.
`
`The PMU may include “one or more performance configuration registers 30.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:53–54, Fig. 1 (PMU 28 including “Perf Config” registers). These registers
`
`specify the performance states of different performance domains based upon the
`
`“awake” and “sleep” states of a processor. “For example, performance states to be
`
`used in the performance domains 14A–14F when the processor is in sleep state may
`
`be specified in the performance configuration registers 30. Performance states to be
`
`used when the processor 16A–16B exits the sleep state (awakens) may also be
`
`specified” Ex. 1001, 5:57–62. One embodiment of the PMU’s performance
`
`configuration registers is shown in Figure 2. See Ex. 1001, 7:43–9:29. In Figure 2,
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“[t]he register set 30B may include a configuration for each performance domain, and
`
`for the sleep state and the wake state.” Ex. 1001, 7:46–48.
`
`Figure 3 is “a flowchart . . . illustrating operation of one embodiment of the
`
`PMU 28 and the clock/voltage control unit 32 to manage performance state transitions
`
`in performance domains when a processor is entering or exiting a sleep state.” Ex.
`
`1001, 9:30–34. As shown, when “[t]he PMU 28 . . . detect[s] that the processor is
`
`entering (or is about to enter) the sleep state” (block 40), it will “load the sleep
`
`performance state for each performance domain from the performance configuration
`
`registers 30 (block 42).” Id. at 9:44–53. Those performance domains will then
`
`“transition . . . to the new performance states (block 44).” Id. at 9:61–64. Similarly,
`
`“[t]he PMU 28 may [also] detect that a processor is exiting the sleep state ( or is about
`
`to exit the sleep state)” (block 48), after which it will “load the wake performance
`
`state for each performance domain from the performance configuration registers 30
`
`(block 50).” Ex. 1001, 10:18–25. Those performance domains will then
`
`“transition . . . to the new performance states (block 52).” Ex. 1001, 10:28–30.
`
`Applying wake and sleep state performance characteristic values (e.g., voltage,
`
`frequency, memory size) based on whether a processor is awake or asleep was known
`
`in April 2010. Ex. 1002, ¶ 58.
`
`Each of the above features was known in the art as of April 2010, the priority
`
`date of the ’216 Patent. See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 54–58.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’812 Patent to Which the ’216
`Patent Claims Priority
`As filed, Application No. 12/756,006 (“the ’006 Application”) included claims
`
`1–20. Independent claim 12 (eventually issued as claim 8) recited an “apparatus”
`
`comprising: “a plurality of components, each component included in one of a plurality
`
`of performance domains”; and “a power management unit configured to establish a
`
`performance state in each of the plurality of performance domains,” and “configured
`
`to transition at least a first performance domain … to a first performance state
`
`programmed into the power management unit responsive to a processor transitioning
`
`to a different performance state.” Ex. 1007, p. 39. Dependent claim 14 depended
`
`from original claim 12, and further recited that “the power management unit is
`
`configured to transition each of the performance domains into a respective power state
`
`programmed into the power management unit responsive to the processor
`
`transitioning to the different performance state.” Id. at 40. Dependent claim 15
`
`depended from claim 12, and recited that “the different performance state comprises
`
`a wakeup state, wherein the processor is transitioning from a sleep state.” Id. at 40.
`
`Dependent claim 16 depended from claim 15, and further recited that “the different
`
`performance state is different from a prior performance state at which the processor
`
`was operating prior to entering the sleep state.” Id. at 40.
`
`On February 24, 2012, the Examiner rejected, among others, claims 12 and 14
`
`“under [pre-AIA] 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kang et al., US Patent
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0064829” Id. at 52. (citing Ex. 1015, “Kang Application”). The
`
`Examiner stated that the Kang Application included “a power management unit
`
`(power control unit 140)” configured to transition “each of the performance domains
`
`into a respective power state programmed into the power management unit” in
`
`response to a processor’s “entry into sleep or exit to wake mode.” Id. 53 (rejecting
`
`claims 12 and 14). The Examiner objected to dependent claim 16, finding it “would
`
`be allowable if rewritten in independent form … .” Id. 59.
`
`On May 16, 2012, the Applicants responded by amending the power
`
`management unit of claim 12 as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 114. Applicants stated, “[c]laim 12 has been amended to include the features of
`
`claims 15 and 16, and thus is in condition for allowance.” Id. at 117. Original claim
`
`12, as amended, was allowed and issued as claim 8. Id. at 127.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’216 Patent
`On August 21, 2012, the Applicants filed Application No. 13/590,217 (“the
`
`’217 Application”) as a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,271,812. Ex. 1016, p. 19.
`
`On November 19, 2012, the Examiner allowed claims 1–14. Id. at 58. Claims
`
`15–24 were rejected for nonstatutory obviousness double patenting, and claims 20–
`
`24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. The Examiner did not otherwise reject
`
`any claim as anticipated or obvious in view of prior art during . Id.
`
`On February 4, 2013, Apple filed a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the
`
`double patenting rejection, and amended claims 20–24 to overcome the § 101
`
`rejection. Id. at 80, 87.
`
`On February 25, 2013, the Examiner allowed the pending claims. Id. at 101.
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`1.
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of April 7, 2010 would have
`
`had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering and at least
`
`two years of experience in the field of integrated circuit design or an equivalent
`
`combination of education, work, and/or experience in this field. Ex. 1002 ¶ 22.
`
`2.
`Construction of Claim Terms
`The claims of the ’216 Patent “shall be given the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the [’216 Patent’s] specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Because a district court applies a different standard, the claim constructions presented
`
`in this petition do not necessarily reflect the constructions that Petitioners believe
`
`should be adopted by a district court.
`
`In the ’1375 Case, the District Court adopted certain of Apple’s claim
`
`construction positions. Ex. 1013, pp. 8–9. Petitioners have submitted the District
`
`Court’s claim construction decision for the Board’s consideration. Power
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The fact that the
`
`board is not generally bound by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim
`
`term does not mean, however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that
`
`interpretation or to assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term.”). Although Petitioners reserve the right to appeal or
`
`otherwise challenge the District Court’s claim construction order, Petitioners request
`
`that the Board in this IPR construe any claim terms at least as broad as the District
`
`Court. See, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., IPR2014-01463,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper 49 at 11-12 (PTAB, Mar. 16, 2016).
`
`(a)
`“performance domain”
`Apple construed “performance domain” to mean “one or more components that
`
`may be controlled as a unit or independently for performance configuration purposes.”
`
`Ex. 1008, pp. 17-19; Ex. 1009, pp. 6-7; Ex. 1010, pp. 105-110; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 25-30;
`
`Ex. 1012, pp. 41-44, 69-105, 122-129. In particular, Apple argued that components
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`within the claimed “performance domain” can be controlled “independently” by the
`
`power management unit (“PMU”) and do not have to transition together from one
`
`performance state to another. Ex. 1008, pp. 14-19; Ex. 1009, pp. 6-7; Ex. 1010, pp.
`
`104-108; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 25-28; Ex. 1012, pp. 69-90, 137. The District Court adopted
`
`Apple’s construction. Ex. 1013, p. 8. Apple’s construction, as argued to the District
`
`Court, should be adopted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002, ¶ 94.
`
`(b)
`“power management unit”
`Apple proposed that “power management unit” does not require construction,
`
`but that a PMU is any “hardware and/or software that causes a performance domain
`
`to transition to a performance state.” Ex. 1008, pp. 19-22; Ex. 1009, pp. 7-9; Ex. 1010,
`
`pp. 128-135, 144-145, 159; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 31-37; Ex. 1012, pp. 56-67, 110-135. In
`
`particular, Apple argued that a PMU need not be implemented only in hardware. Id.
`
`The District Court ultimately construed PMU to be hardware or the combination of
`
`hardware and software. Ex. 1013, pp. 8-9. Apple’s construction, as argued to the
`
`District Court, should be adopted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002, ¶ 95.
`
`(c)
`“establish a . . . performance state”
`Apple proposed that “establish a … performance state” does not require
`
`construction or, if construed, should mean “set the . . . one or more performance
`
`characteristics to the appropriate values for the performance state.” Ex. 1008, pp. 22-
`
`23; Ex. 1009, pp. 9-10; Ex. 1010, pp. 146-149; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 38-42; Ex. 1012, pp. 123-
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`144. In particular, Apple argued that a performance domain need not actually
`
`transition from one performance state to another in order for the PMU to “establish
`
`a . . . performance state” of that domain. Id. The District Court concluded: (i) that
`
`“the word ‘establish’ is . . . consistent with Apple’s use of ‘set,’” (ii) that “the explicit
`
`requirement that the PMU be configured to make this transition is separate from the
`
`‘establish’ requirement, and (iii) that the term should be construed “according to its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.” Ex. 1013, p. 9. Petitioners maintain that the Board
`
`should construe this term according to its plain and ordinary meaning as the District
`
`Court did and consistent with Apple’s proposed construction and arguments. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 96.
`
` Overview of the Prior Art
`(a) Mandelblat
`US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0043965 (“Mandelblat”) is titled “Dynamic memory
`
`sizing for power reduction.” Ex. 1003. Mandelblat “relates to integrated circuits
`
`and/or computing systems,” including to “power management of memory circuits.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 2.
`
`Like the ’196 Patent, Mandelblat is directed to the reduction in power
`
`consumption in microprocessors. Id. at ¶¶ 4–5, 17. Mandelblat discloses a
`
`microprocessor containing multiple processor cores (902, 904), Power Management
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Logic (PML) (906), containing a “Memory PML” (907), and a Dynamically Sizeable
`
`Memory (905).
`
`In the Dynamically Sizeable Memory, certain memory cells may be selectively
`
`enabled or disabled for purposes of power savings. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. These memory cells
`
`are enabled/disabled by way of “sleep devices” that selectively couple/decouple the
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`memory cells to/from their power source. Id. ¶¶ 18–19, Figs. 1–2. The “sleep
`
`devices” are controlled by the PML, specifically the Memory PML. Id. Cache size
`
`is directly related to power usage—a larger cache uses more power, a smaller cache
`
`uses less.
`
`Mandelblat’s Dynamically Sizeable Memory may be at a Minimum Cache size,
`
`a maximum or Full Cache size, or at some point in between, and may expand or shrink
`
`between these sizes. Id. ¶¶ 38, Fig. 12. In this way, the Dynamically Sizeable
`
`Memory may be sized based on processor power state, usage, or other factors. Id.
`
`¶ 65.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Of importance is Mandelblat’s disclosure of cache expansion and contraction
`
`operations upon cores entering or exiting the C4 state, which is a sleep state.1 Id. at
`
`
`1 Mandelblat discloses one embodiment that “includes features and functionality
`
`according to the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) Standard.”
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 34 (referencing ACPI Specification, Rev. 3.0, Sep. 2, 2004 (Ex.
`
`1014)). The ACPI Standard specifies power management performance “C states”
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`¶¶ 53, 58, Fig. 12. As cores enter the C4 state, the Dynamically Sizeable Memory
`
`shrinks from the Full Cache size to no less than a pre-set “Minimum Cache Size.” Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 47–48. This process may be completed for each core until all cores have entered
`
`the C4 state and processor as a whole enters the C4 state. Id. at ¶ 50. The cache
`
`maintains this Minimum Cache size while the cores are in C4. Id.
`
`Upon waking up and exiting the C4 state, Mandelblat discloses that the
`
`Dynamically Sizeable Memory may initiate an expand operation responsive to the
`
`“one or more of the core(s) transitioning to a different power state.” Id. at ¶¶ 52.
`
`Mandelblat further discloses this expansion may be to a revised Minimum Cache size
`
`rather than the Full Cache size. Id. at ¶ 58.
`
`(b) Kurts
`U.S. Patent No. 7,363,523 (“Kurts”) is titled “Method and apparatus for
`
`controlling power management state transitions.” Ex. 1004. Similar to the ’196
`
`Patent, Kurts states the objective of power state management in computing devices,
`
`
`that may be supported by a processor and its cores. Ex. 1002, ¶ 45. “The C0
`
`power state is an active power state where the CPU executes instructions. The C1
`
`through Cn power states are processor sleeping states where the processor
`
`consumes less power and dissipates less heat than leaving the processor in the C0
`
`state.” Ex. 1014 § 8.1; see also id. §§ 2.5, 8; Ex. 1004 (“Kurts”), 1:18–33.
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`including reducing “entry/exit latencies” that may prevent processors from entering
`
`deeper sleep and conserving power. Id. at 1:46–2:5.
`
`Kurts discloses a processor (205) with cores and an execution unit (210), and
`
`Power Management Logic (234) to manage the performance state of the processor,
`
`including frequency/voltage levels. Id. at 3:25–44. Within the Power Management
`
`Logic is a Voltage ID Table (“VID Table”) (277). Id. at 4:13, 4:20–35. The VID
`
`table is a lookup table for voltage/frequency pairs corresponding to various operating
`
`points of the processor. The Power Management Logic (234) uses the values in this
`
`VID Table to exert control over the processor’s clock generator (211) and voltage
`
`regulator (212), thereby controlling the processor’s voltage and frequency. Id. at
`
`3:25–33, 4:20–35, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In addition to the Power Management Logic (234), Deeper Sleep Logic (270)
`
`controls the processor’s entry into and exit from a deeper sleep state, referred to as
`
`C4. Id. at 3:64–4:2. Power Management State Control Logic (242) controls the
`
`processor’s power state, or C-state, placing it into various power states, referred to,
`
`from most active to deepest sleep as C0, C1, C2, C3, and C4. Id. at 1:15–33, 4:49–
`
`63. Working together, the Power Management Logic, the Deeper Sleep Logic, and
`
`the Power Management State Control Logic control the performance state of the
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`processor. Id. at 3:63–4:2, 6:30–45, 7:6–43, 11:46–56. The processor enters these
`
`low power, or sleep states, C2 through C4 to conserve power and reduce thermal load
`
`when the processor is not needed. Id. at 5:43–6:45. For example, in C2, portions of
`
`the processor circuitry may be powered down and clocks may be gated to reduce
`
`power consumption. Id. at 6:3–8. Kurts further explains that a processor may enter a
`
`Low Frequency Mode (LFM), in which the processor transitions to “the minimum or
`
`another low operating frequency,” such as the lowest frequency in the VID table. Id.
`
`at 6:30–45.
`
`Kurts addresses the problem of how to quickly exit a deep sleep to address
`
`events such as cache snoops or interrupts, as coming out of a deep sleep state,
`
`including the increase of the processor’s operating frequency can be prohibitively
`
`slow. Id. at 1:55–2:5. Kurts teaches that the processor may be awakened, and placed
`
`into an active C0 state while remaining in Low Frequency Mode. Id. at 6:46–7:20,
`
`Fig. 1. This allows the processor to handle an interrupt, and then proceed to either
`
`revert back to its pre-sleep frequency and voltage, or to return to a sleep state. Id.
`
`(c) Kang
`U.S. Patent No. 7,369,815 (“Kang”) is titled “Power Collapse for a Wireless
`
`Terminal.” Ex. 1006. Application No. 10/786,585, which resulted in the Kang Patent,
`
`and was published as U.S. 2005/0064829 on March 24, 2005, formed part of the basis
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`for the examiner’s initial rejection of the application that resulted in the ’812 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1007, p. 52.
`
`Kang states the objective of conserving power. Ex. 1006, 1:11–14. Kang
`
`describes a processor (120) partitioned into “power domains” containing various
`
`processing units including memory (134), a core (130), a controller (132), phase
`
`locked loops (135), and a power control unit (140). Id. at 3:38–56, Figs. 1, 2A.
`
`Kang describes “collapsible” power domains—domains that may be powered
`
`off if the processing units within them are not needed, as well as “always on” power
`
`domains, which never power down. Id. at 4:37–49. Each of these collapsible power
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`domains “may be powered down if the processing units in the power domain are not
`
`needed.” Id. Further, each domain “may be powered on or off independently of the
`
`other collapsible power domains.” Id.
`
`Kang discloses a “power control unit” (140) that controls the power for each
`
`collapsible power domain. The power control unit is in the always on domain. Id. at
`
`3:54–56. Kang’s power control unit contains “various circuit blocks that support
`
`powering on and off the collapsible power domains,” including state registers (242)
`
`for storing the power status of the power domains and hardware states (6:14–17); a
`
`sleep controller (246) for monitoring and controlling the processor’s sleep state (6:18–
`
`34), a clock controller (248) for enabling/disabling the processor’s main clock (6:35–
`
`36), an interrupt controller (250) that monitors for external interrupts (6:37–38), and
`
`power controller (252) that generates the control signals to power up/down the
`
`collapsible power domains (6:44–60).
`
`Figures 4, 5A, and 5B and Table 1 of Kang describe exemplary sequences for
`
`powering up and powering down collapsible power domains. Id. at 6:7–28, 8:26–
`
`9:28, Figs. 4, 5A, 5B. The power control unit (140) manages these tasks for both
`
`powering up and powering down the collapsible power domains.
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`An explanation of how claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 are unpatentable, including
`
`identification of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in
`
`Section VI.
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1002 is a Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68,
`
`which includes detailed claim charts comparing the Challenged Claims to the prior
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`art.2 In addition, the relevance of the evidence to the Challenged Claims, including
`
`an identification of the specific portions of the evidence supporting the challenge, is
`
`included in Section VI.
`
`VI. Claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 of the ’216 Patent Are Unpatentable
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following analysis and evidence
`
`demonstrates where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the prior art
`
`for each of the grounds listed above.
`
`’216 Claim 1
`a. Preamble
`b. First Element
`
`b. Second Element
`
`c. Third Element, Part 1
`
`d. Third Element, Part 2
`
`’216 Claim Language
`“An apparatus comprising”
`“a plurality of components, each component
`included in one of a plurali