`
`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. 8,271,812
`
`TITLE: HARDWARE AUTOMATIC PERFORMANCE STATE
`TRANSITIONS IN SYSTEM ON PROCESSOR SLEEP AND
`WAKE EVENTS
`
`Issue Date: September 18, 2012
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2002
`Qualcomm v. Apple
`IPR2019-00322
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 104(a) ...................................... 5
`IV.
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Challenged Claim ................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Reasons for the Relief Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................... 14
`Construction of Claim Terms ................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. Claims 8 and 9 of the ’812 Patent Are Unpatentable ..................................... 32
`
`
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................ 32
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 42
`
`1.
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................ 47
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 57
`
`
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1.
`
`
`1.
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................ 64
`2.
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 71
`VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 71
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,271,812 (“the ’812 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Apple, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner” or “Apple”).
`
`The ’812 Patent relates to an integrated circuit, such as a system on chip
`
`(“SoC”), which includes one or more performance domains, with each domain having
`
`one or more components. Ex. 1001 Abstract, 2:31–34, 3:29–47 and Fig. 1. Among
`
`these components are processors, which can have “awake” and “sleep” performance
`
`states. Id. at 1:35–47, 6:37–50. When a processor is awake, it is supplied with a
`
`voltage and a clock signal, and can process instructions. Id.; see also Ex. 1002
`
`(Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D), ¶ 40. “In the sleep state, the processor is
`
`idle (not executing instructions),” and power is conserved. Ex. 1001, 6:38–39; see
`
`also id. at 1:35–47 (discussing clock and power gating); Ex. 1002, ¶ 41.
`
`Components can have performance states that are related to whether a processor
`
`is awake or asleep. As the ’812 Patent explains:
`
`When the processors are in the sleep state, these other
`components need not be operating at such a high
`performance level. Similarly, when the processors are
`awakened from the sleep state, the performance level at
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`which the processors and other components need to operate
`to support the activities being performed by the system may
`be different than the performance level prior to the
`processor entering the sleep state.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:40–47. Accordingly, processors, other non-processor components, and
`
`their performance domains may transition between “wake” and “sleep” performance
`
`states depending on whether a processor is awake or asleep. Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 42–48.
`
`The ’812 Patent further explains that in the prior art, “[t]he sleep/wake transitions of
`
`the processors and other components are changed under software control.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:48–49. However, software control of power management and sleep/wake
`
`transitions had purported drawbacks that limited the amount of power conserved and
`
`performance of the device. Id. at 1:49–58.
`
`The ’812 Patent is directed to “a power management unit (PMU) [that] may
`
`automatically transition (in hardware) the performance states of one or more
`
`performance domains in a system.” Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:62–65. According to the
`
`specification, “the power management unit may monitor the processor to detect that
`
`the processor is entering the sleep state or has entered the sleep state,” and transition
`
`performance domains to their “sleep” performance states. Id. at 2:3–5, 5:44–49, 9:39–
`
`10:2 and Fig. 3 (steps 40, 42, and 44). “[T]he power management unit may [also] be
`
`programmable with a second set of target performance states to which the
`
`performance domains are to transition when the processor exits the sleep state,” when
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`the processor awakens, and transition performance domains to their “wake” state
`
`performance states. Id. at 2:8–12, 5:44–49, 10:13–25 and Fig. 3 (steps 48, 50, and
`
`52).
`
`However, integrated circuits having different performance domains comprised
`
`of processor and non-processor components were already well-known at the time the
`
`application for the ’812 Patent was filed in April 2010. Furthermore, there is nothing
`
`patentable about a power management unit configured to transition the performance
`
`state of each performance domain when a processor transitions to or from a sleep or
`
`wake state. These claimed features were disclosed in the prior art, including by U.S.
`
`Patents and published applications to Mandelblat, Kurts, and Lint, none of which were
`
`of record during the prosecution of the ’812 Patent, as well as by the Kang Patent,
`
`which was of record but was not previously considered in view of any of Mandelblat,
`
`Kurts, or Lint.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
` Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’812 Patent and its related continuation patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,443,216
`
`and 8,656,196) 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 related continuation patents
`
`claiming priority to the ’812 patent (U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,443,216 and 8,656,196)
`
`concurrently with the filing of this petition.
`
` 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
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`ref: 178774-680003. Two 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 ’812 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 ’812 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
`
`’812 Patent’s claims.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`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 8 and 9 of the ’812 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
`
`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
`
`Ground 4
`
`’812 Patent Claims
`8 and 9
`
`8 and 9
`
`9
`
`8 and 9
`
`Basis for Rejection
`35 U.S.C. § 102 based on U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0043965 to
`Mandelblat (“Mandelblat”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Mandelblat in view
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,363,523 (“Kurts”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Mandelblat in view
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,426,648 (“Lint”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kurts in view of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,369,815 (“Kang”)
`
`The ’812 Patent issued September 18, 2012 from U.S. Application No.
`
`
`
`12/756,006 (“’006 App.”), filed April 7, 2010, and does not claim priority to any
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`earlier-filed U.S. patent application. Accordingly, the earliest date to which the ’812
`
`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).
`
`Lint was filed September 30, 2004 and issued September 16, 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).
`
`V. Reasons for the Relief Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`42.104(b)(4)
` Overview of the ’812 Patent and its Technology
`The ’812 Patent is entitled “Hardware Automatic Performance State
`
`Transitions in System on Processor Sleep and Wake Events.” Ex. 1001. As its title
`
`suggests, the ’812 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, 1:33–58.
`
`The ’812 Patent is directed to reducing the amount of time required for portions
`
`of a system (e.g., an integrated circuit), referred to as “performance domains,” to
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`transition to a different “performance state” when the processor enters or exits a sleep
`
`state. Id. at Abstract. The ’812 Patent purports to resolve this problem by controlling
`
`these performance state changes using a programmable hardware-based “power
`
`management unit,” or PMU.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, discloses “an integrated circuit (IC) 10” that
`
`includes performance domains. Id. at 3:29–33.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`component.” Id. 3:32–36. Further, certain performance domains may have specific
`
`functionality and associated components. Id. at 3:41–47. Dividing components of a
`
`chip into different performance domains, in which the operational characteristics
`
`could be separately adjusted was already well-known as of April 2010. Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`54.
`
`“The integrated circuit 10 also includes a power management unit (PMU)
`
`28 . . . .” Ex. 1001, 3:47–48. “The PMU 28 may be configured to control transitions
`
`between performance states for the various performance domains 14A-14F.” Id. at
`
`3:63–65. 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 3:65–
`
`4:8. “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, 5:46–48. It was already well known in the art in
`
`April 2010 that the performance of components (and performance domains) could be
`
`adjusted corresponding to whether a processor was in a wake or sleep state. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 55.
`
`“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, 4:14–16. “[T]he PMU 28 may be configured to establish a corresponding
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`performance state for each performance domain.” Ex. 1001, 4:16–18. “The
`
`performance state may include any combination of performance characteristics for the
`
`components in a corresponding performance domain.” Id. at 4:31–33. “A
`
`performance characteristic may be any configurable setting for a component that
`
`affects the performance of that component.” Id. at 4:33–35. For example, a
`
`component’s clock frequency or supply voltage level may be a performance
`
`characteristic of that component. Id. at 4:35–38. When the clock frequency or
`
`operating voltage is changed, power consumption and the performance state of the
`
`domain also changes. Id. at 4:63–66. “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 5:59–61. The ’812 Patent discloses numerous other characteristics of
`
`a component that may qualify as a performance characteristic and impact power
`
`consumption. Id. at 4:35–62, 4:67–5:18. For example, the ’812 Patent expressly
`
`discloses that cache memory size may be a performance characteristic. Id. at 4:40–42
`
`(“For example, cache sizes in various caches may be a performance characteristic.”).
`
`These features were also known in the prior art in April 2010. Ex. 1002, ¶ 56.
`
`The PMU may include “one or more performance configuration registers 30.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:48–49, 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
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 5:52–57. One embodiment of the PMU’s performance
`
`configuration registers is shown in Figure 2. See Ex. 1001, 7:38–9:24. In Figure 2,
`
`“[t]he register set 30B may include a configuration for each performance domain, and
`
`for the sleep state and the wake state.” Ex. 1001, 7:41–43. Programmable registers
`
`that were set with and stored voltage, clock frequency, and other performance
`
`characteristics were not new as of April 2010. Ex. 1002, ¶ 57. Further, the prior art
`
`disclosed registers that could be programmed with a set of wake state values, and also
`
`with a set of sleep state values, that are applied depending on whether a processor is
`
`in its wake state or its sleep state. Id.
`
`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, 9:25–29. 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 9:39–48. Those performance domains will then
`
`“transition . . . to the new performance states (block 44).” Id. at 9:56–59. Similarly,
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`“[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, 10:13–20. Those performance domains will then
`
`“transition . . . to the new performance states (block 52).” Ex. 1001, 10:23–25.
`
`Applying wake and sleep state performance characteristic values (e.g., voltage,
`
`frequency, memory size) based on whether a processor is awake or asleep was also
`
`well-known in April 2010. Ex. 1002, ¶ 58.
`
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’812 Patent
`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
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0064829.” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1015, “Kang Application”).
`
`Among other things, 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. at 53 (rejecting claims 12 and 14). The examiner objected to dependent
`
`claim 16, finding it “would be allowable if rewritten in independent form … .” Id. at
`
`59.
`
`On May 16, 2012, the Applicants responded by amending the power
`
`management unit of claim 12 as follows:
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`1.
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioners maintain that 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
`In this IPR, the claims of the ’812 Patent “shall be given the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the [’812 Patent’s] specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Because a district court applies a different standard, however, the claim constructions
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`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”
`In the ’1375 Case, 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 (Markman hearing transcript); Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 25–30; Ex. 1012, pp. 41–44, 69–105,
`
`122–129. In particular, Apple argued that components within the claimed
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`“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.
`
`Apple’s construction allows for a performance domain to include components
`
`that transition performance states independently, with each component having
`
`different performance state characteristics (e.g., different clock frequencies and
`
`operating voltages). Id. 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”
`In the ’1375 Case, 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; instead, Apple argued a PMU may be either hardware, software, or
`
`any combination of hardware and software. Id. The District Court ultimately
`
`construed PMU to be hardware or the combination of hardware and software. Ex.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`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”
`In the ’1375 Case, 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. 123–144. 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.
`
`(d)
`
`“a prior performance state at which the processor
`was operating prior to entering the sleep state”
`In the ’1375 Case, Apple construed this phrase to mean “the performance state
`
`at which the processor was last operating before the transition to the sleep state
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`began.” Ex. 1008, pp. 23–25; Ex. 1009, p. 10; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 43–48; Ex. 1013, pp. 144–
`
`165. To narrow the disputed claim construction issues in the ’1375 Case, Petitioner
`
`agreed to Apple’s proposed construction. Ex. 1010, pp. 127. Apple’s construction,
`
`however, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation because it narrows the phrase
`
`“a prior performance state” to the “last operating” state. Petitioners maintain that the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning refers to “a performance state” (or states) at which the
`
`processor “was operating” some time before the processor “enter[ed] the sleep state.”
`
`This is consistent with the specification, which explains that the post-sleep
`
`performance state of a processor or other components can differ from their pre-sleep
`
`performance states. Ex. 1001, 8:13–23. This plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`should be accepted as the broadest reasonable interpretation in this proceeding. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 97.
`
` 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,” and in particular, to “power management of memory
`
`circuits.” Id. at ¶ 2.
`
`Like the ’812 Patent, Mandelblat is directed to the reduction in power
`
`consumption in microprocessors. Id. at ¶¶ 4–5, 17. Mandelblat discloses a
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`microprocessor containing multiple processor cores (902, 904), Power Management
`
`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, by way “sleep devices.” Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`¶¶ 17–19, Figs. 1–2. The “sleep devices” are controlled by the PML, and specifically
`
`the Memory PML. Id. Cache size is directly related to power usage—a larger cache
`
`uses more power, a smaller cache uses less.
`
`The Mandelblat Dynamically Sizeable Memory may be at a Minimum Cache
`
`size, a maximum or Full Cache size, or it may be at some point in between, and may
`
`expand or shrink between these sizes. Id. at ¶¶ 38, Fig. 12. In this way, the
`
`Dynamically Sizeable Memory may be sized based on processor power state, usage,
`
`or other factors. Id. at ¶ 65.
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of particular 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 ¶¶ 53, 58, Fig. 12. Upon entering the C4 state, the Dynamically Sizeable
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`Memory shrinks from the Full Cache size to a size no less than a pre-set “Minimum
`
`Cache Size.” Id. at ¶¶ 47–48. This process may be completed for each core in the
`
`processor 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 ’812
`
`
`1014)). The ACPI Standard specifies power management performance “C states”
`
`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.
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent, Kurts states the objective of power state management in computing devices,
`
`and specifically reducing “entry/exit latencies” of processors 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), as
`
`well as 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 at which the processor may run. 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.
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, these three components, the Power Management Logic, the
`
`Deeper Sleep Logic, and the Power Management State Control Logic control the
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`p