UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
` v.
`MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No.: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE45,542
` Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`(37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)) ....................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ....................................... 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .......................................... 1
`B. Identification of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................ 2
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................ 2
`D. Payment of fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ......................................................... 3
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................... 3
`A. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) .................................. 3
`B. Patents and Publications Relied Upon ....................................................... 4
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY .................................................. 4
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE RE542 Patent .............................................................. 6
`A. Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter ................................................... 6
`B. Prosecution History of the RE542 Patent ................................................. 10
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ............................... 13
`A. “peripheral device” ................................................................................... 14
`B. “default value” .......................................................................................... 15
`C. “limiting value” ........................................................................................ 17
`D. “maximum power consumption of the peripheral device” ...................... 19
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 24
`VIII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART RELIED UPON .......................... 24
`A. Overview of Garner (U.S. Patent No. 5,724,592) .................................... 24
`B. Overview of Toombs (U.S. Patent No. 6,279,114) .................................. 26
`IX. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS OF
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 28
`Contents
`i
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. GROUND 1: Garner anticipates Claims 18, 23, 28-29, 32-33, 37,
`38, and 40 under § 102. ....................................................................... 29
`1. Independent Claim 18 ............................................................................... 29
`2. Dependent Claim 23 “The peripheral device according to the claim
`18, wherein said default value and at least one limiting value are
`stored in the peripheral device.” ............................................................... 38
`3. Independent Claim 28 ............................................................................... 39
`4. Dependent Claim 29 “The peripheral device according to the claim
`28, wherein said default value and at least one limiting value are
`stored in the peripheral device.” ............................................................... 41
`5. Dependent Claim 32 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the peripheral device is a memory card.” ................................................. 41
`6. Dependent Claim 33 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the limiting value is a highest possible power consumption of the
`peripheral device.” .................................................................................... 42
`7. Dependent Claim 37 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the default value is a lowest possible maximum power
`consumption for the peripheral device.” .................................................. 43
`8. Dependent Claim 38 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the means for setting the maximum power consumption of the
`peripheral device comprises a processor operable to set the
`maximum power consumption of the peripheral device to the
`value.” ....................................................................................................... 43
`9. Dependent Claim 40 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the range includes values other than the default value and the
`limiting value.” ......................................................................................... 44
`B. GROUND 2: The combination of Garner and Toombs renders
`Claims 18, 23-24, 28-29, 32-33, and 37-40 obvious under §
`103. ...................................................................................................... 44
`1. Independent Claim 18 ............................................................................... 57
`2. Dependent Claim 23 “The peripheral device according to the claim
`18, wherein said default value and at least one limiting value are
`stored in the peripheral device.” ............................................................... 66
`ii
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3. Dependent Claim 24 “The peripheral device according to the claim
`18, wherein said peripheral device is a MultiMediaCard™
`peripheral device.” .................................................................................... 66
`4. Independent Claim 28 ............................................................................... 67
`5. Dependent Claim 29 “The peripheral device according to the claim
`28, wherein said default value and at least one limiting value are
`stored in the peripheral device.” ............................................................... 70
`6. Dependent Claim 32 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the peripheral device is a memory card.” ................................................. 71
`7. Dependent Claim 33 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the limiting value is a highest possible power consumption of the
`peripheral device.” .................................................................................... 71
`8. Dependent Claim 37 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the default value is a lowest possible maximum power
`consumption for the peripheral device.” .................................................. 72
`9. Dependent Claim 38 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the means for setting the maximum power consumption of the
`peripheral device comprises a processor operable to set the
`maximum power consumption of the peripheral device to the
`value.” ....................................................................................................... 72
`10. Dependent Claim 39 “The peripheral device of claim 32, wherein
`the memory card is a MultiMediaCard.” .................................................. 73
`11. Dependent Claim 40 “The peripheral device of claim 28, wherein
`the range includes values other than the default value and the
`limiting value.” ......................................................................................... 73
`X.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`iii
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`Cases
`Memory Technologies, LLC v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc.,
`8:18-cv-00171 (C.D. Cal.) .................................................................................... 2
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 13, 14, 15
`Statutes and Codes
`United States Code
`Title 35, section 102 .................................................................................... 1, 3, 29
`Title 35, section 102(a) ......................................................................................... 4
`Title 35, section 102(b) ......................................................................................... 4
`Title 35, section 102(e) ......................................................................................... 4
`Title 35, section 103 .................................................................................... 1, 3, 45
`Title 35, section 112 ............................................................................................ 15
`Title 35, section 282(b) ....................................................................................... 13
`Rules and Regulations
`Code of Federal Regulations
`Title 37, section 42.10(b) ...................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, section 42.103) ....................................................................................... 3
`Title 37, section 42.104(b) .................................................................................... 3
`Title 37, section 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................. 13
`Title 37, section 42.108(c) .................................................................................. 15
`Title 37, section 42.22(a) ...................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.24(a)(1)(i) ............................................................................ 75
`Title 37, section 42.6(a)(2)(ii) ............................................................................ 75
`Title 37, section 42.6(a)(2)(iii) ........................................................................... 75
`Title 37, section 42.8 ........................................................................................... 75
`Title 37, section 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................... 2
`iv
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Federal Register
`Volume 83, page 51340 ...................................................................................... 14
`
`v
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit No.
`Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`1002
`Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker
`1003
`U.S. Patent No. 4,019,068 (Bormann)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,278,033 (App. No.
`1004
`10/401,338)
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 7,278,033 (Mylly)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. RE45,542 (App. No.
`1006
`13/902,227)
`1007
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,592 (Garner)
`1008
`U.S. Patent No. 6,279,114 (Toombs)
`1009
`PCMCIA PC Card Standard, Release 2.1
`1010
`Third Joint Claim Construction Statement
`1011
`U.S. Patent No 6,247,084
`1012
`PC Card Standard
`1013
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler
`vi
`
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`(37 C.F.R. §42.22(a))
`Kingston Technology Company, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Kingston”) hereby
`petitions to institute an inter partes review of Claims 18, 23-24, 28-29, 32-33, and
`37-40 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE45,542 (the “RE542
`Patent”) to Mylly (Ex. 1001), and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`As discussed below, the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the
`Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103. Accordingly, there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`challenged claim, and Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute a trial
`for inter partes review and cancel all Challenged Claims as unpatentable.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner Kingston Technology Company, Inc., is a real party-in-interest.
`Petitioner’s parent company, Kingston Technology Corporation (“Kingston
`Holding”), is a holding company without any employees or operations. However,
`because Kingston Holding is the sole owner of Petitioner and shares some
`directors, Petitioner identifies Kingston Holding as an additional real party-in-
`interest.
`1
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`Identification of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Patent Owner Memory Technologies, LLC (“MTL”) has asserted the
`Challenged Claims of the RE542 Patent, as well as claims from seven other
`patents, against Kingston in a co-pending litigation, Memory Technologies, LLC v.
`Kingston Technology Co., Inc., 8:18-cv-00171 (C.D. Cal.). MTL’s original
`Complaint was filed on January 31, 2018, and served, at the earliest, on
`February 1, 2018.
`In addition to this Petition, Kingston has or will be filing petitions for inter
`partes review of the other seven patents that MTL has asserted against it.
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates the following Lead and Backup Counsel. Concurrently
`filed with this Petition is a Power of Attorney for appointing the following Lead
`and Backup Counsel, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Service via hand-delivery may be
`made at the postal mailing addresses below. Petitioner consents to electronic
`service by e-mail at the following address: Kingston-RE542ipr@pillsburylaw.com.
`2
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Lead Counsel
`Christopher Kao, Kingston’s counsel in
`Robert C.F. Pérez
`the co-pending litigation
`(Reg. No. 39,328)
`(Pro hac vice motion to be filed)
` PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`Brock S. Weber, Kingston’s counsel in
`the co-pending litigation
`PITTMAN LLP
`(Pro hac vice motion to be filed)
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, 14th Floor
` PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`McLean, VA 22101
`Telephone: 703.770.7900
`PITTMAN LLP
`Facsimile: 703.770.7901
`Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.983.1000
`Facsimile: 415.983.1200
`
`D.
`Payment of fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`Account No. 033975 for the petition fee and for any other required fees.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b), Petitioner requests that Claims 18, 23-24,
`28-29, 32-33, and 37-40 of the RE542 Patent be cancelled as anticipated or
`rendered obvious based on the following grounds:
`Ground
`RE542 Patent Claims
`Basis for Rejection
`1
`18, 23, 28-29, 32-33, 37, 38,
`§ 102 based on Garner
`and 40
`2
`18, 23-24, 28-29, 32-33, and
`§ 103 based on Garner and Toombs
`37-40
`3
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Declaration of Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E, filed herewith (Ex. 1002,
`“Baker Decl.”), supports the challenge in this Petition that the Challenged Claims
`are invalid as anticipated and obvious
`B.
`Patents and Publications Relied Upon
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,592 (“Garner”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`Managing Active Power Consumption in a Microprocessor Controlled Storage
`Device,” was filed on December 5, 1996 and issued March 3, 1998. Garner is
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b) and 102(e). Garner was not
`previously presented to the PTO in the context of the RE542 Patent.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,279,114 (“Toombs”), entitled “Voltage Negotiation in a
`Single Host Multiple Cards System,” was filed on November 4, 1998 and issued
`August 21, 2001. Toombs is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and
`102(e).
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`Generally, the RE542 Patent relates to power management of peripheral
`devices, such as memory cards. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶73-74.) A memory card is a device
`for storing electronic data. (Id., ¶75.) By 2002, several types of memory cards that
`use flash or EEPROM memory were in existence, including MultiMediaCard,
`CompactFlash, and PCMCIA memory cards. (Id., ¶76.)
`4
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A memory card typically relies on a host electronic device (e.g., laptop) to
`which it is connected for power. (Id., ¶77.) Different hosts may have different
`power-supply restrictions or preferences, and different memory cards may have
`different power needs. (Id.) Because memory cards were intended to work with a
`variety of hosts, the issue of compatibility between hosts and memory cards was
`well-recognized by 2002. (Ex. 1007, 1:48-62; Ex. 1008, 1:36-56.) A well-known
`solution to the problem was to allow hosts and memory cards to negotiate the
`desired operating configuration. (Ex. 1002, ¶78.) For example, a host may read
`the configuration options supported by a memory card and cause the card to
`operate in a selected option. (Ex. 1007, 2:12-20, Ex. 1008, 15:42-49.)
`Power management circuits have been used by memory devices since at
`least the 1970s. (Ex. 1002, ¶79.) A well-known power-management technique
`was for hosts to specify a mode of operation for memory cards, which in turn
`affects the operational configuration of the memory cards. (Id., ¶80.) Memory
`cards capable of operating in different modes typically start at a default mode and
`change to a different mode upon request or meeting triggering conditions. (Id.,
`¶81-82.)
` Power consumption, which is often measured in Watt-Hours, refers to the
`amount of energy that is consumed or used over a period of time. (Id., ¶85.)
`5
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Limiting the rate at which power is used would, in effect, limit power
`consumption. (Id.)
`Well-known operational configurations that limit power consumption
`include, e.g., clock frequency, bus width, and operating voltage/current. (Id., ¶¶86-
`89.) For example, a low clock frequency limits power consumption lower than a
`higher frequency. (Id., ¶¶90-91.)
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE RE542 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter
`The RE542 Patent claims foreign priority to Finnish Patent Application No.
`20020594, filed March 27, 2002. The RE542 Patent is directed to methods and
`systems for determining and managing power consumption of a peripheral device
`(e.g., MultiMediaCards). (Ex. 1002, ¶93.) According to the patent, the described
`solution is needed to address power-consumption compatibility issues between
`peripheral devices and the variety of host electronic devices to which they can
`connect. (Ex. 1001, 1:61-2:4.) An illustrative embodiment of the RE542 Patent is
`shown in Figure 2.
`6
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a peripheral device 2 connected to an electronic device 1 that
`supplies power to the peripheral device. (Id., 4:41-48.) The peripheral device
`comprises a connector 10 for connecting the peripheral device to the electronic
`device. (Id., 4:41-43.) The peripheral device also comprises “a processor 13 or the
`like for controlling the functions of the peripheral device 2,” and a clock generator
`16 for generating clock signals for the processor. (Id., 4:57-59, 5:1-4.) Further,
`the peripheral device comprises a memory 14 for storing program code and data,
`including “a first maximum value and a second maximum value for power
`consumption,” with the first maximum value being lower than the second. (Id.,
`7
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`4:65-5:1, 5:31-32.) In one embodiment, the two values define a range from which
`to select. (Id., 7:31-34.)
`The RE542 Patent describes an embodiment where “the suitable power
`consumption value can be negotiated by the electronic device and the peripheral
`device.” (Id., 9:27-31.) The operations performed by the devices are discussed
`with reference to Figure 3, copied below.
`
`8
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`During startup, the power consumption of the peripheral device is set to a
`default value, and the processor also sets the clock generator to a frequency that
`corresponds to this power consumption value. (Id., 5:26-34, 7:23-25.) Thereafter,
`the host electronic device queries the peripheral device for its first and second
`maximum power consumption values. (Id., 5:48-54, Fig. 3, label 301.) In
`response, the peripheral device reads the requested values from memory (Fig. 3,
`label 302), generates a reply message containing the values (label 303), and sends
`the message to the host (label 304). (Id., 5:56-6:5.) The host then selects from the
`received values and sends a “power control message indicat[ing] the power
`consumption value which is to be set as the maximum value for the peripheral
`device” (label 305). (Id., 6:6-17.) Upon determining that the message is a power
`control message, the processor of the peripheral device “reads the maximum value
`for power consumption indicated in the message (block 306).” (Id., 6:17-21.)
`Thereafter, the processor sets the clock frequency and/or bus width to a value
`corresponding to the maximum value for power consumption. (Id., 6:21-27.)
`Other possible configuration adjustments include setting the operating voltage,
`current consumption, bus frequency, and operating mode (e.g., “active mode” or
`“power-saving mode”) of memory banks. (Id., 8:1-39.)
`9
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The RE542 Patent recognizes that several operational configurations that
`effectively limit a peripheral device’s power consumption were well-known in the
`art. For example, in its background section, the RE542 Patent described power
`consumption being affected by clock frequency and bus width. (Id., 2:49-59.)
`Additionally, the RE542 Patent stated that “it should be evident that other methods
`for adjusting power consumption are also known,” such as by controlling operating
`voltage and current consumption. (Id., 7:64-8:10.)
`As explained below, the techniques disclosed in the RE542 Patent were also
`well-known in the prior art. (Ex. 1002, Sections VII, and VIII.)
`B.
`Prosecution History of the RE542 Patent
`The RE542 Patent claims priority to a Finnish patent application, No.
`20020594, filed on March 27, 2002. On March 26, 2003, the Applicant filed U.S.
`Patent Application No. 10/401,338 (“’338 Application”) (Ex. 1004). The ’338
`Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,278,033 (“’033 Patent”) on November 2,
`2007 (Ex. 1005). On May 24, 2013, the Applicant sought reissue of the ’033
`Patent and filed Application No. 13/902,227 (“’227 Application”) (Ex. 1006). The
`resulting RE45,542 Patent (Ex. 1001) issued on June 2, 2015.
`The prosecution history of the ’338 Application clarifies the origin of the
`claim limitation, “a default value and a limiting value,” as recited in Claim 28 of
`10
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the RE542 Patent. On June 26, 2006, the Applicant amended the claims to replace
`“first maximum value” and “second maximum value” with “first maximum
`limiting value” and “second maximum limiting value,” respectively. (Ex. 1004,
`p. 291-297.) The amendment was advanced with an argument that the cited prior
`art did not teach a “maximum power consumption” set between two limiting
`values. (Id., p. 298.) The Examiner rejected the claims because the words
`“maximum” and “limit” were superfluous or confusing, since “by the applicant’s
`own admission, these values are merely limiting values for the maximum value,
`and not the maximum value themselves.” (Id., p. 312.) Accordingly, the Examiner
`recommended that the terms be amended to recite a first and second “limiting
`value for the power consumption.” (Id.) In response to this rejection, the
`Applicant replaced “first maximum limiting value” and “second maximum limiting
`value” with “default value” and “limiting value,” respectively. (Id., p. 321-327.)
`The prosecution history of the reissuance of the RE542 Patent is particularly
`relevant to the means-plus-function element and the “maximum power
`consumption” element. The reissue application added the dependent claims at
`issue in this IPR and sought to add the following limitation to independent Claim
`28: “wherein the means for setting the maximum power consumption includes a
`processor configured to read an indication of the value from the received
`11
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`information and to set the maximum power consumption to the value based on the
`indication.” (Ex. 1006, p. 38-40.) The Applicant cited to “6:12-25” as the alleged
`support for this limitation. (Id., p. 41.)
`With respect to the means-plus-function term, the Examiner rejected the
`added limitation because “processor” specified a structure for the recited function
`and therefore did not comply with Section 112 ¶6. (Id., p. 231-32.) In response,
`the Applicant replaced the added limitation with the language that ultimately
`issued, which removed “processor,” and added Claim 38, which specified a
`processor as the means-plus-function element in Claim 28. (Id., p. 259, 261.)
`With respect to the term, “maximum power consumption,” the Examiner
`found it indefinite because the usage of “maximum” conflicts with its ordinary
`meaning. (Id., p. 231.) The Examiner reasoned that since “maximum power
`consumption” is set to a value between the default and limiting values, it is not
`actually a “maximum.” (Id.) In response, the Applicant submitted a declaration
`from the inventor, Kimmo Mylly, to explain that “maximum” is a limit on power
`consumption. Citing to the declaration, the Applicant explained:
`A POSA (“person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
`the application”) would understand that “maximum” as recited, at
`least “relates to a maximum limit on the fluctuating power
`consumption of a peripheral device.” (Mylly Decl. ¶8.) “[A POSA]
`recognized that the power consumption of a peripheral device
`12
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`fluctuated over the course of its operation. As a result, the ‘maximum
`power consumption’ recited in the claims related to a limit on the
`fluctuating power consumption of the peripheral device.” (Id., ¶12.)
`(Id., p. 266-267.)
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`The Patent Office has adopted a rule by which claims are construed in
`accordance with “the standard used in federal courts, in other words, the claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” 83 FR 51340. Under this standard, claim construction
`begins with the language of the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-14. The “words
`of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is
`“the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`application.” Id. at 1312-13. The specification is “the single best guide to the
`meaning of a disputed term and . . . acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines
`terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Id. at 1321
`(internal quotation marks omitted). The prosecution history is another source of
`intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1317.
`13
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`All claim terms of challenged claims of the RE542 Patent have been
`accorded their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by person of ordinary
`skill in the art and consistent with the intrinsic record. Petitioner’s interpretation of
`the claim terms in the RE542 Patent is further explained for each claim limitation
`in relation to the prior art discussed in the proposed grounds for invalidity, below,
`in Grounds 1 and 2.
`Under the Phillips standard and for clarity, Petitioner provides the following
`specific constructions.1
`A.
`“peripheral device”
`The specification of the RE542 Patent discloses that a peripheral device can
`be connected to an electronic device (e.g., laptops) and “expand the properties of
`the electronic device and to produce auxiliary functions.” (Ex. 1001, 1:44-53;
`Ex. 1002, ¶141.) The disclosed examples of peripheral devices include internal
`devices (e.g., memory cards and PCMCIA cards) and external devices (e.g.,
`cameras). (Ex. 1001, 1:47-60, 4:20-28, 9:55-61; Ex. 1002, ¶¶142-43.) Further, the
`recited “peripheral device” should at least be broad enough to cover memory cards,
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to address any claim construction positions taken by
`the Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response, if any, including under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c). Petitioner further reserves its ability to show that claims of the RE542
`Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 in the co-pending litigation, despite
`offering explicit and implicit claim constructions herein.
`
`14
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`as recited in dependent Claims 32 (“the peripheral device is a memory card”) and
`39 (“the memory card is a MultiMediaCard”). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶144-46.) Accordingly,
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”)
`would understand the term “peripheral device” to mean “an internal or external
`device capable of expanding the properties of or produce auxiliary functions for a
`connected electronic device.” (Id., ¶147.)
`B.
`“default value”
`Claims 18 and 28 recite in relevant part: (1) “a memory storing a default
`value ... for power consumption of the peripheral device” and (2) “a maximum
`power consumption of the peripheral device is set at a startup stage to said default
`value.” Accordingly, the “default value” is at least a power consumption value to
`which the “maximum power consumption” is set. (Ex. 1002, ¶149.)
`In addition, the ordinary meaning of “default” is “an adopted preselected
`option when no alternative has been specified,” which is consistent with the term’s
`usage in the specification. (Id., ¶150.) The specification states that during
`initialization of the peripheral device, “the power consumption of the peripheral
`device 2 is set to a default value which ... is a power consumption value according
`to the first maximum limit.” (Ex. 1001, 5:25–31.) This initialization corresponds
`to the claimed “startup stage.” (Ex. 1002, ¶150.) Further, the specification states
`15
`
`4837-0205-2230
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. RE45,542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`that unless the host subsequently selects a different value, the corresponding power
`consumption configurations need not be adjusted “because this value is the default
`value.” (Ex. 1001, 6:59-62.) This implies that the default value is preselected to
`be set as the peripheral device’s “maximum power consumption.” (Ex. 1002,
`¶150.) The specification and claims do not specify or restrict the “default value”
`and “limiting value” to any particular type of measurement. Both values are “for
`power consumption of the peripheral device.” (Ex. 1001, cl. 28; cls. 33, 37.)
`However, there is no requirement that the power consumption value be, e.g., a
`specific clock frequency or any measure of power consumption (e.g., Watt-Hours).
`(Ex. 1002, ¶80.) The specification and claims only state that the clock can be
`adjusted to a frequency that corresponds to the power consumption value,
`maximum limit, or other similar terms