`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,471,593
`
`Case IPR2020-00532
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`PACT Was Properly Served Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................. 1
`Petitioner Is Not Statutorily Barred Because Its Declaratory-Judgment
`Complaint Did Not Challenge the Validity of Any Patents ............................ 3
`III. The Delaware Action Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial ........................ 4
`IV. PACT’s New Constructions Are Incorrect ...................................................... 7
`A.
`The Terms Require No Construction .................................................... 7
`B.
`The Claims Do Not Require Direction Be Assigned Exclusively ........ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc., v. Finitiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... 4, 5, 6
`Apple, Inc. v. UUSI, LLC d/b/a Nartron,
`IPR 2019-000358, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 5, 2019) ............................................ 10
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC,
`IPR2013-00582, Paper 48 (PTAB Mar. 18, 2015) ............................................... 9
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01511, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2019) ................................................ 4
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 9
`HTC Corp. & HTC Am., Inc., v. Motiva Patents, LLC,
`IPR2019-01666, Paper 9 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2020) ................................................... 5
`Iconex, LLC v. MAXStick Products Ltd.,
`IPR2019-01119, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2019) ................................................... 5
`Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01228, Paper 19 at 15 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2020) ................................... 3, 5
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2019-01195, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2020) ............................................ 5, 6
`LG Elecs., Inc., v. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00196, Paper 20 (PTAB May 15, 2015) ............................................... 3
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. e.Digital Corp.,
`IPR2015-00519, Paper 14 (PTAB March 24, 2015) ............................................ 3
`OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01548, Paper 9 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2019) ................................................... 7
`Polycom, Inc., v. directPacket Research, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01233, Paper 21 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2020) ................................................ 5
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 10
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Bitmicro, LLC,
`IPR2018-01410, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2019) ................................................ 4
`Sand Revolution II, LLC, v.
`Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB Jun. 16, 2020) ................................................ 5
`Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC,
`IPR2018-01342, Paper 45 (PTAB Jan. 17, 2020) ................................................ 4
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00042, Paper 23 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2013) ............................................... 2
`Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC,
`IPR2020-00043, Paper 30 (PTAB May 4, 2020) ................................................. 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5) ................................................................................................. 3
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`Power of Attorney, U.S. Patent No. 8,471,593, filed in
`2014
`Power of Attorney, U.S. Patent No. 7,928,763, filed in
`2014
`Power of Attorney, U.S. Patent No. 9,552,047, filed in
`2014
`Power of Attorney, U.S. Patent No. 9,037,807, filed in
`2014
`Patent Assignment Agreement between PACT XPP
`Technologies AG & Scientia Sol Mentis AG, executed
`March 15, 2018
`Email chain between K. Bendix and A. Grunberger re
`acceptance of service, dated February 5-6, 2020
`Email chain between L. Tarpley and A. Grunberger re
`acknowledging receipt of electronic service, dated
`February 7 and 10, 2020
`Email chain between A. Grunberger and K. Bendix re
`service, dated February 10, 2020
`Power of Attorney, U.S. Patent No. 7,928,763 filed in
`2020
`Affidavit of Raymundo Avila with Nationwide Legal re
`hand-service of Petitioner Intel Corporation’s Petitions
`and Supporting Documents on PACT counsel on
`February 10, 2020 and Delivery Receipt
`Intel Corporation's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment,
`Dkt. No. 1, filed April 25, 2019
`Letter from S. Li to S. Lotfollahi re PACT's claim
`swapping and narrowing, dated December 13, 2019
`PACT’s Proposed Claim Constructions
`Screenshot from Public PAIR Correspondence Record,
`U.S. Patent No. 9,552,047, taken February 10, 2020
`Request for Certificate of Correction, U.S. Patent No.
`9,075,605, filed December 5, 2018
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`
`Patent Owner (“PACT”) makes three procedural arguments against institution
`
`in these proceedings. The Board should reject these arguments as baseless. First,
`
`Petitioner (“Intel”) properly served PACT’s counsel of record based on assignment
`
`agreements in the PTO database. Second, Intel’s non-infringement declaratory-
`
`judgment action (“Non-Infringement Action”) cannot bar these proceedings because
`
`Intel did not challenge validity. Third, the parties’ pending district court case
`
`(“Delaware Action”) is in an early stage and does not warrant discretionary denial.
`
`I.
`
`PACT Was Properly Served Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`On February 7, 2020, Intel properly served its Petitions on the most recent
`
`counsel of record before the PTO, Aaron Grunberger of Norton Rose Fulbright. Intel
`
`also served counsel in the Delaware Action, Quinn Emanuel, on February 10.1 Both
`
`acts independently constitute proper service. 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) (“[P]etitioner
`
`may . . . serve the petition . . . on the patent owner at any other address known to the
`
`petitioner as likely to effect service.”). Although PACT argues that Intel should
`
`have instead served Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) based on a power of attorney
`
`filed by PACT’s predecessor company, PACT omits key facts.2
`
`First, at the time Intel filed its Petitions, the most recent power of attorney in
`
`
`1The one-year bar date is February 10, 2020. See IPR2020-00532 POPR at 31, n.1.
`
`2PACT did not allege improper service for IPR2020-00541 or IPR2020-00542.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`the PTO database was filed by PACT’s predecessor, PACT XPP Technologies AG.
`
`This outdated power of attorney was filed by Alliacense attorney Edward Heller III
`
`(Exs. 1033-1036), who was also the only attorney identified in PAIR for each patent.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1046 (screenshot taken Feb. 10, 2020). Mr. Heller passed away in 2018.
`
`Intel therefore served Mr. Grunberger, the designated correspondent in the
`
`agreements assigning the patents to the current PACT entity in March 2018
`
`(Scientia Sol Mentis AG subsequently changed its name to PACT). Ex. 1037. The
`
`Board has found service on the “address . . . found in the most recent assignment
`
`document in the Office’s assignment database” proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a).
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00042, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB
`
`Apr. 11, 2013); 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a).
`
`Second, PACT omits that Mr. Grunberger expressly agreed to accept service
`
`on PACT’s behalf. On February 5, Intel asked Mr. Grunberger if he “agree[d] to
`
`accept electronic service . . . pursuant [to] 37 C.F.R. § 42.105.” Ex. 1038. Mr.
`
`Grunberger confirmed on February 6, and acknowledged receipt on February 10.
`
`Exs. 1038-1039. Three days after he was served, Mr. Grunberger attempted to
`
`revoke his acceptance of service on orders from “litigation counsel.” Ex. 1040. Such
`
`blatant gamesmanship should not be accepted. Mr. Grunberger was identified in
`
`assignment agreements as PACT’s attorney, expressly agreed to accept service for
`
`PACT, and has subsequently acted on PACT’s behalf in the PTO. Exs. 1037-1038,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`1041, 1047. There can be no question that Intel’s service upon Mr. Grunberger was
`
`proper.
`
`Third, Intel additionally hand-served PACT’s litigation counsel, Quinn
`
`Emanuel, on February 10. Ex. 1042. The Board has previously found that this
`
`constitutes proper service. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. e.Digital Corp., IPR2015-
`
`00519, Paper 14 at 4-5 (PTAB March 24, 2015) (service on patent owner’s litigation
`
`counsel met the service requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5) where there was no
`
`prejudice to patent owner). Because Intel acted in good faith to serve PACT through
`
`multiple channels, and PACT cannot show any prejudice, Intel’s service was proper.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Is Not Statutorily Barred Because Its Declaratory-Judgment
`Complaint Did Not Challenge the Validity of Any Patents
`Contrary to PACT’s allegations, the Non-Infringement Action did not
`
`challenge the validity of any patent in these proceedings. Intel’s only cause of action
`
`for these patents was a “Declaration of Noninfringement.” Ex. 1043 at 11-20.
`
`PACT’s argument that Intel’s claims nevertheless challenge validity because they
`
`recite that Intel’s products “do not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`and enforceable claim” is incorrect. E.g., IPR2020-00537, Paper 6 at 42 (emphasis
`
`in original). The Board recently rejected the same argument regarding the same
`
`language in another action. In Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., the patent owner
`
`asserted that a declaratory-judgment action triggered the 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)
`
`statutory bar by alleging that “Intel's products ‘do not infringe . . . any valid and
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`enforceable claim’” of the patent. IPR2019-01228, Paper 19 at 15 (PTAB Jan. 30,
`
`2020). The Board, however, held that the petition was not barred. Id. at 19 (“[W]e
`
`are not persuaded on this record that the DJ Complaint expressly alleges invalidity .
`
`. . .”); see also LG Elecs., Inc., v. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., IPR2015-00196, Paper
`
`20 at 7 (PTAB May 15, 2015) (no § 315(a)(1) bar where complaint alleged
`
`“[petitioner] does not infringe . . . a valid claim, if any” of the patent); Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Bitmicro, LLC, IPR2018-01410, Paper 14 at 20 (PTAB Jan. 23,
`
`2019) (no § 315(a)(1) bar where complaints “do not allege a cause of action for
`
`invalidity”). PACT’s only case—Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.—is irrelevant
`
`because it analyzes a declaratory-judgment action that indisputably challenged the
`
`validity of the patent. IPR2018-01511, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2019)
`
`(precedential). Here, like Tela, Intel did not challenge the validity of any patents at
`
`issue, and PACT’s arguments to the contrary should be rejected.
`
`III. The Delaware Action Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial
`The Board balances six factors “relat[ing] to whether efficiency, fairness, and
`
`the merits” justify discretionary denial under § 314(a). Apple Inc., v. Finitiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). PACT only
`
`addresses three of these factors, none of which favor denial.
`
`First, the early stage of the Delaware Action does not justify discretionary
`
`denial. Indeed, trial is set for September 20, 2021, which is after the September 15
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`deadline for Final Written Decisions. The Board has consistently declined to invoke
`
`§ 314(a) when trial is scheduled after Final Written Decisions are due. See, e.g.,
`
`Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01342, Paper 45
`
`(PTAB Jan. 17, 2020); HTC Corp., et al., v. Motiva Patents, LLC, IPR2019-01666,
`
`Paper 9 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2019-01195, Paper
`
`11 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2020). The “crucial fact” that Final Written Decisions would
`
`issue before the scheduled trial would therefore “resolve complex issues that
`
`otherwise would need to be litigated.” Tela, IPR2019-01228, Paper 19 at 24-25.
`
`Even where the “currently scheduled trial date is in relatively close proximity to the
`
`expected final decision,” this factor favors not exercising discretion to deny. Sand
`
`Revolution II, LLC, v. Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 9-10 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative).
`
`Second, the Delaware Action does not reflect substantial investment by the
`
`parties sufficient to warrant discretionary denial. The parties have only taken two
`
`depositions (both third parties), and fact discovery does not close until October 2,
`
`2020. The court has yet to issue any substantive orders, including Markman, which
`
`also weighs against denying institution. Finitiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9-12.
`
`The Board has even declined to exercise discretion to deny institution after Markman
`
`has completed. See, e.g., Sand Revolution II, Paper 24 at 10-11. PACT’s cited case,
`
`on the other hand, denies institution based on significantly more advanced district
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`court proceedings. See Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC, IPR2020-
`
`00043, Paper 30 (PTAB May 4, 2020) (Markman and expert discovery completed).
`
`PACT also argues that Intel’s filings are “late,” however, Intel worked expeditiously
`
`to file its Petitions less than two months after receiving PACT’s selection of 180
`
`claims. Ex. 1044; VLSI, IPR2019-01195, Paper 11 at 9-11 (filing petition two
`
`months after claim narrowing was reasonable); Finitiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at
`
`11 (“[I]t is often reasonable for a petitioner to wait to file its petition until it learns
`
`which claims are being asserted . . . .”).
`
`Last, the Delaware Action presents substantially different arguments, and thus
`
`does not raise overlapping issues with these proceedings. These proceedings each
`
`assert references not raised in the Delaware Action against these patents: Hennessy
`
`(IPR2020-00532); Nicol, Miyamori, and Hennessy (IPR2020-00537); DeHon
`
`(IPR2020-00539); Barroso, Alpha Manual, Godfrey, and Nickolls (IPR2020-
`
`00540); Nicol and DeHon (IPR2020-00541); and Wilson, Houston, and Gove
`
`(IPR2020-00542). Moreover, in the Delaware Action, Intel asserts over 40
`
`references—including 8 prior-art products that cannot be raised in IPR—and
`
`obviousness combinations not at issue here. Because these proceedings include
`
`materially different arguments, the Board’s decisions will not duplicate rulings in
`
`the district court, and therefore the Board should not deny Intel’s petitions. Finitiv,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 12-13; VLSI, IPR2019-01195, Paper 11 at 9-11.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`IV. PACT’s New Constructions Are Incorrect
`Intel’s petition applies the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms claiming
`
`a “bus system” that includes “a first structure dedicated for data transfer in a first
`
`direction” and “a second structure dedicated for data transfer in a second direction.”
`
`IPR2020-00532, Petition at 5, 29-32, 75-79. Intel’s approach is consistent with the
`
`co-pending civil action, where both Intel and PACT confirmed that these terms have
`
`a plain and ordinary meaning requiring no construction. Ex. 1045 at 4. PACT now
`
`seeks to contradict its district-court position, arguing for a new, narrow construction
`
`of these terms in an attempt to traverse prior art in this venue while maintaining a
`
`broader construction for infringement in district court. PACT’s construction is
`
`inconsistent with the intrinsic record and its own prior positions and should be
`
`rejected. See e.g. OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc., IPR2018-01548, Paper
`
`9 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2019) (rejecting inconsistent construction).
`
`A. The Terms Require No Construction
`The disputed claim terms relate to a “bus system” that must “flexibly
`
`interconnect[]” various components in the claimed invention, including its multiple
`
`processing cores, memory units, and interfaces. Ex. 1003 at cls. 1, 16. As shown in
`
`Figure 1, these components are laid out in an array structure and interconnected by
`
`the bus system, which is composed of a series of configurable bus “segment lines”
`
`of varying lengths. Id. at Fig. 1; 2:51-59. Regarding the claim elements at issue
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`here, the bus segments are dedicated to send data along a selected path and direction
`
`through the configuration of “[i]nterline elements,” such as “connecting switches,”
`
`that “open or close at the request of a configuration manager.” Id. at 3:50-57. By
`
`configuring the switches or other interline elements appropriately, the bus system
`
`can “define[]” or “dedicate” the “directions of travel” along each of the bus segment
`
`lines and create a bus system that flexibly interconnects the required components.
`
`Id. at 5:30-35. The configurability of the interline elements—and thus bus system
`
`itself—allows the configuration manager to “establish how the bus structure is to be
`
`designed” and to cause bus segments to be dedicated to communications in certain
`
`directions and on certain paths. Id. at 3:55-64. Accordingly, a person of ordinary
`
`skill reading the intrinsic record would understand that the claimed bus systems may
`
`have “dedicated” direction in a variety of ways, including by configuring the
`
`“connecting switches” disclosed in the specification. This is consistent with the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the claim terms, which need no further construction.
`
`B.
`The Claims Do Not Require Direction Be Assigned Exclusively
`PACT attempts to narrow the asserted claims by replacing the claim term
`
`“dedicated” with “assigned exclusively,” a phrase that appears nowhere in the
`
`patent. POPR at 13-14. PACT explains that “assigned exclusively” is meant to
`
`exclude the use of “switching structures” or any ability to change the direction of
`
`data paths once established (id. at 18), thus requiring that the claimed components
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`be exclusive or physically permanent implementations. This is incorrect.
`
`First, the claim language does not support PACT’s construction. PACT seeks
`
`to narrow the term “dedicated” to require exclusivity and permanence, but the
`
`patentee knew how to claim those requirements yet chose not to do so here. For
`
`example, in another limitation of claim 1, the patentee used the narrower term
`
`“physically dedicated” to describe exclusive connections between components,
`
`distinguishing between the narrower “physically dedicated” and the broader
`
`“dedicated” when claiming the bus system elements. Ex. 1003 at cl. 1. PACT’s
`
`attempt to import the narrower limitation into the broader term is contrary to the
`
`claims and the intention of the patentee. See, e.g., Baxter Healthcare Corp. v.
`
`Millenium Biologix, LLC, IPR2013-00582, Paper 48 at 13-14 (PTAB Mar. 18, 2015)
`
`(citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(rejecting construction importing “hybridization” into claim where “applicants knew
`
`how to claim” it in other claims, but “omitted that language” from the other claims).
`
`Second, PACT’s proposal is inconsistent with the specification and excludes
`
`embodiments of the patent. While PACT contends its construction of “assigned
`
`exclusively” precludes the use of “switching structures” (POPR at 18), such switches
`
`are exactly how the patent describes configuring the bus system:
`
`In an example embodiment of the bus system, a series of interline
`elements is provided... Interline elements may be connecting switches,
`in particular the control arrangements that respond to the requirements
`of logic cells and/or the communication thereof and/or other units; thus,
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`
`the switch may, for example, open or close at the request of a
`configuration manager, that is, a unit that configures the logic cell field.
`This makes it possible to use a compiler to establish how the bus
`structure is to be designed.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 3:45-57. These “interline elements,” which include connecting switches,
`
`drivers, or registers, allow for the bus system’s “direction[] of travel” to be dedicated
`
`as claimed. Id. at 5:30-33. By configuring the interline elements, the claimed bus
`
`systems can support communication in “opposite running directions” along a given
`
`path (id. at 5:34-37), or multiple directions along a path (id. at 5:19-29). PACT’s
`
`proposal thus excludes the embodiment of using non-exclusive switches for
`
`directionality, which, absent a disavowal of claim scope (which PACT does not
`
`allege and does not exist here), cannot be correct. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning
`
`Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Apple, Inc. v. UUSI,
`
`LLC, IPR 2019-000358, Paper 12 at 28 (PTAB Aug. 5, 2019).
`
`Third, no embodiment supports PACT’s contention that the directionality of
`
`the bus system must be assigned exclusively or permanently. PACT argues that
`
`Figure 9 depicts a structure “assigned exclusively” by annotating registers in the
`
`“Connecting Elements between Clusters.” POPR at 15-16. This is incorrect: Figure
`
`9 demonstrates how certain non-bus-system components, such as the “PAE”,
`
`“Memory”, “Connecting Element”, and “I/O” circuits, each connect to the claimed
`
`bus system. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 9; 9:23-25. As with the other components depicted,
`
`the patent describes the “Connecting Element” as a separate “switching unit”
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`component between two separate arrays, using the identified registers to interface to
`
`the bus system rather than be part of the bus system. Id. at 6:47-7:30. Indeed, the
`
`“Connection Element” therefore cannot meet the claimed “bus system” requirement
`
`to flexibly interconnect “[a] plurality of processing cores, the plurality of memory
`
`units, and the at least one interface” as it never appears to connect to an interface at
`
`all or flexibly interconnect any of those components. See Figs. 2, 9. Instead,
`
`consistent with the patent’s description described above, the claimed “bus system”
`
`is depicted in Figure 9 with bus lines and switches, as shown throughout the figure:
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 9 (annotations added). Thus, the exemplary embodiment in Figure
`
`9 contradicts PACT’s narrow construction and confirms the “bus system” configures
`
`non-exclusive “switches” to dedicate the direction of travel. Id. at 3:45-55.
`
`PACT’s reference to “registers” to support the assertion that the ’593 patent
`
`distinguishes between paths and “directions” also contradicts this construction.
`
`POPR at 19 citing ’593 patent at 11:21-35. Like the switches described above, the
`
`patent’s in-line, bus system registers are configured to make adjustments as needed
`
`and thus are not “assigned exclusively.” Ex. 1003 at 4:22-25.
`
`Accordingly, the constructions may be rejected as unsupported by the record.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 23, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kevin Bendix
`Kevin Bendix (Reg. No. 67,164)
`kevin.bendix@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Robert A. Appleby, P.C. (Reg. No. 40,897)
`robert.appleby@kirkland.com
`Gregory S. Arovas, P.C. (Reg. No. 38,818)
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Intel Corporation
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to Board Order
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing documents were
`
`served on July 23, 2020 through the Patent Review Processing System, as well as by
`
`e-mailing copies to:
`
`Ziyong Li, Esquire
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 875-6373
`seanli@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Nima Hefazi, Esquire
`Joseph M. Paunovich, Esquire
`QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`nimahefazi@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kevin Bendix
`Kevin Bendix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`