`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 35
` Date: April 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`.
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`XILINX, INC. and XILINX ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANALOG DEVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PR2020-01559
`Patent 7,286,075 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before ERIC W. HAWTHORNE, Supervisory Trial Paralegal
`
`ERRATA
`A Final Written Decision (Paper 31) in this case was entered on March
`11, 2022, and errantly omitted language at pages 30 and 59. Footnote 10, at
`page 30, is hereby corrected to read (with additional underlined text):
`
`Hiller consistently uses the term “dither” throughout its
`specification. Therefore, in our discussion of Hiller we refer to
`the dither signal consistent with our claim construction of
`perturbation, “that dither can be accomplished by various
`mechanisms, including perturbation, adding noise, or supplying
`
`
`
`PR2020-01559
`Patent 7,286,075 B2
`
`
`the output of a sequence generator to certain switches in a
`switched capacitor array.” Section I.G.
`
`Paragraph 1, at page 59, is hereby corrected to read (with additional
`underlined text):
`
`As discussed above, independent claim 16 recites, in part,
`making a known perturbation “after sampling an input signal
`onto the switched capacitor array.” Ex. 1001, 10:55–56. As set
`forth in our claim construction, perturbation is “a small change
`in movement, quality, or behavior of something, especially an
`unusual change,” and “describes the disturbance or agitation of
`the charge stored on the capacitor array, in a manner that
`introduces dither” into the analog to digital converter.” Section
`I.G. In their arguments, the parties do not substantively
`distinguish the difference between “dither” and “perturbation”
`with respect to the combination of Cai and Bjornsen. Compare
`Pet. 78 (Petitioner equating “perturbation (dither)”), with PO
`Resp. 34 (Patent Owner stating that “[i]ndependent claims 16,
`20, 22, and 24 similarly require applying dither to the
`converter.”). Considering our claim construction and that the
`parties’ arguments that do not substantively distinguish between
`the independent claims based on the terms “dither” and
`“perturbation,” our analyses with respect to the prior art relied on
`for Petitioner’s challenges
`in
`this Decision
`includes
`“perturbation” as claimed, being within the meaning of “dither.”
`
`
` All deadlines from the March 11, 2022, Final Written Decision remain
`unchanged.
`If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please contact Eric
`W. Hawthorne at 571-272-4643 or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-
`272-7822.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PR2020-01559
`Patent 7,286,075 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Mehran Arjomand
`Jean Nguyen
`Richard Hung
`Alex Yap
`Hector Gallegos
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`marjomand@mofo.com
`jnguyen@mofo.com
`rhung@mofo.com
`ayap@mofo.com
`hgallegos@mofo.com
`
`David Fehrman
`DSA LEGAL SOLUTIONS PC
`dfehrman@dsa-legal.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Peter Dichiara
`Scott Bertulli
`Cynthia Vreeland
`Brian J. Lambson
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR, LLP
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`scott.bertulli@wilmerhale.com
`cynthia.vreeland@wilmerhale.com
`Brian.lambson@wilmerhale.com
`
`Michael Diener
`Claire Rollor
`ANALOG DEVICES, INC.
`Michael.Diener@analog.com
`Claire.Rollor@analog.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
