UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ACQIS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR: IPR2021-00604
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,703,750
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ................................. 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(1)-(4) ........................ 1
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 1
`2.
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ....................................................... 2
`4.
`Service Information.................................................................... 2
`Standing ................................................................................................ 3
`B.
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 3
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................ 3
`B.
`Chu’886 Qualifies as Prior Art............................................................. 4
`C.
`Grounds of Challenge ........................................................................... 6
`D.
`Board Should Not Deny Institution under §325(d) .............................. 6
`THE ’750 PATENT ........................................................................................ 8
`A.
`Summary .............................................................................................. 8
`B.
`Challenged Claims Have a Priority Date of April 15, 2011 ................ 9
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 19
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 19
`IV.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 20
`V.
`VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 20
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 21-24, 31-35, 37, 39, 42, 44-48
`in view of Chu’886 and Chu’330 ....................................................... 20
`-i-
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`Chu’886 .................................................................................... 20
`1.
`Chu’330 .................................................................................... 24
`2.
`Motivation to Combine Chu’886 and Chu’330 ....................... 25
`3.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 27
`4.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 32
`5.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 35
`6.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 36
`7.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 39
`8.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 43
`9.
`10. Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 44
`11. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 46
`12. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 47
`13. Claim 21 ................................................................................... 48
`14. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 49
`15. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 49
`16. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 49
`17. Claim 31 ................................................................................... 50
`18. Claim 32 ................................................................................... 51
`19. Claim 33 ................................................................................... 52
`20. Claim 34 ................................................................................... 52
`21. Claim 35 ................................................................................... 52
`22. Claim 37 ................................................................................... 54
`23. Claim 39 ................................................................................... 54
`24. Claim 44 ................................................................................... 56
`25. Claim 45 ................................................................................... 59
`-ii-
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`26. Claim 46 ................................................................................... 60
`27. Claim 47 ................................................................................... 61
`28. Claim 48 ................................................................................... 61
`29. Claim 49 ................................................................................... 62
`30. Claim 50 ................................................................................... 63
`Ground 2: Claims 25, 27 in view of Chu’886, Chu’330, and
`Chu’185 .............................................................................................. 64
`1.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 64
`2.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 67
`Ground 3: Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 21-24, 31-35, 37, 39, 44-50 in
`view of Huang and Chu’330 .............................................................. 68
`1.
`Huang ....................................................................................... 68
`2.
`Motivation to Combine Huang and Chu’330 .......................... 70
`3.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 72
`4.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 77
`5.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 80
`6.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 80
`7.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 83
`8.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 87
`9.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 88
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 89
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 90
`12. Claim 21 ................................................................................... 90
`13. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 91
`14. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 91
`
`-iii-
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`15. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 91
`16. Claim 31 ................................................................................... 92
`17. Claim 32 ................................................................................... 93
`18. Claim 33 ................................................................................... 93
`19. Claim 34 ................................................................................... 94
`20. Claim 35 ................................................................................... 94
`21. Claim 37 ................................................................................... 95
`22. Claim 39 ................................................................................... 95
`23. Claim 44 ................................................................................... 97
`24. Claim 45 ................................................................................. 100
`25. Claim 46 ................................................................................. 101
`26. Claim 47 ................................................................................. 101
`27. Claim 48 ................................................................................. 102
`28. Claim 49 ................................................................................. 102
`29. Claim 50 ................................................................................. 102
`Ground 4: Claims 25, 27 in view of Huang, Chu’330, and
`Chu’185 ............................................................................................ 103
`1.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................. 103
`2.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................. 106
`VII. BOARD SHOULD NOT DENY INSTITUTION UNDER §314(a) ......... 106
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 112
`
`D.
`
`-iv-
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen A. Edwards
`File History of U.S. Provisional Application 60/083,886
`U.S. Patent 6,345,330
`File History of U.S. Patent 6,345,330
`U.S. Patent No. 8,253,750
`Reserved
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,718,415
`U.S. Patent No 6,216,185
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,234,436
`PCT Publication No. WO 99/57626
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0011312
`Plaintiff ACQIS LLC’s Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And
`Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C-2
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`“Defendants’ Stipulation of Invalidity Contentions”
`PCI Express Base Specification Revision 1.1 March 28, 2005
`U.S. Patent No. 2,799,449
`-v-
`
`Exhibit No.
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`EX1008
`EX1009
`EX1010
`EX1011
`EX1012
`EX1013
`EX1014
`EX1015
`EX1016
`EX1017
`EX1018
`EX1019
`EX1020
`EX1021
`EX1022
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`EX1023
`EX1024
`EX1025
`EX1026
`EX1027
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`EX1031
`EX1032
`EX1033
`
`EX1034
`
`EX1035
`
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`
`IBM Personal Computer Technical Reference Manual, 1981
`PCI Local Bus Specification 2.2, December 18, 1998
`I2C-Bus Specification and User Manual rev 6, 2014
`IEEE Std 1394-1995
`Serial ATA: High Speed Serialized AT Attachment, 2003,
`SATA Infographic, 2020
`U.S. Patent No. 2,694,652
`Yourke, Millimicrosecond Transistor Current Switching
`Circuits, IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory, 4(3), September
`1957
`MECL System Design Handbook, 1971
`IEEE Std 1596.3-1996
`IEEE Std 1596-1992
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,234,436 (“’912 application”),
`Preliminary Amendment dated April 15, 2011
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,234,436 (“’912 application”),
`Response dated December 16, 2011
`Plaintiff ACQIS LLC’s Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And
`Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C-1
`Plaintiff ACQIS LLC’s Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And
`Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C-3
`Plaintiff ACQIS LLC’s Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And
`Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C-4
`
`-vi-
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are the
`
`Petitioners and real parties-in-interest.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2), Petitioners state that the ’750 Patent is the
`
`subject of at least the following lawsuits: Acqis LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00295 (EDTX); Acqis LLC v. MITAC Holding
`
`Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00962 (WDTX); Acqis LLC v. Inventec
`
`Corporation, Case No. 6:20-cv-00965 (WDTX); Acqis LLC v. ASUSTek Computer
`
`Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00966 (WDTX); Acqis LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.,
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00967 (WDTX); and Acqis LLC v. Wistron Corporation, et al.,
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00968 (WDTX).
`
`Additionally, five inter partes reexamination proceedings have been
`
`conducted on patents in the ’750 Patent priority chain, one of which remains
`
`pending, and one of the patents in the family has been subject to an inter partes
`
`review proceeding. The chart below identifies the patents in the priority chain that
`
`have been or are subject to a post-grant proceeding.
`
`Application No. (Patent No.)
`
`1
`
`Post-Grant Proceeding No.
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`09/569,758 (6,718,415)
`10/772,214 (7,099,981)
`11/097,694 (7,363,415)
`11/166,656 (7,376,779)
`12/504,534 (8,041,873
`
`95/001,276
`95/001,310
`95/001,424
`95/001,475 (pending)
`95/001,787
`IPR2014-01462
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Lead counsel for Petitioners
`
`is Gianni Minutoli, Reg. No., 41,198, of DLA Piper LLP (US), 11911 Freedom
`
`Drive, Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190, Tel.: 703.773.4045, Fax: 703.773.5200, email:
`
`gianni.minutoli@us.dlapiper.com. Backup counsel is Harpreet Singh, Reg. No.
`
`71,842, of DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 University Ave, East Palo Alto, CA 94303;
`
`harpreet.singh@us.dlapiper.com, 650.833.2191 (phone), 650.687.1191 (fax); and
`
`Alan Limbach, Reg. No. 39,749, of DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 University Ave,
`
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303; alan.limbach@us.dlapiper.com, 650.833.2433 (phone),
`
`650-687-1191 (fax).
`
`4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above. Service of any documents via hand-
`
`delivery may be made at the postal mailing addresses listed above. Petitioners
`
`consent to service by e-mail at DLA-AcqisIPR@us.dlapiper.com.
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`B.
`
`Standing
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’750 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1-7, 10, 11, 21-25, 27, 31-35, 37, 39, and 44-50
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 9,703,750 (“’750 Patent”).1
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`As discussed in §III.B, the earliest possible priority date of the Challenged
`
`Claims is April 15, 2011.2
`
`The prior art cited in this Petition includes:
`
`1) U.S. Provisional Application 60/083,886 (filed May 1, 1998) (“Chu’886,”
`
`EX1004). Chu’886 qualifies as a printed publication by at least February 5, 2002 as
`
`discussed in §II.B, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`2) U.S. Patent 6,345,330 (issued February 5, 2002) (“Chu’330,” EX1005) is
`
`1 Pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
`
`2 Petitioners use “priority date,” “time of the alleged invention,” and similar
`
`language to refer to the April 15, 2011 date.
`3
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`3) U.S. Patent No 6,216,185 (issued April 10, 2001) (“Chu’185,” EX1010)
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`4) U.S. Patent No. 8,253,750 (filed July 8, 2010, issued on August 28, 2012)
`
`(“Huang,” EX1007) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`B.
`
`Chu’886 Qualifies as Prior Art
`
`Chu’886 was filed on May 1, 1998. EX1004, 1.3 Several patent publications
`
`subsequently referenced Chu’886 as a priority document: PCT Publication WO
`
`99/57626, published on November 11, 1999 (EX1012); US 6,216,185, issued on
`
`April 10, 2001 (EX1010); US 6,345,330, issued on February 5, 2002 (EX1005); and
`
`US 2001/0011312, published on August 2, 2001 (EX1013).
`
`An abandoned patent application, such as a provisional application, becomes
`
`available as prior art as of the date the public gains access to it. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§1.14(a)(1)(ii) and (iv); see also id., §1.11. “The file contents of an unpublished,
`
`abandoned application may be available to the public if the application is identified
`
`in a U.S. patent, … a U.S. patent application publication, [or] an international
`
`publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2).” Id.,
`
`§1.14(a)(1)(iv). The file contents may be also “made available to the public, upon a
`
`3 These cites to Chu’886 are to the PDF page numbers.
`4
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C.
`
`119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, …
`
`a U.S. patent application publication, [or] an international publication of an
`
`international application under PCT Article 21(2).” Id.; EX1004, 27-28. A copy of
`
`the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document
`
`in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and
`
`payment of the appropriate fee.” Id.
`
`In Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006), the Federal Circuit held that drawings cancelled in a patent application and
`
`not included in a published patent, but available for public inspection in the
`
`application’s file wrapper, constituted prior art as a printed publication. The Court
`
`found that “no reasonable trier of fact could find that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art interested in the subject matter of the patents in suit and exercising reasonable
`
`diligence could not locate the ’119 application, including figures 3 and 4 contained
`
`therein” Id., 1379.
`
`Chu’886 had been referenced in four patent publications, including two issued
`
`patents, by February 5, 2002. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`interested in the subject matter disclosed in the published patent documents and
`
`exercising reasonable diligence could have located and obtained Chu’886 from the
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`USPTO over eight years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’750 Patent.
`
`§III.B. Chu’886 is 35 U.S.C. §102(b) prior art to the ’750 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds of Challenge
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Stephen A. Edwards
`
`(EX1003), requests cancellation of claims 1-7, 10, 11, 21-25, 27, 31-35, 37, 39, and
`
`44-50 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`References
`Challenged Claims
`1-7, 10, 11, 21-24, 31-35, 37, 39, 44-50 Chu’886, Chu’330
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`25, 27
`
`Chu’886, Chu’330, Chu’185
`
`1-7, 10, 11, 21-24, 31-35, 37, 39, 44-50 Huang, Chu’330
`
`25, 27
`
`Huang, Chu’330. Chu’185
`
`D.
`
`Board Should Not Deny Institution under §325(d)
`
`Under §325(d), the Board considers: (1) whether the same or substantially the
`
`same art was previously presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially
`
`the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if the first part
`
`is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner
`
`material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v.
`
`Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (Feb. 13,
`
`2020) (precedential). Material error may include a scenario where “the Office’s
`
`previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent.” Id. at 10, 8-9 (n.9).
`6
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`In this regard, the Office has routinely instituted trial where references in an IPR
`
`were considered in an IDS but not relied upon to reject the claims during prosecution.
`
`See, e.g., Amber.IO, Inc. D/B/A Two Tap v. 72Lux, Inc. D/B/A Shoppable, IPR2020-
`
`00015, Paper 8 at 18-20 (April 1, 2020); Apple, Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00029, Paper 7 at 52-55 (April 22, 2020).
`
`Huang was not before the Office during prosecution.
`
`Chu’330 was cited as one of over 100 references in an IDS filed during
`
`prosecution of the Application No. 14/511,093 (the “’093 application”), and was
`
`referenced in the ’093 application. EX1002, 16. The Examiner never applied
`
`Chu’330 during prosecution.
`
`Chu’886 was not cited during prosecution of the ’750 Patent, but was brought
`
`to the attention of the Examiner in an application (US 13/087,912) in the ’750 Patent
`
`family when the applicant amended the application to include subject matter from
`
`Chu’886.
`
`The Office erred in overlooking Chu’330 and Chu’886. As discussed in
`
`§III.B, Chu’886 was not properly incorporated by reference into the’750 Patent
`
`family, and the earliest priority date to which the claims relying on the Chu’886
`
`disclosure are entitled is April 15, 2011. Thus, the Examiner erred by not realizing
`
`that Chu’330 and Chu’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. §102(b) prior art and are material to
`
`the patentability of the claims in the ’750 Patent. The Board should institute trial.
`7
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`III. THE ’750 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary
`
`The ’750 Patent is directed to a modular computing environment wherein an
`
`interface channel “interfaces two computer interface buses that operate under
`
`protocols that are different from that used by the interface channel.” EX1001, 3:20-
`
`24. The ’750 Patent refers to this interface channel as the XPBus. Id., 15:64-66.
`
`The XPBus is a part of the larger XIS Bus. Id., FIG. 6.
`
`The ’750 Patent discloses that control bits, rather than control signals, are
`
`transmitted on the interface channel, id., 5:49-55, which “allows using a smaller
`8
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`number of signal channels and a correspondingly small number of conductive lines
`
`in the interface channel than would otherwise be possible.” Id., 5:58-61. This allows
`
`the use of low voltage differential signaling (LVDS) channels for the interface
`
`channel. Id., 5:65-67.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims Have a Priority Date of April 15, 2011
`
`The earliest priority date to which the Challenged Claims could be entitled is
`
`April 15, 2011. The ’750 Patent claims priority to parent U.S. Application No.
`
`13/087,912 (“’912 application”) (now U.S. Patent No. 8,234,436). EX1001, (63).
`
`The ’912 application was filed on April 15, 2011 with a Preliminary Amendment
`
`that added Figures 8 and 9 and corresponding disclosure from Chu’886 as Figures
`
`8A and 8B and corresponding disclosure in the ’912 application. EX1011, 15, 16,
`
`26-28. On December 16, 2011, the applicant filed another amendment in the ’912
`
`application to add Figures 10 and 16 and corresponding disclosure from Chu’886 as
`
`Figures 8C and 24 and corresponding disclosure of the ’912 application. Id., 382,
`
`392, 401.
`
`Figures from Chu’886
`
`Figures added to ’912 application
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`The applicant argued these amendments were proper because U.S.
`
`Application No. 09/569,758, to which the ’750 Patent claims priority, incorporated
`
`by reference U.S. Application No. 09/149,882 (“’882 application”) (issued as
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`Chu’330), and the ’882 application incorporated Chu’886 by reference. EX1011,
`
`26, 392. However, it is well-established that essential material can be incorporated
`
`by reference only by way of a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication
`
`which “does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§1.57(c). That is, referencing of essential material through “nested” referencing is
`
`prohibited. “Essential material” is “material necessary to meet the requirements of
`
`§112.” Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1309, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Here, the subject matter added from Chu’886 is essential to providing written
`
`description support for the elements of the challenged claims. EX1003, ⁋ 47.
`
`37 C.F.R. §1.57 became effective October 21, 2004. The ’750 Patent was
`
`filed well after that date. EX1001, (22). Moreover, even before 37 C.F.R. §1.57
`
`became effective, courts found this sort of nested referencing to be improper. Gen.
`
`Elec. Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (“Reference ought not
`
`be allowed where the object material of a reference also contains a reference upon
`
`which the application relies”); see also Nomadix, Inc. v. Second Rule LLC, 2009 WL
`
`10668158, at *23-24 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2009). The MPEP has identified nesting
`
`referencing as improper since at least the 6th edition issued in 1995. MPEP 608.01(p)
`
`(6th Ed. Jan. 1995) (“essential material may not be incorporated by reference to … a
`
`US patent or application which itself
`
`incorporates essential material by
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`reference…”). The ’750 Patent did not properly incorporate the subject matter from
`
`Chu’886.
`
`Chu’330 did not properly incorporate the subject matter of Chu’886. While
`
`the application transmittal (shown below) submitted with the filing of the ’882
`
`application indicated that a prior application was to be incorporated by reference,
`
`this box was clearly intended to be used with the filing of a continuation or divisional
`
`application, not a non-provisional application claiming priority to a provisional
`
`application. MPEP 201.06(c) (7th Ed. July 1998) (explaining, with reference to filing
`
`continuation or divisional applications, that a statement “specifically enumerat[ing]
`
`[that a] prior application or applications are ‘hereby incorporated by reference’ may
`
`appear in the specification or in the application transmittal letter”). For example, a
`
`box indicates the “Incorporation by Reference” of the transmittal is “usable if Box
`
`4b is checked.” Box 4b relates to an oath or declaration (which are not required in
`
`a provisional application) that appears in the file history of the parent application,
`
`and indicates it is to be used “for continuation/divisional with Box 17 completed.”
`
`The applicant failed to check box 4b on the transmittal letter as required by the
`
`incorporation by reference provision. EX1005, 3.
`
`The MPEP indicates that, while applicants could use this “former version of
`
`the transmittal letter form provided by the USPTO” prior to September 21, 2004,
`
`“the incorporation by reference statement [in that case] could only be relied upon to
`12
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`add inadvertently omitted material to the continuation or divisional application.”
`
`MPEP 201.06(c), §IV. Here, not only was Chu’330 not a continuation or divisional
`
`application of Chu’886, the applicant also failed to explain why the material from
`
`the provisional application was “inadvertently omitted.” The applicant failed to
`
`properly incorporate the subject matter of Chu’886 into Chu’330.
`
`The ’750 Patent did not properly incorporate Chu’330 by reference. The ’750
`
`Patent states that U.S. Patent Application No. 09/149,882 is incorporated by
`
`reference. EX1001, 26:47-53. However, 37 C.F.R. §1.57(d) states that “‘[e]ssential
`
`material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by
`
`reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication” (emphases added).
`13
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`Here, the ’750 Patent only made reference to an application number, which is
`
`improper.
`
`The subject matter added from Chu’886 into the ’912 application was later
`
`included in the ’093 application (which became the ’750 Patent). Because this
`
`subject matter was not included in any of the applications in the ’750 Patent priority
`
`chain before it was added by amendment in the ’912 application, the earliest possible
`
`priority date for any of the ’750 Patent claims relying on this subject matter for
`
`written description support under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, is the date of the
`
`amendment, April 15, 2011.
`
`As shown in the table below, every challenged independent claim4 of the ’750
`
`Patent relies on subject matter added in the amendment on April 15, 2011 or later.
`
`4 Although not challenged herein, claims 14-17, 29, 30, 42, and 43 of the ’750 Patent
`
`recite a “peripheral bridge.” The ’750 Patent identifies only peripheral bridge 1846
`
`(i.e., the “south bridge”), which “couples PCI peripheral bus 1841 with peripheral
`
`busses of other formats,” as being a “peripheral bridge.” EX1001, 33:62-34:33, FIG.
`
`21. A POSITA would have understood that the ’750 Patent’s “peripheral bridge” is
`
`“a component that interfaces with peripheral busses or peripheral devices.” A
`
`POSITA further would have understood that the “peripheral bridge” is not a north
`14
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`EX1003, 47.5 The earliest possible priority date to which the claims of the ’750
`
`Patent could be entitled is April 15, 2011. Chemithon Corp. v. Procter & Gamble
`
`Co., 287 F. Supp. 291, 299 (D. Md. 1968), aff’d, 427 F.2d 893 (4th Cir. 1970) (“The
`
`priority date is determined [] by … when it was first disclosed in an application”).
`
`Petitioners assume a priority date of April 15, 2011.6
`
`Claim
`
`Limitation
`
`Corresponding
`’750 Patent
`Disclosure (from
`Chu’886)
`
`bridge, also referred to as the “CPU bridge” in the ’750 Patent. EX1001, 27:9-11.
`
`EX1003, ¶ 47.
`
`5 Petitioners do not concede that any limitations not listed in the table have written
`
`description support under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, and reserve the right to
`
`challenge whether additional limitations have written description support and the
`
`priority date to which they might be entitled.
`
`6 Any claim relying on subject matter added by the December 16, 2011 amendment
`
`should be entitled to a priority date no earlier than December 16, 2011. To simplify
`
`matters, Petitioners assume a priority date of April 15, 2011, but reserve the right to
`
`later challenge any claim as being entitled to a priority date of no earlier than
`
`December 16, 2011.
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`1, 25
`
`“an integrated central processing unit and
`interface controller in a single chip”
`
`16:26-30, FIG. 8b
`
`5, 10, 14,
`24, 31,
`35, 39,
`42, 48
`
`18
`
`21
`
`27
`
`29
`
`44
`
`“an integrated central processing unit and
`graphics subsystem in a single chip”
`
`16:24-33, FIGs. 8a-
`c
`
`“a central processing unit directly connected to
`a first Low Voltage Differential Signal
`(LVDS) channel comprising at least two sets
`of unidirectional, differential signal pairs
`transmitting data packets serially in opposite
`directions”
`
`“a central processing unit and interface device
`directly connected to a first Low Voltage
`Differential Signal (LVDS) channel
`comprising at least two sets of unidirectional,
`multiple, differential signal pairs”
`
`“an integrated central processing unit and
`interface controller connected directly to a
`Low Voltage Differential Signal (LVDS)
`channel …, wherein the LVDS channel
`comprises a plurality of unidirectional,
`differential signal line pairs”
`
`“a peripheral bridge comprising an interface
`controller directly coupled to the central
`processing unit without any intervening
`Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus”
`
`“a central processing unit directly connected to
`a first Low Voltage Differential Signal
`(LVDS) channel comprising at least two sets
`of multiple, unidirectional, differential signal
`pairs”
`
`16:26-30, FIG. 8b
`
`16:26-30, FIG. 8b
`
`16:26-30, FIG. 8b
`
`16:24-26, FIG. 8a
`
`16:26-30, FIG. 8b
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`
`16:26-30, FIG. 8b
`
`“a central processing unit directly connected to
`a first Low Voltage Differential Signal
`(LVDS) channel comprising at least two sets
`of unidirectional, multiple, differential signal
`pairs”
`
`“obtaining an integrated Central Processing
`Unit (CPU) and graphics controller in a single
`chip”
`
`16:24-33, FIGs. 8a-
`c
`
`46
`
`50
`
`Peripheral Bridge
`
`WEST\293418360.1
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00604
`
`IPR2021-00604
`U.S. 9,703,750
`US. 9,703,750
`
`Exchange interface
`System Bus {XIS Bus}
`
`..
`,
`.
`Pom Bus
`
`.
`Vldefl Bus
`
`XPBus
`
`'
`' Peripheral Bus
`
`_
`
`'
`
`,
`gr 3
`- rri
`Attacaed COlTipL.LI' ModLie
`
`Tit-1 r
`rACM)
`
`Power
`Regulator
`
`;
`; In