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: IPR2021-00668
`____________________
`
`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\293542529.1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`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.
`Grounds of Challenge ........................................................................... 7
`C.
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under § 325(d)..................... 7
`THE ’750 PATENT ...................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Summary of the ’750 Patent ............................................................... 10
`B.
`The ’750 Patent Prosecution History ................................................. 11
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 11
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 11
`A.
`“peripheral bridge” ............................................................................. 12
`VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 15
`A.
`Ground 1: Gulick in view of Goodrum Renders Claims 1-3, 5,
`6, 10, 11, 14-23, 25-28, 31-34, 44 and 45 Unpatentable.................... 15
`1.
`Gulick ....................................................................................... 15
`2.
`Goodrum .................................................................................. 17
`3.
`Motivation to Combine Gulick and Goodrum ......................... 17
`4.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 22
`-i-
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 30
`5.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 34
`6.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 35
`7.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 39
`8.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 40
`9.
`10. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 40
`11. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 41
`12. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 44
`13. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 44
`14. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 44
`15. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 45
`16. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 49
`17. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 49
`18. Claim 21 ................................................................................... 49
`19. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 54
`20. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 54
`21. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 55
`22. Claim 26 ................................................................................... 57
`23. Claim 27 ................................................................................... 57
`24. Claim 28 ................................................................................... 58
`25. Claim 31 ................................................................................... 58
`26. Claim 32 ................................................................................... 59
`27. Claim 33 ................................................................................... 59
`28. Claim 34 ................................................................................... 60
`29. Claim 44 ................................................................................... 60
`30. Claim 45 ................................................................................... 61
`
`-ii-
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Gulick in view of Goodrum and Sauber Renders
`Claims 12, 13, 35-43 Unpatentable .................................................... 61
`1.
`Sauber ....................................................................................... 61
`2.
`Motivation to Combine Sauber ................................................ 62
`3.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 62
`4.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 63
`5.
`Claim 35 ................................................................................... 64
`6.
`Claim 36 ................................................................................... 64
`7.
`Claim 37 ................................................................................... 65
`8.
`Claim 38 ................................................................................... 65
`9.
`Claim 39 ................................................................................... 65
`10. Claim 40 ................................................................................... 66
`11. Claim 41 ................................................................................... 67
`12. Claim 42 ................................................................................... 67
`13. Claim 43 ................................................................................... 69
`Ground 3: Gulick in view of Goodrum and McAlear Renders
`Claims 4, 7-9, 24, 46-50 Unpatentable .............................................. 69
`1.
`McAlear ................................................................................... 69
`2.
`Motivation to Combine McAlear ............................................. 70
`3.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 72
`4.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 74
`5.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 75
`6.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 75
`7.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 75
`8.
`Claim 46 ................................................................................... 76
`9.
`Claim 47 ................................................................................... 79
`10. Claim 48 ................................................................................... 79
`-iii-
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`E.
`
`D.
`
`11. Claim 49 ................................................................................... 80
`12. Claim 50 ................................................................................... 81
`Ground 4: Gulick in view of Goodrum, McAlear and Sauber
`Renders Claim 51 Unpatentable ......................................................... 82
`1.
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 82
`Ground 5: Hart in view of Goodrum and McAlear Renders
`Claims 29-30 Unpatentable ................................................................ 83
`1.
`Hart ........................................................................................... 83
`2.
`Motivation to Combine Hart, Goodrum, and McAlear ........... 84
`1.
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 86
`2.
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 93
`VII. BOARD SHOULD NOT DENY INSTITUTION UNDER §314(a) ........... 94
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 98
`
`-iv-
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`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
`U.S. Patent No. 6,690,676
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/109,589
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,571
`U.S. Patent No 6,389,029
`U.S. Patent No 6,041,372
`U.S. Patent No 6,600,747
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Plaintiff ACQIS LLC’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C-2
`IEEE Std 802.3i-1990
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`“Defendants’ Stipulation of Invalidity Contentions”
`IEEE Std 802.3u-1995
`U.S. Patent No. 2,799,449
`IBM Personal Computer Technical Reference Manual, 1981
`
`-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
`EX1023
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`EX1024
`EX1025
`EX1026
`EX1027
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`EX1031
`EX1032
`EX1033
`EX1034
`EX1035
`
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`
`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. 2,964,652
`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
`Reserved
`Reserved
`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\293542529.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 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.)
`
`Post-Grant Proceeding No.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 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
`
`The ’750 Patent is currently being challenged in IPR2021-00604.
`
`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.
`2
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 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 1-51 (collectively “the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’750 Patent.1
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`As discussed in IPR2021-00604, because essential material to the
`
`Challenged Claims was improperly incorporated in U.S. 09/569,758 and
`
`subsequent continuation applications leading to the ’750 Patent, the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the Challenged Claims is April 15, 2011.2 Because the
`
`Patent Owner (PO) may dispute this, this Petition will use the ’750 Patent’s alleged
`
`May 14, 1999 priority date for purposes of defining prior art to the ’750 Patent.
`
`The prior art cited in this Petition includes:
`
`1 The pre-AIA statutory framework applies to the ’750 Patent.
`
`2 Petitioners use “priority date” of the ’750 Patent, “time of the alleged invention,”
`
`and similar language to refer to the May 14, 1999 date throughout this Petition.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`1) Gulick
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,690,676 (“Gulick,” EX1004). Gulick was filed on June 11,
`
`1999, and issued on February 10, 2004. EX1004, (22), (45). Gulick claims priority
`
`to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/109,589 (“the ’589 provisional”) (EX1005),
`
`filed on November 23, 1998. EX1004, (60). Based on the ’589 provisional, Gulick
`
`is prior art to the ’750 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Gulick was filed within one year of its ’589 provisional filing, names at least
`
`one inventor in common, and includes a specific reference to the ’589 provisional.
`
`Id. Petitioners submit that at least claim 1 of Gulick is fully supported and enabled
`
`by the ’589 provisional, and Petitioners provide the following exemplary mapping:
`
`Gulick Claim Language
`
`Support in ’589 provisional (EX1005)
`
`A method of sending a non-addressed
`
`See, e.g., EX1005 3 , 2:8-15, 2:20-25,
`
`transaction request
`
`in a computer
`
`6:23-26, claim 151, FIGs. 2-4.
`
`system over a multiple-pipe computer
`
`interconnect bus, the multiple pipes
`
`carrying
`
`transactions on a packet
`
`3 Citations to the ’589 application are to the original page numbers listed in the
`
`’589 application.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`multiplexed basis, comprising:
`
`sending a transaction request over the
`
`See, e.g., EX1005, 18:14-18, 26:24-28,
`
`interconnect bus over one of the pipes
`
`28:8-29, 45:14-21, claim 151, FIG. 10.
`
`from a source to a target, the transaction
`
`request
`
`including a non-addressed
`
`transaction command;
`
`performing
`
`a
`
`transaction
`
`in
`
`a
`
`See, e.g., EX1005, 11:27-12:3, 19:3-14,
`
`predetermined location in response to
`
`claim 151
`
`the
`
`non-addressed
`
`transaction
`
`command; and
`
`returning a transaction response upon
`
`See, e.g., EX1005, 18:14-18, 26:18-23,
`
`completion of the transaction.
`
`26:25, claim 151.
`
`Thus, Gulick is entitled to claim a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)
`
`to the ’589 provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`
`800 F.3d 1375, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Ex Parte Robert A. Mann and
`
`Eric Colaviti, Appeal 2015-003571, 2016 WL 7487271, *6 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)
`
`(holding that under Dynamic Drinkware, a non-provisional application can be
`
`entitled to the benefit of a provisional application’s filing date if the provisional
`
`application provides sufficient support for at least one claim of the non-provisional);
`5
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`Polaris Industries Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc., IPR2016-01713, Paper No. 9, 12-13
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017); Medtronic, Inc., v. Niazi Licensing Corp., IPR2018-
`
`00609, Paper No. 8, 8-11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2018) (finding that support for just one
`
`claim of the prior art reference in its provisional is sufficient to apply the provisional
`
`application’s filing date as the prior art reference’s effective filing date).
`
`Accordingly, subject matter in Gulick described in the ’589 provisional is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), with an effective filing date of Nov. 23, 1998.
`
`2) Goodrum
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,571 (“Goodrum,” EX1006). Goodrum issued on
`
`October 13, 1998, EX1006, [45], and is 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art to the ’750
`
`Patent.
`
`3) McAlear
`
`U.S. Patent No 6,389,029 (“McAlear,” EX1007). McAlear was filed on
`
`November 10, 1998, EX1007, (22), issued on May 14, 2002, id., (45), and is 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art to the ’750 Patent.
`
`4) Hart
`
`U.S. Patent No 6,041,372 (“Hart,” EX1008). Hart was filed on December 30,
`
`1996, EX1008, [22], issued on March 21, 2000, id., (45), and is 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`prior art to the ’750 Patent.
`
`5) Sauber
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`U.S. Patent No 6,600,747 (“Sauber,” EX1009). Sauber was filed on
`
`September 17, 1998, EX1009, (22), issued on July 29, 2003, id., (45), and is 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art to the ’750 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds of Challenge
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Stephen A. Edwards
`
`(EX1003), requests cancellation of claims 1-51 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in view of the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`References
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-23, 25-
`28, 31-34, 44, 45
`
`Gulick, Goodrum
`
`12, 13, 35-43
`
`Gulick, Goodrum, Sauber
`
`4, 7-9, 24, 46-50
`
`Gulick, Goodrum, McAlear
`
`51
`
`29, 30
`
`Gulick, Goodrum, McAlear, Sauber
`
`Hart, Goodrum
`
`C.
`
`The 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
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v.
`
`Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (February
`
`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).
`
`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).
`
`Gulick was not before the Office during prosecution. However, a different
`
`Gulick patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,357, “Gulick ’357”) was cited in an IDS filed
`
`during prosecution of the Application No. 14/511,093 (the “’093 application”).
`
`Patent Owner may argue that Gulick ’357 is “substantially the same” as Gulick.
`
`However, Gulick differs from Gulick ’357 in key aspects being relied upon in this
`
`Petition. For example, Gulick discloses a processor module including a system
`
`memory controller, a central processing unit, and a graphics interface. EX1004,
`
`5:21-25. Gulick further discloses a link between the processor module and an
`
`interface module that “provides guaranteed bandwidth and latency to each
`
`isochronous stream such as RAMDAC data, audio data, and 1394 isochronous
`
`streams while also attempting to minimize latency to asynchronous accesses such as
`8
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`CPU-initiated accesses and PCI-initiated accesses.” EX1004, 5:10-14. In this
`
`Petition, these aspects of Gulick are relied upon for every claim challenged by
`
`Gulick-based grounds. The Gulick ’357 patent does not disclose these features.
`
`Therefore, Gulick and Gulick ’357 are not the “same or substantially the same.”
`
`Goodrum was cited as one of over 750 references in an IDS filed during
`
`prosecution of the Application No. 14/511,093 (the “’093 application”). First, the
`
`Examiner never applied Goodrum during prosecution. Digital Check Corp. d/b/a
`
`ST Imaging v. E-Imagedata Corp., IPR2017-00178, Paper 6, at 12-13 (PTAB April
`
`25, 2017) (granting institution because there was no indication that the Examiner
`
`substantively discussed a reference cited in an IDS during prosecution). Second, in
`
`this Petition, Goodrum is applied as a secondary reference with primary references
`
`that were not before the Office during prosecution. Consequently, the same or
`
`substantially the same argument are not being presented in this Petition.
`
`Moreover, Hart, McAlear, and Sauber were not before the Office during
`
`prosecution.
`
`The Board should institute trial.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`III. THE ’750 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’750 Patent
`
`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 also discloses that control bits, rather than control signals, are
`
`transmitted on the interface channel. Id., 5:49-55. “The fact that control bits rather
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`than control signals are transmitted on the interface channel allows using a smaller
`
`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. The ’750
`
`patent states that this small number of signal channels in turn allows the use of low
`
`voltage differential signaling (LVDS) channels for the interface channel. Id., 5:65-
`
`67.
`
`B.
`
`The ’750 Patent Prosecution History
`
`The ’750 Patent issued on July 11, 2017 from Application No. 14/511,093
`
`(the “’093 application”). EX1001, (21). The ’750 Patent claims priority as a
`
`continuation to eleven parent U.S. patent applications and one provisional U.S.
`
`patent application. EX1001 (63); EX1002, 3-5.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSITA for the ’750 Patent would have had at least a Master’s Degree in,
`
`or a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`subject and three years of experience working with computer architecture, computer
`
`busses, and related technologies. EX1003, ⁋46. As used herein, the term “POSITA”
`
`is used to refer to a POSITA as of the alleged priority date of the ’750 Patent, May
`
`14, 1999.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board applies the Phillips claim construction standard used in civil
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`actions in federal district court. Petitioners provide proposed claim constructions
`
`sufficient to address the issues raised in this Petition under that standard.
`
`A.
`
`“peripheral bridge”
`
`The ’750 Patent discloses two types of bridges -- a CPU bridge and a
`
`peripheral bridge. Claims 14-17, 29-30 and 42-43 recite a “peripheral bridge.” See,
`
`e.g., EX1001, 42:1-10 (“a peripheral bridge directly coupled to the integrated central
`
`processing unit and graphics subsystem…”). The ’750 patent repeatedly identifies
`
`only one component as a “peripheral bridge” – peripheral bridge 1846. EX1001,
`
`33:62-34:33, FIG. 21 (annotation added)4. That component is clearly labeled as a
`
`“south bridge.”
`
`4 Unless otherwise indicated, all boxes and outlining on figures have been added by
`
`the Petitioners.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`Consistent with a classification as a “south bridge,” the “[p]eripheral bridge
`
`1846 couples PCI peripheral bus 1841 with peripheral busses of other formats such
`
`as ISA peripheral bus 1845 and others 1847.” Id., 33:66-34:2; EX1003, ¶55. These
`
`bus connections are used to couple peripheral devices (e.g., a keyboard, pointer, and
`
`disk drive) to the peripheral bridge, which couples the peripheral devices to other
`
`components. EX1001, 33:62-34:20, FIG. 21; EX1003, ¶55.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the ’750 Patent’s “peripheral bridge”
`
`is “a component that interfaces with peripheral busses or peripheral devices.”
`
`EX1003, ¶56.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the “peripheral bridge” is not a north
`
`bridge, also referred to as the “CPU bridge” in the ’750 Patent. EX1001, 27:9-11,
`
`FIG. 18; EX1003, ¶57. Indeed, the ’750 Patent makes a clear distinction between
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`the CPU (north) and peripheral (south) bridges. EX1001, 35:55-62 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Gulick in view of Goodrum Renders Claims 1-3, 5, 6,
`10, 11, 14-23, 25-28, 31-34, 44 and 45 Unpatentable
`1.
`Gulick
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`Gulick discloses a “link 205 to communicate between two integrated circuits
`
`301 and 303” identified as a “processor module 301 and interface module 303.”
`
`EX1004, 5:4-7; FIG. 3. The processor module 301 includes a link interface 305
`
`coupled to a link interface 307 in the interface module 303 by the link 205. Id., 5:4-
`
`10. The processor module 301 also includes a system memory controller 309,
`
`central processing unit (CPU) [311] … and graphics interface 306. Id., 5:21-25.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`Link 205 “provides guaranteed bandwidth and latency to each isochronous
`
`stream such as RAMDAC data, audio data, and 1394 isochronous streams while also
`
`attempting to minimize latency to asynchronous accesses such as CPU-initiated
`
`accesses and PCI-initiated accesses.” Id., 5:10-14.
`
`2.
`
`Goodrum
`
`Goodrum discloses a cable interface for conveying PCI bus transactions using
`
`differential signaling, specifically LVDS signaling, over a cable (e.g., cable 28).
`
`EX1006, 4:65-5:6, 5:44-51, 6:25-27, 57:30-49. Goodrum discloses numerous
`
`advantages for doing so. Id., 57:30-44.
`
`3. Motivation to Combine Gulick and Goodrum
`
`Gulick discloses that “the throughput available on the PCI bus for a particular
`
`transfer and the latency that is involved for that transfer is unknown. PCI bus load
`
`fluctuations can result in uncertain and irregular quality of service.” EX1004, 1:46-
`
`60. Gulick further discloses that “having a PCI bus as the major input/output bus
`
`means that the major input/output bus of present day computer systems does not
`
`provide proper support for both isochronous and asynchronous data” and that “it
`
`becomes more critical that asynchronous and isochronous data be treated in a manner
`
`that prevents problems from occurring in the real time tasks without adversely
`
`effecting other aspects of computer performance.” Id., 1:60-2:3.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`Gulick therefore discloses several embodiments where integrated circuits
`
`(e.g., processor module 301, interface module 303) are coupled by a high-speed link
`
`205 instead of a PCI bus. Id., 4:61-5:14. The link 205 comprises “two portions 407
`
`and 409” where portion 407 transmits data from IC 303 to IC 301 synchronous with
`
`unidirectional clock CLKB2A and portion 409 transmits data in the opposite
`
`direction from IC 301 to IC 303 synchronous with unidirectional clock CLKA2B.
`
`Id., 5:59-6:7; FIG. 4. Gulick also recognizes that “[i]n those implementations
`
`desiring to maintain compatibility with existing personal computer systems, present
`
`configuration approaches, particularly those associated with the PCI bus, should be
`
`accommodated.” Id., 34:17-20. Gulick discloses using the processor module to
`
`convey bus transactions to the interface module, including PCI and USB
`
`transactions, “in a manner analogous to how the PCI host bridge works in traditional
`
`north bridge integrated circuit in current personal computer systems.” Id., 17:62-
`
`18:62, FIG. 13; see also id., 19:8-37, FIG. 14. Accordingly, it is Gulick’s desire to
`
`maintain PCI compatibility, particularly from the module comprising the CPU, while
`
`also reducing latency issues and improving system performance. EX1003, ¶¶ 65-
`
`69.
`
`Goodrum is also directed at a mechanism (e.g., cable interface 104 and cable
`
`28) for performing PCI transactions. EX1006, 50:33-41, FIG. 3; EX1003, ¶70. Like
`
`Gulick, Goodrum discloses two unidirectional portions of its cable interface where
`18
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`“[t]wenty wire pairs of the cable 28 are used for downstream communication and 20
`
`more for upstream communication.” Id. 58:8-9.
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`WEST\293542529.1
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00668
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`Goodrum further discloses sending and receiving PCI and other signals using
`
`“true differential” signaling because it “is less expensive than fiber optics for this
`
`short distance and less complex to interface than other serial methods,” “provides
`
`significant common mode noise immunity and common mode operating range, is
`
`available in ASICs and is faster than TTL,” when using twisted pair and shielding,
`
`“it minimizes electromagnetic radiation,” and when using low voltage swings, “it
`
`minimizes power dissipation.” EX1006, 57:30-44. Goodrum explicitly discloses
`
`using LVDS signaling over the cable, id., 57:45-49, and operating in a serial mode.
`
`Id., 106:16-31; 6:25-31. Goodrum further discloses encoding the PCI bus
`
`transactions. Id., 50:32-41.
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to have combined the teachings of
`
`Gulick and Goodrum, which are in the same technical field of computer bus interface
`
`communications. EX1004, 1:15-18; EX1006, 1:27-36. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that Gulick’s link interfaces and link 205 could have been improved by
`
`employing the cable interface and cable 28 disclosed by Goodrum as this would have
`
`provided additional benefits, specifically disclosed by Goodrum (e.g., less
`
`expensive, better noise immunity, minimized EM radiation etc.) (EX1006, 57:30-
`
`44) and consistent with Gulick’s stated purpose of getting better system performance
`
`while also accommodating PCI transactions (EX1004, 34:17-20). EX1003, ¶¶69-
`
`70. Gulick itself