Paper No. 34
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 10, 2022
`_____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 10, 2022
`_____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`HARPER BATTS, ESQUIRE
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLC
`1540 El Camino Real
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DANIEL YOUNG, ESQUIRE
`Adsero IP, LLC d/b/a/ Swanson &
`Bratschun, LLC
`8210 South Park Terrace
`Littleton, CA 80120
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, by video, on
`Thursday, November 10, 2022, commencing at 10:00 a.m., EDT, at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, before Chris Hofer, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE ENGELS: Good morning. Welcome to the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board. This is a virtual hearing for IPR 2021-01319 between
`Petitioner Netflix Inc. and Patent Owner CA, Inc. The challenged patent is
`U.S. patent No. 7,103,794 B2. I'm Judge Nathan Engels. With me on the
`panel today are Judges Kristen Droesch and Juliet Dirba. Let's begin with
`introductions of counsel. If you could make your appearances beginning
`with Petitioner, please.
`MR. BATTS: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor. This is Harper
`Batts from the law firm Sheppard Mullin on behalf of Petitioner Netflix and
`with me here today is Jonathan DeFosse, also from Sheppard Mullin.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you, and for Patent Owner.
`MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Dan Young with
`Adsero, IP on behalf of CA, Inc., and with me is Chad King from King IAN,
`LLC.
`
`JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you very much. Each side will have 60
`minutes to present its arguments today. If you choose, you can reserve some
`of your time for rebuttal and surrebuttal. Petitioner will go first, followed by
`Patent Owner and then any rebuttal time that may be reserved. For the
`clarity of the record and to help everyone involved, if you could please make
`sure you identify your demonstrative exhibits by slide number and give us a
`moment to find the appropriate page as you switch pages. Please do not
`interrupt each other during arguments. If you'd like to make objections or
`have issues to raise, please do so in your own time for response for rebuttal
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`or surrebuttal.
`We, as I mentioned, we will begin with Petitioner's counsel and before
`we begin, please let me know do you intend to reserve some time for
`rebuttal?
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. I'll reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Mr. Young, you don't have to decide now but do
`you intend to reserve time for rebuttal?
`MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor. I’ll reserve 15 minutes.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Okay. Any questions before again?
`MR. BATTS: No, Your Honor.
`MR. YOUNG: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ENGELS: With that, Mr. Batts, if you'd like to, I will begin
`the timer when you're ready.
`MR. BATTS: Thank you, Your Honor. As you mentioned, this is for
`the ‘794 patent IPR. So, I'd like to start on slide 2 of Petitioner's slides.
`This IPR has two instituted grounds. One ground which is a Medin plus
`Seltzer combination ground for claims 1, 3 through 9 and 11 through 16 and
`a second ground, ground 2 for claim 17 which is a combination of Medin
`and Markatos, and on slides 3, 4 and 5 we have laid out the three
`independent claims that are being challenged in this IPR and I'd like to
`actually turn to slide 5, claim 17 to start. Given that the only remaining
`asserted claim in the District Court that remains to be challenged here that
`hasn't been invalidated already is claim 17, I want to prioritize my
`presentation with claim 17 and then I'm going to go back and discuss the
`other claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`JUDGE ENGELS: Well, and when you say has not been invalidated
`already, what do you mean by that?
`MR. BATTS: The remaining claims that are being asserted in the
`District Court have been found indefinite by the District Court. So, claim 17
`is the only claim that has basically not been found invalid in some fashion
`already, so that's the claim that I want to prioritize for my client and then I'll
`certainly go back and explain why the remaining claims are also invalid
`under the prior art.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Just to be clear, is that the District Court's
`determination regarding maximizing and minimizing?
`MR. BATTS: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you. And I'm sorry. Which slide number
`did you?
`MR. BATTS: I’m on slide 5 for claim 17 for ground 2. And so,
`claim 17 is a short claim. It discusses and covers a request for network
`objects and then maintaining the objects in the network in a cache memory
`where the maintaining is independent of a file system. So, for ground 2 the
`Patent Owner has not disputed the receiving step. Patent Owner only
`disputes two things regarding the maintaining, one that the combination
`doesn't maintain network objects in a cache memory and we're going to get
`into the discussion of cache memory, and second, that the maintaining is not
`independent of file system for the mass storage.
`So, if we go to slide 46. Patent Owner’s primary argument in its
`Patent Owner response is that the term cache memory must have both mass
`storage and volatile memory. But even if the Board accepts this argument
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`which I'm going to address later when I discuss ground 1, the Petitioner still
`wins ground 2 given the specific art that is being combined in ground 2.
`So, if we go to slide 48, the Medin reference teaches maintaining
`networked objects by caching and mass storage. There is no dispute on this
`point in terms of the teachings of Medin and if we go to slide 49 there's the
`teachings of Markatos and Markatos teaches keeping the most frequently
`accessed documents in main memory, and that requests for documents in
`main memory are done directly without involving any file system and, again,
`there's no dispute as to this teaching either.
`So, if we go to slide 47, what we see is I've excerpted portions of our
`petition here and explanations for our arguments about the Medin and
`Markatos combination. So, it's undisputed that the combination of Medin
`and Markatos teaches a cache that includes both main memory and mass
`storage and in fact, that's the entire point of the combination that we
`provided here is a cache that can maintain network objects in both mass
`storage and in main memory or dynamic memory.
`Because specifically, if you look at the second quote that I've included
`on the bottom of side 47, Markatos teaches, and I have a quote there,
`“Keeping the most frequently accessed documents in the server's main
`memory, thus avoiding disk accesses as much as possible.”
`So, we explained a POSITA that would have applied Markatos’s
`teachings to improve Medin’s caching techniques. So, their first argument
`that the cache memory needs to include main memory and mass storage is
`exactly what the combination teaches.
`So, if we go to the second argument, their second argument on claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`17 is shown on -- we turn to go to slide 53. It's about the last limitation of
`claim 17 and that remaining argument is whether the combination teaches
`maintaining independent of a file system for mass storage. Well, if we go to
`slide 54 I've included an additional excerpt of Markatos. Let's keep in mind
`Markatos -- we didn’t point to Markatos for a single paragraph or, you
`know, a single sentence. Markatos’s entire -- the entire purpose of Markatos
`is to discuss this advantage of caching without having to use the file system
`and so we've highlighted the language here of one portion of Markatos, but
`it's certainly there's plenty more that we could point to. But it specifically
`states the server accesses its own cache directly without any help from the
`file system and when a client requests a document that resides in the server's
`main memory cache, the document is directly read from the server's cache
`and sent to the client without making any file system calls to access the
`document.
`So, this is crystal clear teaching of maintaining the document
`independent of the file system for mass storage and in fact, Patent Owner’s
`expert did not contest that the objects for cached -- the objects that are
`cached in main memory in Markatos are maintained independent of the file
`system for mass storage and I would point to his deposition transcript at
`pages 207 and 208 where he did not contest that issue.
`So, if we go to slide 55, what we see is that there's no dispute between
`the parties. I believe Patent Owner’s slides have an identical slide to this.
`There's no dispute between the parties that Markatos teaches maintaining 60
`to 90 percent of network objects independent of the mass storage file system.
`That's just not a fact in dispute.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`So, what is the dispute? I'm sure you're asking then, well, what is the
`dispute? The dispute goes to slide 56. Patent Owner is arguing that the
`entire cache must be maintained independent of file system and I've
`excerpted from their Patent Owner reply their argument on this point and
`done some of the highlighting here to show you that Patent Owner is arguing
`that even if one document is stored using the file system, then the claim can't
`be satisfied.
`Well, if we go to slide 57. This was the argument that was raised in
`the POPR pre-Institution and that the Board already addressed at Institution
`and the Board noted that this argument was not commensurate with the plain
`language of claim 17.
`So, if we go to slide 58, what we see is that Patent Owner now is
`arguing and attempts to distinguish its current position from what was
`already previously rejected at Institution and the Patent Owner argues that,
`well, what it's now saying is the current position is maintaining network
`objects independently from the position that was rejected in Institution by
`saying that it now argues that all objects in the cache -- rather than the entire
`cache has to be independent -- it's saying that all objects in the cache must
`be maintained independently.
`Well, there's a few problems with that argument. First off, if we go to
`slide 59, we asked the exact question to Patent Owner’s expert on this and
`we put this exact issue to the Patent Owner’s expert, whether they were
`arguing the same argument. We put the Board's decision in front of him and
`he confirmed that he’s advocating the same position that the Board already
`rejected. He said he disagreed with the Board's finding on this point and we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`asked him, well, what evidence would you cite to the Board showing that the
`Board got this wrong, and he simply pointed back to the same claim
`language that the Board had considered with no additional evidence and
`that's on again, his deposition transcript Exhibit 1052, pages 221 through
`224.
`
`And an additional reason why, because the Board did say, hey, the
`parties are encouraged to brief this further and you know, you have an
`opportunity to discuss this issue, a further reason why Patent Owner’s
`position is wrong is shown on slide 60 and this is a simple matter of
`antecedent basis and looking at a claim language in antecedent basis. So
`you see that limitation [a] starts with -- the claim starts with receiving a set
`of networked objects in limitation [a]. [b] then states that said network
`objects are maintained. So clearly the said network objects are referring
`back to a set of network objects from limitation [a] and then claim limitation
`[c] states that the said step of maintaining so that limitation [b] or the
`previous element [b] is performed independently of the file system and that
`said step of maintaining refers to the maintaining of the said network objects
`which it is referring back to, again, the initial [a] set of network objects. So
`the claim is just requiring a set of network objects being maintained.
`But if you look at slide 61 what is clear is that Patent Owner is
`seeking to rewrite the claim and I'd note that Patent Owner did not seek to
`request here in this proceeding to amend its claims. But what it is trying to
`do in its argument is to change the language to instead of maintaining a set
`or said set of network objects, to say now that the claim should require all
`sets of network objects. But that's not how the claim was drafted and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`written.
`So, I think slide 62, I'm sure you're familiar with this case law.
`You've seen it before. But for method claims, you're not required to show
`that it's performed all the time. You just have to show that method steps
`would be performed at least sometimes and that's clear Federal Circuit case
`law and we just provided a couple of examples here from our briefing.
`An additional reason why Patent Owner’s positions should be rejected
`is also on slide 63 and simply put, we've included on slide 63 the
`infringement contentions from the District Court and specifically, if you
`look on the left hand side, you see a limitation [17c] the limitation of what
`would satisfy wherein said step of maintaining is performed independently
`of file storage for said mass storage, sorry, for a file system for said mass
`storage.
`Now Broadcom served these contentions, Patent Owner served these
`contentions before we filed our IPR and they identified to the District Court
`what they claim satisfied this limitation [17c] and based on these
`contentions, we relied upon prior art that shows exactly the same feature that
`Broadcom argued satisfied limitation [17c].
`So, if you look in the bottom in the highlighted language that Patent
`Owner was pointing to the fact that popular files are locked into memory
`rather than fetched constantly from disk. This latter memory optimization
`eliminates the possibility that disk I/O being the cause of a server capacity
`bottleneck.
`So, what does Markatos teach? Markatos teaches us the exact same
`thing. It talks about the most popular and the most frequently accessed files
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`are cached in the main memory. So, Patent Owner has no response for
`flipping its positions from District Court and in the PTAB proceedings here.
`If you look at the sur-reply, they have no answer for the flip in positions.
`Their only statement is it's impossible to know what Broadcom was pointing
`to or was actually talking about when it provided its claim charts. That's just
`wrong. It's clear as day, it's spot on with our prior art and in fact, the ‘794
`patent itself also discusses the same functionality and what the ‘794 patent
`talks about, it describes it in terms of hot objects. But if you look at column
`8, lines 9 through 15 of the ‘794 patent itself, it talks about a subset of the
`box 200 are maintained in memory so as to use the memory 103 as a cache
`for the mass storage 104 and it talks about these hot objects being kept. So
`frequently accessed hot objects frequently in popular files, the same exact
`concept. So, Patent Owner can't run away from its positions here now to
`avoid this IPR. So that's all that I have for a claim 17 I've addressed --
`JUDGE DROESCH: Before you go, well would it be fair to say that
`the understanding of maintaining independently of the file system for the
`mass storage, would it be fair to say that that means that it's in the cache
`memory and there is no need to fetch objects from the mass storage without
`the need to fetch?
`MR. BATTS: I think that's correct. Yes, I think that's correct.
`JUDGE DROESCH: Okay. Great. Thank you.
`MR. BATTS: And I was actually about to ask before I move on from
`claim 17 are there any questions about what I've covered for claim 17?
`JUDGE DIRBA: This is Judge Dirba. I have a couple of additional
`questions, too, just to make sure that that I'm correctly understanding your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`argument. If I understand correctly that Markatos refers -- when it refers to
`main memory, it is referring to a volatile memory like RAM; is that correct?
`MR. BATTS: Correct. There's no dispute on that point, Your Honor.
`JUDGE DIRBA: And when it is maintaining it independently, those
`objects that are being maintained independently are objects that are only
`stored in RAM and not stored in the mass storage; is that right?
`MR. BATTS: No, I don't think that's right. I think what we're saying
`is that the objects when stored in the volatile memory, so that if we go back
`to slide 55, that approximately 60 to 90 percent, or not proximate, between
`60 to 90 percent of the objects are being stored in the main memory or the
`dynamic memory in addition to the mass storage. So, when they are stored
`in the main memory, they're being stored independent of a file system of
`mass storage. That doesn't mean that a copy of that object can’t also be in
`mass storage.
`JUDGE DIRBA: I see. So, it's the storage in that main memory in
`that RAM that is satisfying this independent -- or the maintaining
`independently limitations; is that right?
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. Well, if there's no other questions
`then I'm going to jump right back to the beginning of my slides.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Actually, before we leave this issue, could you
`address the file history in particular in Exhibit 1002? I think probably the
`most relevant pages to this issue would be pages 355 to 356.
`MR. BATTS: I don't know those pages offhand, Your Honor, so I'm
`going to turn to those. Was there a specific issue there?
`JUDGE ENGELS: Well, and if you'd like to come back to it, perhaps
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`even in your rebuttal that's okay. It addresses the language of maintaining --
`the step of maintaining is performed independently of a file system for mass
`storage and the cached memory. I'd just be interested to hear about both
`sides view of this file history.
`MR. BATTS: Okay. I will turn to that in my rebuttal. I don't recall
`that being raised before, so I'll just take a look at that and address it in my
`rebuttal. I would point out, though, that on side 55 that neither side is
`disputing that Markatos’s teachings regarding the caching of 60 to 90
`percent of the network objects in the main memory is done independent of
`the mass storage file system. So, there's simply just no dispute. The
`question is, do you have to have all the documents being or all of the
`network objects being stored independently or not, the antecedent basis issue
`that I covered. But I will address the file history on my rebuttal time.
`So then if I turn to slide 7. So now I'm turning to the arguments for
`ground 1 and Patent Owner’s main argument in its Patent Owner response is
`a claim construction issue. It's about the term cache memory and as you can
`see here I've highlighted some portions of their Patent Owner response
`where Patent Owner is contending that the term the cache memory lasting
`must include both volatile memory and mass storage.
`JUDGE ENGELS: I'm sorry, which slide?
`MR. BATTS: Slide 7, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you.
`MR. BATTS: And I think that's a clear dispute that the parties have
`addressed in their briefing and a clear position that Patent Owner has taken
`and I've included some excerpts there, the headings and statements within
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`the POR.
`So, if we go to slide 8, I've laid out the competing proposals for
`construction of the term cache memory and if you look on the left hand side,
`Petitioner's construction is that cache memory must include mass storage but
`does not require volatile memory, whereas Patent Owner’s construction on
`the right hand side is that cache memory must include both volatile memory
`and mass storage.
`So, if we go to slide 9, I've excerpted some of the claim language to
`start with the claim language for this analysis and if you look first at the
`claim language, the claim itself states that cache memory includes mass
`storage. That's the clear, the clear language of the claim is that the cache
`memory includes mass storage. Not saying anything about volatile memory.
`It doesn't mean that it doesn't -- that it can't have volatile memory but it
`doesn't require volatile memory.
`And if we go to slide 10, I don't think there's any dispute that the
`parties agree that mass storage is nonvolatile memory. That's one of those
`things that I think is probably clear without any expert testimony and our
`arguments. But in any event, I don't think there's any dispute mass storage is
`not a volatile memory.
`So, if you go to slide 11, what we do see is that Patent Owner is
`seeking to import a limitation into the claim of volatile memory being
`required for cache memory. So, while there's no dispute that mass storage is
`a form of nonvolatile memory, so the claim is stating -- if you think about it
`-- the claim is stating cache memory includes nonvolatile memory and
`includes mass storage. But there is no similar requirement in the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`language that cache memory includes volatile memory. So, the claims
`certainly do not limit cache memory to only mass storage. There could be
`other types of memory, but there's no requirement in the claim language and
`you can see with the injection of the requirement in the Patent Owner
`response where we've made in red font to include a requirement of having
`also volatile memory and we highlight that kind of the clear what Patent
`Owner is doing on slide 12. They're clearly just writing in an additional
`limitation to the claims to require that cache memory also be and also
`include volatile memory.
`But if we go to slide 14 Patent Owner said we were being
`disingenuous, that Petitioner was being disingenuous that saying that Patent
`Owner was importing a limitation into the claim and that was their statement
`in their sur-reply.
`Your Honor, I'd like to turn to slide 15.
`JUDGE ENGELS: If I may, is Patent Owner correct that every
`example in the challenged patent that uses the word memory, refers to
`volatile memory?
`MR. BATTS: I would say no, Your Honor, and I think there's a
`couple of points I want to make on that question. So, the first point would
`be, and I am going to address this as I go through, first is that the term -- you
`just used the term memory when you asked me that question, not the term
`cache memory. So, the specification of the patent does not include the term
`cache memory. So what Patent Owner is relying upon is looking at the term
`memory in the patent and I certainly don't dispute that when there is plenty
`of references to memory -- even in abstract there is a reference to memory --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`and then like, for example, even in the abstract it says memory and then it
`says (e.g., RAM). So certainly memory can include RAM or volatile
`memory, but that doesn't mean that the term memory is limited to volatile
`memory.
`So, what we saw was, and I will keep addressing this as I go through,
`I think I tried to have a logical progression on how I was going from this of
`if you look at slide 15, the Patent Owner’s expert admitted that he was
`importing into the claim limitation. We asked him specifically the claim
`language and he basically said, are you basically saying the claim language
`also has to include main memory, so volatile memory, main memory and he
`said, yes. I mean, he repeatedly said that that's what he was doing.
`So, I think slide 16 is helpful to kind of give context to this argument
`of where Patent Owner is going on this argument, which is this first step of
`their argument is that cache memory includes the term memory and then the
`second step is, well, a POSITA would have understood memory to only
`mean volatile memory and I think there's a few different problems with this,
`a few different logical leaps and problems with that sort of approach.
`Because if you look at claims, slide 17, going back to the claim
`language, the claim language alone destroys Patent Owner’s argument on
`this point because the claim language expressly states that cache memory
`includes mass storage. So already the term memory, as used in the claim, is
`referring to nonvolatile memory by saying it includes mass storage. So
`that's a point that, you know, both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s experts
`agreed on this point. I point to Dr. Sundaresan’s deposition 1052 at pages
`78 through 80.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`And this goes to, if you go to slide 18, this goes to the issue is that if
`you're going to go to the term memory, not cache memory, the term memory
`is not limited to volatile memory and you have to rewrite the meaning of
`memory because clearly memory has both volatile memory in it and
`nonvolatile memory as subsets of the term memory. I think that's probably
`pretty common knowledge that doesn't require a lot of expert testimony but I
`think both experts have agreed on this point and if you go to slide 19 and 20
`--
`
`JUDGE ENGELS: Just looking briefly though, again, at the claim
`language, isn't there a separate recitation of cache memory and mass
`storage? It's two separately recited elements.
`MR. BATTS: I actually -- I disagree with that, Your Honor, because
`the element of said cache memory, it says, is including mass storage. So, I
`don't view that as two separate elements that’s explaining that the cache
`memory has to include mass storage. It's a clarification of what cache
`memory has to include and so --
`JUDGE DIRBA: I have an additional question. Would you agree that
`the term memory can be used by persons of skill in the art to refer to main
`memory?
`MR. BATTS: Yes, absolutely.
`JUDGE DIRBA: Okay.
`MR. BATTS: Yes. I think the term memory, you know, the term
`memory has a lot of different usages and I think that on slide 18, you see, I
`think people can refer to RAM as you can say, memory, meaning RAM.
`You can mean DRAM. You can also say, hey, the memory on my iPhone,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`how much memory do you have on your iPhone? I have 256 gigabytes on
`my iPhone. So, the term memory can certainly include RAM or include
`volatile memory. But our point is that it's not limited to that and --
`JUDGE DIRBA: Let me ask -- oh, I apologize for interrupting. Go
`ahead.
`MR. BATTS: No, go ahead, Your Honor.
`JUDGE DIRBA: I meant to ask a different question, so I'm glad you
`elaborated on that. My question was, do people of skill in the art or would
`you agree that people of skill in the art can use just the word memory itself
`to specifically refer to main memory as opposed to the other types of
`memory? In other words, my question is, can memory be used in two
`different ways? One is the general way that you have identified on your
`slide 18, memory can include all these different types of memory and a
`second way is sort of a shorthand that could be used specifically to refer to
`main memory.
`MR. BATTS: I think that's fair, Your Honor. I do. I think people do
`use the term memory to refer to the dynamic access memory. I mean, that's
`a RAM. But I also think as we laid out on slide 18, memory can have a lot
`of other meanings as well.
`JUDGE DIRBA: And if I understand your argument correctly, given
`the context of the claim, we know that memory has this broader meaning
`rather than the more narrow meaning because the claim says that the
`memory needs to include mass storage.
`MR. BATTS: Correct, Your Honor. That's one of my arguments.
`That's the argument I was just laying out and I'll go through a few more
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`arguments in addition to that. Any other questions before I move on?
`JUDGE DIRBA: No, thank you.
`MR. BATTS: So then slides 19 and 20 just include probably again,
`not surprising because a lot of us have seen memory in a lot of patents
`probably, but there's a lot of different usages for a memory. You can talk
`about flash memory and volatile memory, nonvolatile memory. So we just
`included that Patent Owner’s expert certainly acknowledged that there's lots
`of different types of memory in slides 19 and 20 including nonvolatile and
`volatile memory.
`So, then that turns us to the dictionary definitions. So, if we go to
`slide 21 we have the various dictionary definitions. Again, these dictionary
`definitions are for memory, not for cache memory, but dictionaries -- the
`point that I would have is that dictionaries clearly don't support narrowing
`the term memory to volatile memory, let alone the term cache memory. So,
`if you look at the dictionary definitions, memory is a place where
`information is stored and it can have a lot of different meanings on that. But
`it certainly -- these dictionaries don't support a narrowing of the term of
`cache memory.
`JUDGE ENGELS: So, help me understand this. At least the way I
`understood you to say there, I think -- well, let's take as given that memory
`is a broad term. But were you to argue that cache memory is more broad
`than memory? I don't -- I'm not sure your point there.
`MR. BATTS: No, my point -- I guess I'll say it another way and
`maybe an easier way to understand, the tension point I feel like on a lot of
`Patent Owner’s arguments is that they are trying to, they take the second
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`logic leap of trying to say, if you look at the term memory, that gives you a
`basis to construe the term cache memory and so I view the dictionaries as
`they clearly if they want to have a narrowing of the term cache memory and
`they want to say cache memory has to mean because it has memory in the
`term cache memory, you have to look at the word memory and memory
`must be dynamic memory. There has to be volatile memory and my point is,
`is even if you look at these dictionaries that are submitted as evidence in the
`record that simply meet -- the dictionary definitions don't support that logic
`because the term memory, even if you look here when it gives the examples
`on the Microsoft Press dictionary, is talking about EEPROM, but it's also
`talking about flash memory. It's talking about RAM. It’s talking about
`ROM. It's clearly talking abou
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
