Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
rambus itc1

rambus itc1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 183 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Mar 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C.BEFORE THE HONORABLE THEODORE R. ESSEXADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEIn the Matter of:CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS ANDPRODUCTS CONTAINING SAMEInvestigation No. 337-TA-753COMPLAINANT RAMBUS INC.’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
PUBLIC VERSION
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
 
II.
 
THE ALJ’S INVALIDITY DETERMINATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED ...................... 3
 
III.
 
THE DALLY PATENTS ARE NOT INVALID ...................................................................... 4
 
A.
 
The Widmer Article Does Not Invalidate the Asserted Dally Claims .......................... 4
 
1.
 
The Dally Patents and the Asserted Dally Claims ............................................ 4
 
2.
 
The Widmer Article’s Disclosure ..................................................................... 5
 
3.
 
The ALJ Erred in Finding the Widmer Article Enabling ................................. 5
 
4.
 
The ALJ Erred in Finding that the Widmer Article Discloses theClaimed On-Chip Circuitry ............................................................................ 10
 
a.
 
The Widmer Article’s Disclosure of a Chip Does Not Meanthat Circuitry for Asserting DHPEAK and DLPEAK Is On-Chip .................................................................................................... 10
 
b.
 
Not Requiring External Components Does Not Mean thatCircuitry for Asserting DHPEAK and DLPEAK Is On-Chip ............ 12
 
c.
 
Respondents’ Expert’s Testimony Cannot Replace theWidmer Article’s Disclosure ............................................................. 13
 
5.
 
The ALJ Erred in Finding that Additional Features from Ewen WouldHave Been Combined with the Widmer Article ............................................. 14
 
B.
 
The SL500 Art Does Not Anticipate the Asserted Claims of the Dally Patents ......... 17
 
1.
 
The ALJ Erred By Finding It Was Irrelevant To Determine WhatProducts Were Prior Art ................................................................................. 17
 
2.
 
The Evidence Shows that the SL500 Fibre Channel Transceiver WithNo Emphasis Was the Focus of LSI’s Relationship with Seagate ................. 20
 
3.
 
Respondents Did Not Show What SL500 Product Was Reduced ToPractice, Used, or Offered for Sale ................................................................. 21
 
4.
 
Respondents Did Not Meet Their Burden Regarding an Offer For Saleto Cabletron .................................................................................................... 25
 
5.
 
The SL500 Art Does Not Meet the Speed Limitations of the DallyClaims ............................................................................................................. 26
 
PUBLIC VERSION
 
iiC.
 
The ALJ Erred in Construing “Output Frequency” to Mean “Output DataRate” ........................................................................................................................... 26
 
IV.
 
THE BARTH I PATENTS ARE NOT INVALID .................................................................. 28
 
A.
 
Background of the Technology of the Asserted Barth I Patents ................................. 29
 
B.
 
The Prior Art Does Not Anticipate the Barth Claims ................................................. 30
 
1.
 
The NextBus Specification (RX-4265C) Does Not Anticipate AnyClaims of the ’353 and ’109 Patents ............................................................... 30
 
a.
 
The ALJ Erred in Finding that the NextBus Specification IsPrior Art ............................................................................................. 30
 
b.
 
The ALJ’s Construction of “Memory Device” is Wrong .................. 32
 
i.
 
The Intrinsic Evidence Supports Rambus’sConstruction .......................................................................... 33
 
(a)
 
The Claims Support Rambus’s Construction ............ 33
 
(b)
 
The Specification Supports Rambus’sConstruction .............................................................. 34
 
(c)
 
The ALJ’s Construction, Inconsistent With theIntrinsic Evidence, Must Be Rejected ....................... 35
 
ii.
 
The Extrinsic Evidence Supports Rambus’sConstruction .......................................................................... 36
 
(a)
 
The Prior Art Supports Rambus’sConstruction .............................................................. 37
 
(b)
 
Testimony from Parties Adverse to RambusSupports Rambus’s Construction .............................. 38
 
c.
 
NextBus Does Not Anticipate the ’353 or ’109 Claims ..................... 39
 
d.
 
NextBus Does Not Anticipate Claims 12 and 13 ............................... 39
 
2.
 
Harriman (RX-4277) Does Not Anticipate the Asserted Claims of the’353 and ’109 Patents ..................................................................................... 40
 
3.
 
Hayes (RX-4268) Does Not Anticipate Claim 11 of the ’353 Patent ............ 40
 
4.
 
Dan and Yano Do Not Anticipate Claim 11 of the ’353 Patent ..................... 42
 
PUBLIC VERSION

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->