Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
750631-481614

750631-481614

Ratings: (0)|Views: 332 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jun 01, 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

11/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
  PUBLIC VERSION 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C.In the Matter of CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS ANDPRODUCTS CONTAINING SAMEInv. No. 337-TA-753 RESPONSE OF THE OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONSTO THE NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONTO REVIEW IN THE ENTIRETY A FINAL DETERMINATION FINDINGNO VIOLATION OF SECTION 337OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
Lynn I. Levine, DirectorDavid O. Lloyd, Supervisory AttorneyDaniel L. Girdwood, Investigative AttorneyU.S. International Trade Commission500 E Street, S.W. Suite 401Washington, D.C. 20436202.205.3409 (ph)202.205.2158 (fax)Conf. Version: May 18, 2012Public Version: May 31, 2012
 
i
 PUBLIC VERSION 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSI.
 
QUESTION 1 - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (DALLY PATENTS)..................... 2
 
a.
 
Why “output frequency” requires a construction setting forth a specific datarate per cycle, as opposed to the plain language of the claims, which requires onlya particular output frequency,
i.e.
, a number of cycles per second. ......................... 3
 
b.
 
If “output frequency” is construed not to require a particular data rate, theeffect of that construction, if any, on the section 102 and 103 determinations onreview, as set forth below. ............................................................................................ 4
 
II.
 
QUESTION 2 - VALIDITY ..................................................................................... 6
 
a.
 
The motivation to combine and secondary indicia of nonobviousness, for eachsection 103 combination upon which one or more parties petitioned for review.(Barth patents and Dally patents) ............................................................................... 6
 
1.
 
Obviousness Combinations as to the Dally Patents .......................................... 8
 
2.
 
Obviousness Combinations as to the Barth I Patents ..................................... 14
 
b.
 
The pertinence, if any, of synchronous versus asynchronous prior art, and themotivation to apply the teachings of asynchronous art to synchronous systems.(Barth patents) ............................................................................................................ 26
 
1.
 
Background ..................................................................................................... 27
 
2.
 
Combinations Based On Yano (RX-4261) As A Primary Reference ............ 30
 
c.
 
Whether the Harriman patent evidences the publication of the NeXTBusspecification, in view of the fact that NeXT is the assignee of the Harriman patent.(Barth patents) ............................................................................................................ 37
 
d.
 
Whether the respondents have demonstrated the publication date of theSyncLink specification (RX-4270C). (Barth patents) ............................................. 39
 
III.
 
QUESTION 3 - INFRINGEMENT .................................................................... 40
 
a.
 
The disablement of the Cisco products with a disabled transmitter (Dallypatents),
 see
Resp. Pet. 48, as compared to the disablement of the SL500 prior artproducts,
 see
Rambus Pet. 17-20 ............................................................................... 40
 
b.
 
Given that “in every infringement analysis,
 the language of the claims
, as wellas the nature of the accused products, dictates whether an infringement hasoccurred,”
 Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc.
, 287 F.3d 1108,1118 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added), whether a finding of infringement ornoninfringement of the asserted Dally claims should be guided by the claimlanguage at issue in
 Fantasy Sports, Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc.
, 607 F.3d 784, 794 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
 ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co.
, 501 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2007), or other Federal Circuitcaselaw regarding active or enabled components. ................................................... 40
 
 
ii
 PUBLIC VERSION 
 
c.
 
The infringement of asserted Dally ‘494 method claims 39, 40, and 42 in viewof the ALJ’s discussion at page 77 of the ID regarding enabled features of apparatuses. ................................................................................................................. 45
 
d.
 
Certain STMicroelectronics products are claimed to have substantialnoninfringing uses by virtue of their compatibility with SDR memory.
See
Resps.Pet. 25; ID at 67 n.9. Explain with specificity and citations to the evidentiaryrecord what these STMicroelectronics products are and your contention thatthese products have or lack substantial noninfringing uses. .................................. 47
 
IV.
 
QUESTION 4 - UNCLEAN HANDS (Barth patents) ...................................... 48
 
a.
 
Whether the doctrines of preclusion or
 stare decisis
prevent Rambus fromchallenging the determinations from the 661 investigation as to the date uponwhich it was obligated to retain documents, or its bad faith. ................................. 48
 
b.
 
Explain with specificity the factual distinctions between the records of the 661investigation and this investigation, with respect to prejudice suffered or allegedlysuffered by the respondents by reason of Rambus’s destruction of documents. .. 55
 
1.
 
SyncLink ......................................................................................................... 58
 
2.
 
Prosecution Files............................................................................................. 59
 
V.
 
QUESTION 5 - INEQUITABLE CONDUCT (Barth patents) ........................... 62
 
a.
 
Whether the respondents have proven materiality of this particular document.63
 
b.
 
Whether the PTO’s reexamination of the ’109 patent demonstrates that thebroadest reasonable construction of the ’109 patent’s “signal” is a constructionbroader than the ’405 and ’353 patents’ “strobe signal.” ....................................... 63
 
c.
 
If the broadest reasonable construction of “signal” in the ’109 patent is “asignal,” and not “a strobe signal,” whether the SyncLink specification iscumulative with art presented to the PTO. .............................................................. 63
 
1.
 
Background ..................................................................................................... 64
 
2.
 
SyncLink is Cumulative With Other Request Packet Prior Art That WasSubmitted And Considered During Prosecution ....................................................... 67
 
d.
 
If inequitable conduct were to be found for the ’109 patent, whether the ’405and ’353 patents are also unenforceable. .................................................................. 68
 
VI.
 
QUESTION 6 - DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ........................................................ 71
 
VII.
 
QUESTION 7 - PATENT EXHAUSTION (Barth patents) ............................. 75
 
a.
 
Whether the licensed Samsung memory products substantially embody theBarth patents. .............................................................................................................. 75
 
1.
 
Background ..................................................................................................... 75
 
2.
 
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 76
 
b.
 
What evidence, if any, demonstrates that the Samsung memory purchased(by the respondent discussed on the bottom half of page 337 of the ID,
 see
Rambus Pet. 95-97), was ever located in the United States prior to incorporation

You're Reading a Free Preview

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