Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4146

4146

Ratings: (0)|Views: 297|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jun 07, 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

06/07/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4146 Filed06/06/12 Page1 of 110
 
  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
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4146 Filed06/06/12 Page2 of 110
 
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
 
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4146 Filed06/06/12 Page3 of 110

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)//-->