Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
P. 1
751981-482323

751981-482323

Ratings: (0)|Views: 192|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jun 08, 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

06/08/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C.In the Matter of:CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS ANDPRODUCTS CONTAINING SAMEInvestigation No. 337-TA-753COMPLAINANT RAMBUS INC.’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION’S NOTICE TOREVIEW IN THE ENTIRETY A FINAL INITIAL DETERMINATION FINDING NOVIOLATION OF SECTION 337
PUBLIC VERSION
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.Issue 1: Claim Construction (Dally Patents) ............................................................................ 1A.Issue 1(a): “Output Frequency” Refers to a Number of Cycles Per SecondWhere Two Bits of Data Are Transmitted Per Cycle. .................................................. 1B.Issue 1(b): If the Commission Does Not Specify a Data Rate Correspondingto the Claimed “Output Frequency,” Disputes May Remain Between theParties Regarding the Section 102 and 103 Determinations on Review ....................... 5II.Issue 2: Validity ........................................................................................................................ 8A.Issue 2(a) (Barth and Dally patents): There Is No Motivation For theProposed Combinations for Dally or Barth Patents and Secondary IndiciaDemonstrate Non-obviousness ..................................................................................... 81.There Is No Motivation for the Dally Obviousness Combinations .................. 82.There Is No Motivation for the Twelve Barth ObviousnessCombinations .................................................................................................. 12a.The Barth Claims Are Not Predictable Combinations oKnown Elements ................................................................................ 12 b.The ALJ’s Analysis Is Predicated on Hindsight ................................ 13c.The ALJ’s Obviousness Combinations Are Refuted By theReferences Themselves ...................................................................... 14i.Combinations 1-4 Do Not Render the Asserted BarthClaims Obvious ..................................................................... 14(a)The ALJ Erred in Finding that It Would HaveBeen Obvious to Combine Synchronous andAsynchronous Memory Systems .............................. 14(b)The ALJ Erred in Finding that It Would HaveBeen Obvious to Incorporate Double DataRate Features into Yano and Dan ............................. 15(c)The ALJ Erred in Finding it Obvious toIncorporate Precharge, Bank SelectionInformation, and Sense Operation Featuresinto Dan and Yano .................................................... 16ii.Combinations 5-6 Do Not Render the Barth ClaimsObvious ................................................................................. 17
PUBLIC VERSION
 
iiiii.Combinations 7-12 Do Not Render the Barth ClaimsObvious ................................................................................. 173.The ALJ’s Secondary Considerations Analysis Was Legally Flawed ........... 19a.Secondary Indicia Support the Non-obviousness of theAsserted Dally Claims ....................................................................... 20i.The Dally Inventions Enjoy Substantial CommercialSuccess .................................................................................. 21ii.The Dally Inventions Satisfy a Long-Felt Need .................... 24iii.Actual and Potential Licensing of the Dally InventionsSupports Non-obviousness .................................................... 25iv.The Dally Inventions Were Praised by Others ...................... 26 b.Secondary Indicia Support the Non-obviousness of theAsserted Barth Claims ....................................................................... 27B.Issue 2(b) (Barth patents): Aspects of Synchronous and AsynchronousWould Not Have Been Combined in October 1995 ................................................... 291.Synchronous and Asynchronous Systems Are FundamentallyDifferent ......................................................................................................... 292.Jacob’s Textbook Recognizes the Significant Differences BetweenAsynchronous and Synchronous Systems ...................................................... 313.The ALJ’s Conclusion Based on Evidence That Does Not SupportCombining Aspects of Asynchronous and Synchronous Systems ................. 32a.Jacob’s Reliance on the Reexamination Proceedings and onInformation Not Presented in this Investigation Was Improper ........ 32 b.Jacob’s Testimony About Whether Yano and Dan AreSynchronous Is Inconsistent With His Textbook ............................... 33c.Jacob’s Reliance on Irrelevant Barth and Stark TestimonyAbout Unidentified Patent Applications Does Not SupportObviousness ....................................................................................... 34C.Issue 2(c) (Barth patents): The Harriman Patent (RX-4266) Does NotEvidence Publication of the Next Document (RX-4265) ........................................... 36D.Issue 2(d) (Barth patents): Respondents Have Not Demonstrated Publicationof the Draft SyncLink Specification ........................................................................... 39III.Issue 3: Infringement .............................................................................................................. 42
PUBLIC VERSION

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)//-->