Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
95001106[1]

95001106[1]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 130 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jun 27, 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

06/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Iherebycertifythatthispaper(alongwithanypaperreferredtoasbeingattachedorenclosed)isbeingtransmittedtodayviatheOfficeelectronicfilingsystem(EFS-Web)inaccordancewith37CFR§1.6(a)(4).Date:June25,2012Signature:/StephanieDominguez/PrintedName:StephanieDominguez
INTHEUNITEDSTATESPATENTANDTRADEMARKOFFICEBEFORETHEBOARDOFPATENTAPPEALSANDINTERFERENCES
In
re
InterPartes
Reexaminationsof:ControlNo.:
95/001,106
ConfirmationNo.:4245AppealNo.:2012-000168Farmwaldetal.PatentNo.:6,266,285Issued:July24,2001ControlNo.:
95/001,131
ConfirmationNo.:1154For:METHODOFOPERATINGAMEMORYDEVICEHAVINGWRITELATENCYArtUnit:3992Examiner:OvidioEscalanteBoardofPatentAppealsandInterferencesUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOfficeP.O.Box1450Alexandria,VA22313-1450
THIRDPARTYREQUESTER'SCOMMENTSTOPATENTOWNER'SREQUESTFORREHEARINGPURSUANTTO37C.F.R.§41.79
 
Iherebycertifythatthispaper(alongwithanypaperreferredtoasbeingattachedorenclosed)isbeingtransmittedtodayviatheOfficeelectronicfilingsystem(EFS-Web)inaccordancewith37CFR§1.6(a)(4).Date:June25,2012Signature:/StephanieDominguez/PrintedName:StephanieDominguez
I.COMMENTSTORAMBUS'SREQUESTFORREHEARING
ThirdPartyRequester,MicronTechnology,Inc.,("Requester"or"Micron")submitstheseComments,pursuantto37C.F.R.§41.79(c),totheRequestforRehearingsubmittedbyPatentOwnerRambus,Inc.("PatentOwner"or"Rambus")intheabovecaptionedmatter.
A.Responseto"Claim15IsNotAnticipatedby
Bennett"
1.Responseto
"Bennett
DoesNotDiscloseSamplingDataAfteraProgrammableNumberofClockCycles"a.Responseto"TheNumber
ofWait
Linesof
Bennett
IsNottheClaimedValue"
ThecruxofRambus'sargumentinthissectionisthattheBoarderredinreversingtheconfirmationofclaim15becauseitlimiteditsanalysistotwoexampleconfigurationsinBennett.Rambus'sRequestforRehearingat2,3.Rambusurgesthat"[t]heBoard'sarbitraryselectionofsomeexampleconfigurationsof
Bennett
overothersisimproper."
Id.
at2.Firstly,theBoarddidnotarbitrarilyselectsomeexampleconfigurationsof
Bennett
overtheothers;theBoardspecificallystatedthat"Rambus'sandtheExaminer'srelianceonFigure35(RambusReb.Br.14;RAN41),showingareadoperation,
isnothelpful,
whereasRespondent'srelianceonFigure36,showingawriteoperation,
ispersuasive."
Decisionat14(emphasisadded).Thus,theBoard'sdeterminationwasnotbasedon"arbitrary"selection,butratherbasedonaproperreviewoftheevidenceprovidedduringthereexaminationproceeding.Secondly,Rambusignoresthatonlyasingleembodimentinareferenceneedstodisclosetheclaiminordertoanticipate.
AthrocareCorp.
v.
Smith
&
NephewInc.,
406F.3d1365,1372(Fed.Cir.2005);
seealso,TylerRefrigeration
v.
KysarIndus.Corp.
777F.2d687,688,690(Fed.Cir.1985).Basedonitsreviewofthepriorart,thereexaminationprosecutionhistory,andallappealbriefs,theBoarddeterminedthat"inallconfigurationsfortheFigure25a-hembodiment,thenumber1alwaysresultsinatwoclockcycledelayfor'DATA'afterawriterequestandtheprogrammablenumber3alwaysresultsinaoneclockdelayfor'DATA'afterawriterequest."Decisionat14.Thus,theBoardcorrectlydeterminedthatBennettdisclosesanumberofclockcyclesthattranspiresbeforesamplingdatainatleasttheembodimentrepresentedbyFigures25a-h.
 
Furthermore,thepremiseofRambus'sargumentthatthesameoutcomemustoccurineverysingleoneofBennett'sconfigurationsinordertoshowanticipationresultsintheabsurdconclusionthatBennett'svastdisclosurewouldprovidevirtuallynoanticipatorydisclosureduetoitshighconfigurability.
See
Bennettat39:18-20(statingthatatleast31,045configurationsexist).
In
eachconfiguration,theeffectofchangingoneconfigurationparametercanbeimpactedbythevalueofotherconfigurationparameters,whichispreciselywhythedescriptionofFigures25a-hprovidesexpressvaluesforcertainconfigurationparameters.Bennett86:49-87:58.Whentheseconfigurationparametersareknown,asBennettexpresslyprovidesforFigures25a-h,theeffectofusinga1ora3forthesixthparameterisalsoknown.ThefactthatthesixthparametermayoperatedifferentlyinsomeofBennett'sother31,000plusconfigurationsislegallyirrelevanttotheexpressandunambiguousdisclosureofhowthesixthparameteroperateswithintheconfinesofFigures25a-h.
Athrocare
at1372.Rambushasprovidedinsufficientgroundsforarehearing;theBoardproperlyreviewedthepriorart,thereexaminationprosecutionhistory,andallappealbriefsand,accordingly,didnotoverlookormisapprehendthedisclosureandteachingsofBennett.Therefore,theBoardshoulddenyRambus'sRequestforRehearingonatleastthisissue.
b.Responseto"TheBoardIgnoredtheSettledMeaningof'Representative'"
RambusurgesthatarehearingisproperbecausetheBoarderredinnotaddressingRambus'spurportedevidenceregardingtheinterpretationoftheclaimterm"representative."Rambus'sRequestforRehearingat6.Rambusmerelyrepeatstheargumentsitmadeduringthereexaminationproceeding.
Id.
TheBoardhasalreadydecideduponthoseargumentsanddeterminedthatMicron'sargumentswerepersuasive.Rambus'srelianceonTehraniisunpersuasivesinceTehraniwasdecidedunderthenowrepudiatedTexasDigitalprincipalsofclaimconstruction.
SeeTehrani
v.
HamiltonMed.,Inc.,
331F.3d1355,1361(Fed.Cir.2003)(citing
Tex.DigitalSys.,Inc.
v.
Telegenix,Inc.
308F.3d1193,1203(Fed.Cir.2002)).1Themeaningthat"representative"hadinTehraniprovideslittle,ifany,probativevalueforhowthetermshouldbeconstruedforthe'285patent.Instead,looking
I
Rambus'sassertionthat
Tehrani
wascitedwithapprovalismisleading,asitwascitedforapprovalforthedeterminationthatdifferenttermscanhavethesamemeaningdependingontheevidenceratherthanapprovalforthereasonsthatRambusreliesonthecase.
3

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)//-->