95001154 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte 6584037 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 25, 2012

95001154 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 95/001,154 03/03/2009 6,584,037 8963.002.RXUS00 7630 22852 7590 07/26/2012 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 95/001,108 11/07/2008 6584037 38512.15 6309 22852 7590 07/26/2012 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Inter Partes RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD. and MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. Requesters ____________ Appeal 2012-000142 Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,108 & 95/001,154 United States Patent 6,584,037 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON (MICRON’s) REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2012-000142 Reexamination Control 95/001,108 & 95/001,154 Patent 6,584,037 2 Micron seeks relief, from the Decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, in its Third Party Requestor’s Request for Rehearing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, because the Board decided against Micron’s priority contention concerning the ‘037 patent.1 In response, Rambus filed Patent Owner’s Opposition to Third-Party Requester’s Request for Rehearing. In a rehearing request, appellants “must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1). Micron has not made the requisite showing. Micron’s assertion that the Decision misapprehends its argument concerning the effective priority date of claim 34 is unavailing. (Micron Reh’g Req. 2-3.) Rambus persuasively shows that the Decision correctly addresses the issue of priority, including aspects flowing from either Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F3d. 1336, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) or Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir.2003). (See Rambus’s Opposing Comments 2-3; Bd. Dec. 14-18.) REHEARING DECISION We decline to modify the Decision concerning the effective priority date of claim 34. DENIED 1 Decided January 27, 2012 after an oral hearing. Appeal 2012-000142 Reexamination Control 95/001,108 & 95/001,154 Patent 6,584,037 ack CC: Patent Owner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001-4413 Third Party Requester Samsung HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP SECTION 2323 VICTORY AVENUE, SUITE 700 DALLAS, TX 75219 Third Party Requester Micron NOVAK, DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP (NDQ REEXAMINATION GROUP) 1000 LOUISIANA STRE