NVIDIA Corporationv.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2015

12193952 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 7
571-272-7822 Entered: October 20, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.

TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
NVIDIA Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 7–9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,804,734 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’734 patent”). Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper
6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we do
not institute an inter partes review for the challenged claims.
B. Related Proceedings
The parties inform us that the ’734 patent is the subject of a Petition
for inter partes review in IPR2015-01068 and an investigation before the
International Trade Commission: Certain Graphics Processing Chips,
Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-941
(USITC). Pet. 4–5; Paper 5, 2. Patent Owner also identifies
IPR2015-01062 and IPR2015-01065 as related to the current proceeding.
Pet. 5.
C. The ’734 Patent
The ’734 patent discloses a data strobe buffer, and a memory system
containing the same, that can be interfaced to different types of
semiconductor memory devices. Ex. 1101, 1:15–19. In one embodiment of
the ’734 patent, during a read operation in a first mode, the data strobe
buffer receives a data strobe signal, compares this signal with a reference
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

3
voltage Vref, and outputs a new data strobe signal based on the results of the
comparison. Id. at 4:32–37. During a read operation in a second mode, the
data strobe buffer receives a data strobe signal and passes this signal without
comparing it with the reference voltage Vref. Id. at 4:44–48. According to
the ’734 patent, the first mode may be an operating mode of the data strobe
buffer when the data strobe buffer interfaces with Double-Data-Rate (DDR)
Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM) and the second
mode may be an operating mode of the data strobe buffer when the data
strobe buffer interfaces with Mobile Double-Data-Rate (MDDR) SDRAM.
Id. at 1:21–27, 4:37–39, 4:48–51, 5:13–16, 5:25–30, Figs. 3A, 3B.
D. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
1. A data strobe buffer comprising:
a first input/output node;
a first driver coupled to the first input/output node, the first
driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the
first input/output node during a write operation; and
a first receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal
from the first input/output node and output a third data
strobe signal during a read operation when the data strobe
buffer is in a first or second mode, the first receiver
configured to compare the second data strobe signal with a
first reference voltage and output a result of the comparison
as the third data strobe signal when the data strobe buffer is
in the first mode, the receiver further configured to not
compare the second data strobe signal with the first
reference voltage when the data strobe buffer is in the
second mode.
Ex. 1101, 8:27–42.
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

4
E. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
Whether claims 1, 7–9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as having been obvious over Seo
1
and Kong.
2

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In determining the
broadest reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their
ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a
patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a
term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner proffers claim constructions for four terms: “coupled,”
“data strobe signal,” “data strobe bar signal,” and “input/output node.” Pet.
13–14. Patent Owner proposes constructions for the terms “mode” and
“input/output node.” Prelim. Resp. 8–14.
Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms need be
construed for purposes of this decision.
3
See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &

1
U.S. Patent No. 6,819,602 B2, issued Nov. 16, 2004 (Ex. 1103).
2
U.S. Patent No. 7,173,871 B2, issued Feb. 6, 2007 (Ex. 1104).
3
We discuss below the terms “read” and “write,” as used in the context of
the ’734 patent.
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

5
Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be
construed that are in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve
the controversy.”)
B. Obviousness Based on Seo and Kong
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 7–9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 of the ’734
patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Seo and Kong.
Pet. 32–55. In support of its contentions, Petitioner relies on the declaration
testimony of Dr. Bruce Jacob (Ex. 1107). For the reasons that follow, we
determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing as to claims 1, 7–9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 of the ’734 patent.
1. Seo
Seo is directed to a multimode data buffer and a method for
controlling propagation time delay for a semiconductor memory device. Ex.
1103, 1:15–17. Figure 2 of Seo is reproduced below:

Figure 2 a block diagram of a data strobe input buffer of Seo.
Seo discloses that data strobe input buffer 13 of Figure 2 may be a
single mode/dual mode (SM/DM) double-use data strobe input buffer that, in
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

6
response to a control signal (CNT/CNTB), differentially amplifies data
strobe signal (DQS) and reference voltage (VREF) when in single mode
(SM) and differentially amplifies data strobe signal (DQS) and inverse data
strobe signal (DQSB) when in dual mode (DM). Id. at 7:48–54, 7:63–67,
8:4–8.
2. Kong
“Kong discloses a semiconductor memory device containing a circuit
for inputting and outputting a bi-directional data strobe signal.” Ex. 1107
¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1104, 1:14–18, Abstract). Figure 3 of Kong is reproduced
below:

Figure 3 illustrates circuit diagrams of a data strobe input and output buffer
and a control circuit contained in a semiconductor memory device.
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

7
Dr. Jacob testifies that, although the process of driving the data strobe
signal is not disclosed in Seo, including whether the data strobe buffer is
uni-directional or bi-directional, circuits for driving a bi-directional data
strobe are disclosed in Kong. Ex. 1107 ¶ 99. Specifically, Dr. Jacob
testifies that element 32 of Kong is a data-strobe input buffer and element 34
of Kong is a data-strobe output buffer. Id. ¶ 100.
3. Analysis
Independent claims 1 and 17 both require a driver “configured to
output a first data strobe signal to the first input/output node during a write
operation” and a “receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal
from the first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a
read operation.” Ex. 1101, 8:30–34, 10:26–31. Both parties agree that, as
used in the claims of the ’734 patent, the term “read” means to read data
from a memory device and the term “write” means to write data to a
memory device. Pet. 11 (noting that in the ’734 patent “a driver is used to
drive a data strobe signal to the memory device during a write operation”),
25; Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Prelim. Resp. 15–16; see also Ex. 1101, 3:52–56, 3:65–
4:2 (noting that the “data strobe buffer 190 provides a first data strobe signal
DQS_1 to the memory device 200 during a write operation, and is provided
with a second data strobe signal DQS_2 by the memory device 200 during a
read operation”).
Petitioner argues, however, that a write operation from the perspective
of a memory controller is the equivalent of a read operation from the
perspective of the memory device. Likewise, Petitioner argues that a read
operation from the perspective of a memory controller is the equivalent of a
write operation from the perspective of the memory device. Pet. 25 (citing
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

8
Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 89–92), 35 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 127–128), 37 (citing Ex. 1107
¶ 133). According to Petitioner, the situation is akin to cars that drive on the
left or right side of the road, but have the same components and work the
same way. Id. at 24. Petitioner concludes, therefore, that the “location and
perspective of the data strobe buffer does not alter the invalidity analysis.”
Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 89–92).
Patent Owner asserts the challenged claims would not have been
obvious over Seo and Kong because neither reference discloses a data strobe
buffer for use in a memory controller. Prelim. Resp. 15–16. In particular,
Patent Owner asserts that both Seo and Kong are directed to data strobe
buffers for use in a memory device, which would not output a data strobe
signal during a “write” operation or receive a data strobe signal during a
“read” operation, as recited in claim 1 of the ’734 patent. Id. at 16–17.
According to Patent Owner, the difference in placement between the data
strobe buffer of Seo and Kong and the data strobe buffer of the ’734 patent is
“fundamental,” because placement of the data strobe buffer in the memory
controller enables the memory controller to operate in conjunction with
varying types of memory devices. Id. at 16.
Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. As discussed above,
Petitioner concedes that neither Seo nor Kong discloses a data strobe buffer
that outputs a data strobe signal during a “write operation” or that receives a
data strobe signal during a “read operation.” Pet. 35 (“Kong discloses a
‘read’ operation in which the data strobe is output . . . .”); see also Ex. 1107
¶ 90 (Dr. Jacob testifying that, “[w]hen Seo or Kong talk about outputting a
data strobe signal, they are talking about a read operation, because a DRAM
outputs the data and data strobe signals during a read operation”). Thus, we
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

9
are not persuaded that Seo and Kong explicitly disclose or suggest a “first
driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the first input/output
node during a write operation” or a receiver “coupled to receive a second
data strobe signal from the first input/output node and output a third data
strobe signal during a read operation,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’734
patent. Ex. 1101, 8:29–34.
Petitioner’s argument that the function of the two data strobe buffers
is equivalent, i.e., “regardless of where the data strobe buffer is located (in
the memory controller or memory device) it is used for both write and read
operations,” is not persuasive, because this argument does not address the
claims as written. Pet. 24. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner
does not persuasively argue that it would have been obvious to place the data
strobe buffer of Seo and Kong in a memory controller, as opposed to a
memory device, such that the data strobe buffer would output a data strobe
signal “during a write operation” and receive a data strobe signal “during a
read operation.” Prelim Resp. 17 (“Petitioner does not—and cannot—allege
that it would have been obvious to place the combined system of Seo and
Kong in a memory controller.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the
combination of Seo and Kong, as formulated by Petitioner, discloses or
suggests every limitation of independent claims 1 and 17 of the ’734 patent.
4. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, and on the arguments presented in the
Petition, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
independent claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over Seo and Kong.
As dependent claims 7–9, 12, 13, and 19 each depend from claim 1 or claim
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

10
17, we are likewise not persuaded that these claims would have been
obvious over Seo and Kong.
III. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
review is not instituted.
IPR2015-01135
Patent 7,804,734 B2

11
PETITIONER:

Bob Steinberg
Julie Holloway
Latham & Watkins LLP
bob.steinberg@lw.com
Julie.Holloway@lw.com

PATENT OWNER:

Robert Appleby
Gregory Arovas
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
robert.appleby@kirkland.com
greg.arovas@kirkland.com