Ex Parte 7636274 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

95001337 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2017)

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.
95/001,337 06/04/2010 7636274 043326-000-0020 4959
79141 7590 08/08/2017
Jamie J. Zheng, Ph.D Esq.
MASCHOFF BRENNAN
1389 Center Drive
Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
PEIKARI, BEHZAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

INPHI CORPORATION
Requester

v.

NETLIST, INC.
Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2017-007075
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,337
United States Patent 7,636,274 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2017-007075
Reexamination Control No. 95/001,337
Patent US 7,636,274 B2

2

Patent Owner requests rehearing of our decision dated May 9, 2017
(revised May 10, 2017) (“Dec.”), where we affirmed the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25–34, 36–43, 45, 46, 48,
51, 53–64, 66, 69, 71–79, 81–88, 90, and 93–104 over Amidi, Klein, and
Matsui in the above-identified inter partes reexamination.1 Request for
Rehearing filed June 9, 2017 (“Req. Reh’g”). Requester challenges the
asserted basis for this request in comments filed July 7, 2017 (“Comments”).
For the reasons noted in Requester’s comments as well as those below, we
deny the request to modify our decision.
In the request, Patent Owner contends that we misapprehended the
cited references’ collective teachings, namely with respect to DQS (data
strobe signal) isolation, and that Dr. Wang’s testimony in this regard is not
corroborated by Matsui. Req. Reh’g 3–5. Patent Owner adds that QBMA—
a reference that was not cited in the rejection over Amidi, Klein, and
Matsui—provides evidence regarding DQS isolation and is said to contradict
Dr. Wang’s testimony, particularly in light of DQ and DQS lines’ different
structural and operational schemes noted by Dr. Sechen. Id. at 5–7.
After reviewing the supporting arguments and evidence regarding
these contentions in light of our decision and the record as a whole, we are
unpersuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked these points in
rendering our decision for the reasons indicated by Requester on pages 2 to
12 of the Comments, which we adopt as our own.

1 As noted on pages 19 and 20 of our earlier decision, the obviousness
rejection over Amidi, Klein, and Matsui, labeled “Issue 13,” formed the sole
basis for our affirmance, and we declined to reach the merits of the
Examiner’s other rejections.
Appeal 2017-007075
Reexamination Control No. 95/001,337
Patent US 7,636,274 B2

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we have granted Patent Owner’s request to
the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny the request
with respect to making any changes therein.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), this decision is final for the purpose
of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

DENIED

Patent Owner:

Jamie J. Zheng
MASCHOFF BRENNAN
1389 Center Drive
Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098

Third Party Requester:

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102