Transport Room

7/27/2019 Transport Room

1/8

2013-1087

(Reexamination Nos. 95/001,108 & 95/001,154)

2013-1339

(Reexamination Nos. 95/000,178 & 95/001,152)

____________________________

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT_____________________

RAMBUS, INC.,Appellant,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

_________________________

RAMBUS INC.S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEAL NOS.

2013-1087 AND 2013-1339 FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

I. IntroductionAppellant Rambus Inc. (Rambus) respectfully moves to consolidate

Appeal No. 2013-1087 with Appeal No. 2013-1339 for purposes of oral argument.

As explained below, these two appealsboth arising from inter partes

reexamination proceedings of patents in the same familyinvolve similar issues,

Case: 13-1087 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2013


2/8

2

which would be most efficiently addressed by the same panel during a

consolidated oral argument. Counsel for Appellee Micron Technology, Inc.

(Micron) has indicated that Micron does not oppose consolidation of these two

appeals for oral argument.

II. BackgroundA. Appeal No. 2013-1087Appeal No. 2013-1087 is fully briefed but for the submission of the joint

appendix, which is due on July 29, 2013. In this appeal, Rambus challenges the

PTOs finding that claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,584,037 (the 037 patent) was

obvious over Bennett in view of either Wicklund or Bowater. Specifically,

Rambus raises two issues:

1. Whether the Board erred in finding that Bennett in view of either

Wicklund or Bowater renders obvious an operation code that includes both a

write instruction and an automatic precharge instruction, as required by claim 34.

(Rambus Blue Br. 2; Micron Red Br. 1.)

2. Alternatively, whether the Board erred in finding that Bennett renders

obvious a synchronous dynamic random access memory device, as required by

claim 34. (Id.)

Micron raises an additional issue as an alternative ground for affirmance:



3/8

3

3. Whether the Board erred in determining that claim 34 had priority to the

898 application, rendering JEDEC and Park unavailable as prior art. (Micron Red

Br. 2.)

B. Appeal No. 2013-1339Appeal No. 2013-1339 is not yet fully briefed. Rambuss principal brief was

filed on June 18, 2013, and Microns principal brief is currently due on August 28,

2013. Rambus anticipates that all briefing will be completed and the joint

appendix filed no later than early October 2013.

In appeal No. 2013-1339, Rambus challenges the PTOs finding that claim

33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,120 (the 120 patent) was obvious over Bennett or

iAPX/iRAM in view of Wicklund, Bowater, or Olson. Specifically, Rambus raises

two issues:

1. Whether the Board erred in finding that Bennett or iAPX/iRAM in view

of Wicklund, Bowater, or Olson renders obvious an operation code that includes

both a read instruction and precharge information, as required by claim 33.

(Rambus Blue Br. 2.)

2. Alternatively, whether the Board erred in finding that either Bennett or

iAPX/iRAM renders obvious a synchronous dynamic random access memory

device, as required by claim 33. (Id.)



4/8

4

Although Micron has not yet filed its principal brief in Appeal No. 2013-

1339, the same issue concerning the priority date of the patent-in-suit and the

availability of JEDEC and Park as prior art may also be at issue in this appeal.

III. ArgumentAs explained above, certain issues raised in Appeal No. 2013-1087 and

Appeal No. 2013-1339 are similar. The two patents involved are from the same

family and have the same relevant specification. Both appeals are from inter

partes reexamination proceedings involving the same parties, Rambus and Micron.

Both appeals involve the question of whether it would have been obvious at

the time of the claimed invention to combine a memory request (specifically, a

write request in the 037 patent and a read request in the 120 patent) with

precharge information in a single operation code. The prior-art references

pertaining to this question are Bennett, Wicklund, and Bowater in Appeal No.

2013-1087 and Bennett, iAPX/iRAM, Wicklund, Bowater, and Olson in Appeal

No. 2013-1339. Hence, there is substantial factual overlap on this issue.

Both appeals also involve the alternative question of whether it would have

been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to implement the claimed

operation code in a synchronous dynamic random access memory device. The

prior-art references relevant to this question are Bennett in Appeal No. 2013-1087



5/8

5

and Bennett and iAPX/iRAM in Appeal No. 2013-1339. Thus, there is substantial

factual overlap on this issue.

Finally, both appeals potentially involve the issue raised by Micron in

Appeal No. 2013-1087, namely whether the patents-at-issue are entitled to the

filing date of the 898 application, rendering JEDEC and Park unavailable as prior

art.

Given the substantial factual overlap of these issues and the similar legal

arguments raised by both parties in both appeals, judicial efficiency favors

consolidating these appeals for oral argument. Such consolidation is within this

Courts inherent case-management powers, cf. Fed. R. App. P 3(b)(2), and would

not unduly delay or complicate either appeal.

IV. ConclusionFor the reasons explained above, Rambus respectfully requests that the

Court consolidate Appeal No. 2013-1087 with Appeal No. 2013-1339 for oral

argument. Micron does not oppose this motion.



6/8

6

Dated: June 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James R. Barney

J. Michael Jakes

James R. BarneyMolly R. Silfen

Aidan C. SkoylesFinnegan, Henderson, Farabow,

Garrett & Dunner, LLP901 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001Telephone: (202) 408-4000

Attorneys for Appellant

Rambus Inc.



7/8

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST

Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rules 26.1 and 47.4, counsel for Appellant

Rambus Inc. certify the following:

1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by us is:

Rambus Inc.

2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not thereal party in interest) represented by us is:

Rambus Inc.

3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent ormore of the stock of any party represented by us are:

None

4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the

parties now represented by us in the trial court or are expected to appear in thiscourt are:

J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen Daley, James R. Barney, Naveen Modi, Molly R.Silfen, Aidan C. Skoyles

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP



8/8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing RAMBUS INC.S UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEAL NOS. 2013-1087 AND 2013-1339 FOR ORAL

ARGUMENT were served upon registered counsel by operation of the Courts

CM/ECF system on this 25th day of July, 2013.

Henry A. Petri

Novak Druce Connolly Bove, LLP1875 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC [email protected]

/s/ Kay WylieKay Wylie


Transport Room

Documents

Transcript of Transport Room