unified patents inc. v. advanced silicon technologies, llc, ipr2016-01026, paper 1 (may 11, 2016)
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
1/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00124
Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
Daniel V. Williams 45,221
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 663-6000
Email: [email protected]
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Washington, DC, 20009
Tel: (202) 805-8931Email: [email protected]
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
Petitioner
v.
ADVANCED SILICON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Patent Owner
IPR2016-01026
Patent 6,546,439
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
US PATENT NO. 6,546,439
CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 30, AND
31
UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
2/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1
B. Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
C. Counsel .................................................................................................. 2
D. Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery and Postal ........................ 2
II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 3
1. US Patent 5,784,582 (filed on October 28, 1996,
published on July 21, 1998) (“ Hughes” (EX1002)),
which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................ 3
2. US Patent 5,745,913 (filed on August 5, 1996,
published on April 28, 1998) (“ Pattin” (EX1003)),
which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................ 3
3. US Patent 5,155,854 (filed on February 3, 1989,
published on October 13, 1992) (“ Flynn” (EX1004)),
which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................... 3
4. European Patent Application 0 380 844 (published on
August 8, 1990) (“Gagliardo” (EX1005)), which is
prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................. 3
B. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3
IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 4
V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’439 PATENT ............................................................ 5
A.
Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 5
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 7
C. Prosecution History ............................................................................... 8
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
A. “source indication” .............................................................................. 10
B. “tag” ..................................................................................................... 11
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
3/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
ii
VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 11
A. Ground I: Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27,
30, and 31 are rendered obvious by Hughes in view of Pattin ........... 12
1. Overview of Hughes ................................................................. 12
2. Overview of Pattin .................................................................... 17
3. Motivation to Combine Hughes and Pattin .............................. 19
4. Claim 1 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................... 20
5. Claim 4 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................... 27
6. Claim 7 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................... 27
7. Claim 10 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 29
8. Claim 11 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 29
9. Claim 14 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 30
10.
Claim 15 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 32
11. Claim 17 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 32
12. Claim 20 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 33
13. Claim 23 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 33
14. Claim 26 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 34
15. Claim 27 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 34
16. Claim 30 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 34
17. Claim 31 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin .................. 35
B. Ground II: Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 26, 27, and 31
are rendered obvious by Flynn in view of Gagliardo ......................... 35
1. Overview of Flynn .................................................................... 35
2. Overview of Gagliardo ............................................................. 42
3. Motivation to combine Flynn and Gagliardo ........................... 48
4. Claim 1 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo ................ 49
5. Claim 4 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo ................ 55
6. Claim 10 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 57
7. Claim 11 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 57
8. Claim 15 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 58
9. Claim 17 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 59
10. Claim 20 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 60
11. Claim 26 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 60
12. Claim 27 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 60
13. Claim 31 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo .............. 61
VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
4/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
1
I.
MANDATORY NOTICES
A.
Real Party-in-Interest
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
“Petitioner”) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies
that no other party exercised control or could exercise control over Unified’s
participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any
ensuing trial. In this regard, Unified has submitted voluntary discovery. See
EX1013 (Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses).
B.
Related Matters
US Pat. No. 6,546,439 (“’439 patent” (EX1001)) is owned by Advanced
Silicon Technologies, LLC (“AST” or “Patent Owner”). On December 21, 2015,
AST filed lawsuits in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against
multiple companies, claiming that these companies’ products and/or services
infringe the ’439 patent. AST also filed a Section 337 Action in the International
Trade Commission on December 27, 2015 against multiple companies, seeking to
exclude from importation components and products incorporating computing and
graphics systems that allegedly infringe the ’439 patent.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
5/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
2
C.
Counsel
David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476) will act as lead counsel; Jonathan
Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518) and Daniel Williams (Reg. No. 45,221) will act as back-
up counsel.
D.
Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery and Postal
Unified consents to electronic service at [email protected]
and [email protected]. Petitioner can be reached at Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
20006, Tel: (202) 663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, and Unified Patents Inc., 1875
Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10, Washington, DC 20009, (650) 999-0899.
II.
CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
III.
OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioner challenges
claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 30, and 31 of the ’439 patent.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
6/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
3
A.
Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
explained below:1
1. US Patent 5,784,582 (filed on October 28, 1996, published on
July 21, 1998) (“ Hughes” (EX1002)), which is prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
2.
US Patent 5,745,913 (filed on August 5, 1996, published on
April 28, 1998) (“ Pattin” (EX1003)), which is prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
3. US Patent 5,155,854 (filed on February 3, 1989, published on
October 13, 1992) (“ Flynn” (EX1004)), which is prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
4.
European Patent Application 0 380 844 (published on August 8,
1990) (“Gagliardo” (EX1005)), which is prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)
B.
Grounds for Challenge
This Petition, supported by the declaration of Professor Sudhakar
Yalamanchili (“Yalamanchili Declaration” or “Yalamanchili” (EX1006)), requests
cancellation of challenged claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 30, and
31 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
1 The ’439 patent issued from a patent application filed prior to enactment of the
America Invents Act (“AIA”). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
7/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
4
IV.
TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
At the time of filing the ’439 patent, it was well known that the speed of
accessing memory was a major limiting factor on overall system speed.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 11 (EX1006)). Memory bottlenecks often existed because the
ability to fulfill memory access requests was slower than the speed at which
components of the system could generate and convey the requests. (Yalamanchili
¶11 (EX1006)).
Access to memory is commonly controlled by components called memory
controllers. (Yalamanchili ¶ 12 (EX1006)). Memory controllers may act as an
interface between components of the system and the memory. (Yalamanchili ¶ 12
(EX1006)). The memory controller receives memory access requests from
components of the system, such as the central processing unit (CPU), graphics
accelerator, input/output units, etc. (Yalamanchili ¶ 12 (EX1006)). These requests
may be to read data stored in memory or to write data to memory. (Yalamanchili
¶ 12 (EX1006)).
Well before the application for the ’439 patent was filed, it was well known
to arbitrate the order in which multiple requests would be granted access to
memory by using a memory controller. (Yalamanchili ¶ 13 (EX1006)). For
example, US Pat. 6,272,600, filed in February 1997, disclosed to reorder memory
requests based on currently available portions of memory. (Yalamanchili ¶ 13
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
8/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
5
(EX1006)). Further, US Pat. 6,032,232, filed in May 29, 1997, disclosed a
memory arbitration system where high priority components were given first access
to memory. (Yalamanchili ¶ 13 (EX1006)). Even earlier, US Pat. 5,301,279,
published in 1994, disclosed an arbitration scheme that reprioritizes requests from
devices based on accesses to system memory. (Yalamanchili ¶ 13 (EX1006)).
Prioritizing memory requests based on assigning priority levels to requesting
devices necessarily requires that the source of the request, such as the particular
component making the request or its associated device is known. (Yalamanchili
¶ 13 (EX1006)).
V.
OVERVIEW OF THE ’439 PATENT
A.
Summary of the Alleged Invention
Independent claims 1 and 17 were allowed based on the incorrect premise
that it was not known to consider “source indication” when making memory access
requests. (Yalamanchili ¶ 14 (EX1006)). The ’439 patent acknowledges that it
was known to access memory from multiple different sources. (’439 patent at 2:1–
28 (EX1001); (Yalamanchili ¶ 14 (EX1006)). The sources may include, for
example, CPU 114, AGP graphics controller 100, PCI I/O devices 150-154, and
their associated buses. (’439 patent at 5:65-6:15 (EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 14
(EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
9/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
6
The ’439 patent uses Figure 5 to describe how source information is created
by using queues 500, 502 and 504. (Yalamanchili ¶ 15 (EX1006)). Figure 5 is
reproduced below to show the queues. The ’439 patent explains that memory
access requests that originate on CPU bus 115 are deposited in CPU bus queue
500, memory access requests originating on AGP interconnect 102 are deposited in
AGP interconnect queue 502, and memory access requests originating on PCI bus
118 are deposited in PCI bus queue 504. (’439 patent at 9:63–10:1 (EX1001));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 15 (EX1006)).
(’439 patent at Figure 5 (EX1001) (annotations added). The memory controller
200 is able to determine the source of the memory access request by virtue of the
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
10/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
7
queue in which the memory access is stored. ( Id . at 10:1–13 (EX1001));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 15 (EX1006)). For example, if a memory access request is stored
in the PCI bus queue 504, the memory controller 200 knows that a source
associated with the 504 queue, such as an I/O device, made the memory access
request. (Yalamanchili ¶ 15 (EX1006). This information can be used to determine
an order in which the memory requests will be serviced. (’439 patent at 10:4–6
(EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 15 (EX1006)). However, as discussed below in more
detail, using source information when managing memory access requests, was
well-known in the art before the filing date of the ’439 patent. (Yalamanchili ¶ 15
(EX1006)).
Figure 6 of the ’439 patent describes another embodiment where tags 302
are included in the queues. The tags 302 are used to associate additional
information with the memory requests. This additional information may provide
an urgency or priority of a request, whether transactions need to be answered in a
particular order, and whether the memory access is speculative. (’439 patent at
9:39–44, 10:27–33 (EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 16 (EX1006)).
B.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the ArtA person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’439 patent would have been an
electrical engineer or computer engineer having the equivalent of a post-graduate
education, such as a master’s degree or equivalent knowledge obtained through
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
11/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
8
work experience, and several years of experience in the design or performance
evaluation of memory systems. (Yalamanchili ¶ 19 (EX1006)).
C.
Prosecution History
The ’439 patent issued from US Pat. Appl. No. 09/207,970, which was filed
on December 9, 1998 (File History, Application (12/09/98) (EX1007)). Four
Office Actions on the merits were issued during prosecution of the ’439 patent.
The first three Office Actions included a single reference rejection of claim 1.
After the third Office Action, Patent Owner canceled pending claims 1–32 and
added new claims 33–64. (File History, Amendment at 2-6 (4/22/02) (EX1008)).
New independent claims 33 and 49 issued as independent claims 1 and 17,
respectively. In the fourth Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 33 and 49
based on another single reference rejection by asserting that the claimed “source
indication” is inherently found in the prior art. (File History, Office Action at 3
(5/21/02) (EX1009)).
The Patent Owner argued that application claims 33 and 49 were not
anticipated because the prior art did not explicitly disclose the claimed “source
indication” and because the Examiner had not established a proper theory of
inherency. (File History, Request for Consideration at 2 (8/23/02) (“a requested
memory operation buffer configured to provide a source indication for each
memory request is not inherent in the cited art.”) (EX1010)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 18
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
12/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
9
(EX1006)). The Examiner then allowed all claims. (File History of ’439 patent,
NOA (9/25/02) (Ex. 1011). However, as described in detail below, the “source
indication” limitation was well known before the ’439 patent was filed and was
explicitly, not inherently, disclosed in many references. (Yalamanchili ¶ 18
(EX1006)).
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Claim terms of an unexpired patent in inter partes review are given the
“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–81 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Any claim term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore given
a broad interpretation.2 In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with “reasonable
2 Petitioner applies the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
applicable.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
13/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
10
clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
The following proposes constructions and offers support for those
constructions. Any claim terms not included should be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as commonly understood by
those of ordinary skill in the art. Should the Patent Owner, to avoid the prior art,
contend that a claim term has a construction different from its broadest reasonable
interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
A.
“source indication”
The term “source indication” should be interpreted to mean “information
that can be used to determine the source of the request.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 29
(EX1006)). This construction is consistent with the claims and the specification of
the ’439 patent. (Yalamanchili ¶ 29 (EX1006)). For example, the ’439 patent
discloses that “due to association with the various buses 102, 115, 118, queues
600-604 convey information about the sources of the queue memory transactions.”
(’439 patent at 10:20–23 (EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 29 (EX1006)). Further,
claim 14, for example, describes that “said requested memory operation buffer
comprises a separate memory request queue for each of said plurality of sources…
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
14/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
11
wherein said source indication corresponds to one of said memory request queues.”
(’439 patent at 13:13–20 (EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 29 (EX1006)). Thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood a “source indication” to mean
“information that can be used to determine the source of the request.”
(Yalamanchili ¶ 29 (EX1006)).
B. “tag”
A term “tag” should be interpreted as “a data structure that includes
information associated with a memory access request.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 30
(EX1006)). The ’439 patent discloses that the “requested memory operation buffer
336 may be further structured such that each memory operation within requested
memory operation buffer 336 may also have associated with that memory
operation a ‘tag’ 302 which may contain one or more units indicative of one or
more parameters related to the transaction in question.” (’439 patent at 9:25–31
(EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 30 (EX1006)). Thus, the proposed construction is
consistent with the specification of the ’439 patent and with the ordinary use of the
term “tag.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 30 (EX1006)).
VII.
SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)–(5), the following sections (as confirmed in
the Yalamanchili Declaration ¶¶ 31–155 (EX1006)) detail the grounds of
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
15/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
12
unpatentability, the limitations of the challenged claims of the ’439 patent, and
how these claims were therefore obvious in view of the prior art.
A.
Ground I: Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 30, and31 are rendered obvious by Hughes in view of Pattin
Hughes was not applied in a rejection during prosecution of the ’439 patent.
Hughes was cited by the applicant during prosecution. Pattin is not of record in
the ’439 patent.
1. Overview of Hughes
Hughes discloses to use a memory controller to select a next request for
access to a shared memory, for the purpose of improving pipeline fullness.
( Hughes at 2:24–30 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 31 (EX1006)). This is done by
looking at (1) characteristics of the current request, or requests currently being
executed, and (2) characteristics of pending requests. ( Hughes at 2:24–30
(EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 31 (EX1006)). Thus, a “next request” can be selected
based on “a priority which assigns a higher priority to accesses of the same type as
a request currently in the pipeline, which assigns a higher priority to a next request
which is an access to the same line of data in the SDRAM as in the current request
in the pipeline, and which give higher priority to a next request to a second bank in
the SDRAM.” ( Hughes at 2:43–56 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 31 (EX1006)).
Figure 2 of Hughes, reproduced below with annotations, shows a system
including: a shared memory, controller/arbiter that comprises a memory
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
16/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
13
controller, a buffer, and a plurality of sources that make memory requests.
( Hughes at 4:44–48; 5:35–42 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 32 (EX1006)). The
shared memory is also accessed by a refresh path source, not shown in Figure 2a.
Figure 3 of Hughes, also reproduced below with annotations, shows the
buffer and memory controller of Figure 2 and the sources that make memory
requests. ( Hughes at 5:63–6:5 (EX1002)). In particular, the sources include an
internal bus and its path 101, a corebus and its path 102, and a processor and its
path 103. ( Hughes at 5:36–40 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 33 (EX1006)).
Requests from these sources include a starting address, a size and a direction
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
17/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
14
indicating whether the access is for read or write. ( Hughes at 5:40–42 (EX1002));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 33 (EX1006)). Hughes discloses that “[e]ach request is stored in a
buffer represented by blocks 104 through 107 in the figure.” ( Hughes at 5:43–45
(EX1002)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
18/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
15
The blocks 104–107 of the buffer are coupled to a “request selection
processor 108.” ( Id . at 5:45–46 (EX1002)). When determining a “next request” to
process, Hughes makes clear that the source of the request is considered:
The request selection processor 108 is able to select a
request synchronously from each of the buffers 104
through 107 in order to manage the shared memory
pipeline according to the present invention. Thus, the
source of the data, the beginning address of the data, the
size of the access and the direction of the access are all
utilized in combination with information about current
requests pending in the shared memory pipeline, in order
to select a next optimum request according to the
parameters of the particular implementation.
( Id . at 5:63–6:5 (emphasis added); see also 7:57–59 (“By determining the
source of the request and determining, based on particular criteria, the order of the
access requests, controller 72 arbitrates access to the SDRAM.”) (EX1002));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 34 (EX1006)).
Figure 4 of Hughes is a flowchart which illustrates the request selection
process. ( Hughes at 6:58–59 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 35 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
19/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
16
The process begins when the controller receives multiple requests (block
150). ( Hughes at 6:60–61 (EX1002)). The controller then “determines the priority
of the source of the plural requests” in block 151. ( Id . at 6:61–63 (EX1002)).
Thus, the controller must be able to determine which source is making the request.
If multiple requests have the highest priority, then a process is executed to select
the optimum request. ( Id . at 6:63–65 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 36 (EX1006)).
If only one request has the highest priority, then the high priority request is
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
20/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
17
selected at block 152, the selected request is processed, and the algorithm returns
(block 153). ( Id . at 6:65–67 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 36 (EX1006)).
2.
Overview of Pattin
Pattin is directed to a system that includes multiple sources that access a
shared memory. Similar to Hughes and the ’439 patent, Pattin discloses a memory
controller that re-orders requests from the different sources to handle the requests
in an efficient manner. ( Pattin at 1:51–54 (EX1003)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 37
(EX1006)).
Figure 6 of Pattin is reproduced below with annotations to show (a) the
sources that make the memory requests, (b) a request queue 26, (c) a request
optimizer 22, and (d) a request processor 24. ( Pattin at 6:55–56, 7:55–58, 8:14–19
(EX1003)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 38 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
21/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
18
The request prioritizer 22 examines pending requests in the request queue 26
to determine which request should be processed next by request processor 24.
( Pattin at 8:14–16 (EX1003)). Requests may be processed in an order different
than the requests are received, to maximize memory performance. ( Id. at 8:16–19
(EX1003)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 39 (EX1006)).
Figure 5 of Pattin is reproduced below to show “a diagram of the fields for a
memory request in the request queue.” ( Pattin at 7:26–28 (EX1003)). The fields
include, e.g., memory commands and, importantly, a source identifier field 36,
shown by annotation. ( Id . at 7:26–37 (EX1003)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 40 (EX1006)).
In particular, Pattin discloses that an “identifier for the source of the request is
stored in source field 36.” ( Pattin at 7:26–37 (EX1003)). The request prioritizer 22
uses the fields, including the source identifier field 36, to reorder the memory
requests. ( Pattin at 7:26–28, 8:14–16, 11:64–12:5, 12:27–30 (EX1003));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 40 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
22/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
19
3.
Motivation to Combine Hughes and Pattin
Hughes and Pattin are each directed to systems that allow multiple sources
to access a shared memory and are in the same field of endeavor. (Yalamanchili
¶ 41 (EX1006)). The shared memory in both references is a form of DRAM.
Hughes and Pattin each disclose to increase pipeline efficiency by determining an
appropriate order to process memory requests. (Yalamanchili ¶ 41 (EX1006)).
Hughes and Pattin each disclose to consider attributes of the memory requests
when determining the order. (Yalamanchili ¶ 41 (EX1006)). Both references also
consider the source of the request attribute when determining the order.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 41 (EX1006)). Further, both Pattin and Hughes store their
attributes in a buffer, so that this information can be used by a memory controller
when determining the order. (Yalamanchili ¶ 41 (EX1006)).
Given the similarities in structure, objectives, and operation between Hughes
and Pattin, one would have been motivated to include the source identifier field, as
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
23/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
20
used in the buffer of Pattin, with the existing fields used in the buffer of Hughes.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 42 (EX1006)). This would provide an efficient way for the
memory controller of Hughes to identify the source. (Yalamanchili ¶ 42
(EX1006)). While it may be argued that Hughes already has this feature because
of Hughes’s explicit need to identify the source of the memory requests, the
additional teachings in Pattin clarify how the source identification can be obtained.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 42 (EX1006)). Adding the source identification field to Hughes is
well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art and would be
accomplished with a reasonable chance of success. (Yalamanchili ¶ 42 (EX1006)).
Doing so would require only minor hardware and/or software modifications to the
buffer and memory controller of Hughes. (Yalamanchili ¶ 42 (EX1006)).
4. Claim 1 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
Preamble: “A system comprising:”
Hughes discloses a data processing system having shared memory. ( Hughes
at 1:11–13, Figure 2 (EX1002)). Pattin discloses “[w]hat is desired is a DRAM
controller which is optimized for a multi-processor system.” ( Pattin at 1:51–52,
Figure 1 (EX1003)). Thus, both Hughes and Pattin disclose a “system” as recited
in claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 44 (EX1006)).
b)
a requested memory operation buffer configured to
receive memory requests from a plurality of sources”
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
24/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
21
Hughes discloses a “requested memory operation buffer.” (Yalamanchili
¶ 46 (EX1006)). Specifically, Hughes discloses that each memory request “is
stored in a buffer represented by blocks 104 through 107 in [Figure 3].” ( Hughes
at 5:43–45 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 46 (EX1006)). As Hughes indicates, there
are multiple sources that access the shared memory. (Yalamanchili ¶ 46
(EX1006)). The sources include an internal bus and its path 101, a corebus and its
path 102, and a processor and its path 103. ( Hughes at 5:36–40 (EX1002));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 46 (EX1006)). As shown in Figure 3, the buffer receives memory
requests from the sources. (Yalamanchili ¶ 46 (EX1006)). Thus, Hughes teaches
limitation (b) of claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 46 (EX1006)).
c)
“wherein said requested memory operation buffer is
further configured to provide, for each memory request, a
source indication of the one of said plurality of sources from
which the memory request was received; and”
The combination of Hughes and Pattin teaches this limitation.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 48 (EX1006)). Hughes discloses that the buffer 104–107 receives
memory requests from the sources. ( Hughes at 5:40–48 (EX1002) (“[r]equests
from each of the paths, include a starting address, a size and a direction indicating
whether the access is for read or write.”)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 48 (EX1006)). The
different portions 104–107 of the buffer, shown in Figure 3, confirm that each
source making a memory request has a corresponding buffer portion or queue.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
25/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
22
(Yalamanchili ¶ 48 (EX1006)). The buffer portions 104–107 themselves
correspond to respective sources of the placed memory requests. (Yalamanchili
¶ 48 (EX1006)). Thus, Hughes teaches to make an association between the source
of the request and the buffer portion 104-107 that contains the request.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 48 (EX1006)). The ’439 specification confirms this understanding
of “source indication.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 48 (EX1006)). The ’439 specification
describes that due to the association between various buses and queues, the
“queues convey information about the sources of the queued memory
transactions.” (’439 patent at 10:20–23, 10:7–13 (EX1001)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 48
(EX1006)).
Figure 5 of Pattin shows “a diagram of the fields for a memory request in
the request queue.” ( Pattin at 2:52–53 (EX1003)). The fields include, e.g.,
memory commands and, importantly, a source identifier field 36, shown by
annotation. ( Id . at 7:26–37 (EX1003)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 49 (EX1006)). In
particular, Pattin discloses that an “identifier for the source of the request is stored
in source field 36.” ( Pattin (EX1003)). Pattin further discloses the ability to
distinguish between multiple sources of the same type. ( Id
. at 11:56–58, 11:66–
67). The request prioritizer 22 uses the fields, including the source identifier field
36, to reorder the memory requests. ( Id . at 7:26–28, 8:14–16, 11:64–12:5
(EX1003)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 49 (EX1006)). The request prioritizer 22 in Pattin is
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
26/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
23
similar to the request selection processor 108 of Hughes. (Yalamanchili ¶ 49
(EX1006)).
Turning back to Hughes, this reference further discloses that “the priority, or
order of arbitration, is programmable to allow the most critical requester [i.e.,
source] to be service[d] before the lower priority requesters.” ( Hughes at 14:41–43
(EX1002)). Hughes teaches that this priority order may be static or dynamic. ( Id.
at 14:43–46 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 50 (EX1006)).
It would have been obvious for the buffer portions 104–107 of Hughes to
include a source field 36, as disclosed by Pattin. (Yalamanchili ¶ 51 (EX1006)).
The motivation for doing so is described above. Further, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would appreciate that this would allow for desired flexibility in providing
the “dynamic” assignment of priorities disclosed by Hughes. (Yalamanchili ¶ 51
(EX1006)). In particular, if the system’s needs changed, requiring different
priorities to be assigned to different sources, it would not matter which path 100–
103 was used by the different sources. (Yalamanchili ¶ 51 (EX1006)). Instead, a
memory controller would merely need to know which source is granted the highest
priority and then look to the source identification that is explicitly provided by the
buffer. (Yalamanchili ¶ 51 (EX1006)). Further, Pattin also acknowledges the use
of dynamic priorities. (Yalamanchili ¶ 51 (EX1006)). (Pattin at 11:56–60
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
27/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
24
(EX1003)). Thus, the combination of Hughes and Pattin teaches limitation (c) of
claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 51 (EX1006)).
d)
“a memory controller configured to receive said
memory requests and said source indication from said
requested memory operation buffer,”
Hughes discloses a memory controller, as described above in annotated
Figure 3, comprising at least elements 108–111. (Yalamanchili ¶ 53 (EX1006)).
Similar to the claimed “memory controller,” Hughes teaches that its request
selection processor 108 acts as an arbiter for receiving memory requests and source
indications. ( Hughes at 5:63–6:5 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 53 (EX1006)).
Specifically, Hughes teaches that the request selection processor 108 “is able to
select a request synchronously from each of the buffers 104 through 107 in order to
manage the shared memory pipeline according to the present invention.” ( Hughes
at 5:63–66 (EX1002)).
When Hughes’ buffer is modified to include “[a]n identifier for the source of
the request [that] is stored in source field 36,” as disclosed by Pattin, the “request
selection processor 108” of Hughes teaches limitation (d) of claim 1.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 54 (EX1006)). The motivation to modify Hughes based on Pattin
is further underscored by Hughes’s need to identify the source of the memory
request:
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
28/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
25
The request selection processor 108 is able to select a
request synchronously from each of the buffers 104
through 107 in order to manage the shared memory
pipeline according to the present invention. Thus, the
source of the data, the beginning address of the data, the
size of the access and the direction of the access are all
utilized in combination with information about current
requests pending in the shared memory pipeline, in order
to select a next optimum request according to the
parameters of the particular implementation.
( Hughes at 5:63–6:5, see also 7:57–59 (“By determining the source of the
request and determining, based on particular criteria, the order of the access
requests, controller 72 arbitrates access to the SDRAM.” (EX1002));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 54 (EX1006)).
Hughes therefore teaches that (1) the memory request and (2) the source of
the data are used by the request selection processor 108. (Yalamanchili ¶ 55
(EX1006)). As noted above, it would have been obvious for the source of the
request to be stored in the buffer of Hughes, as taught by Pattin. (Yalamanchili
¶ 55 (EX1006)). This modification would make clear that Hughes’s memory
controller is configured to receive the memory requests and the source indication
from its buffer. (Yalamanchili ¶ 55 (EX1006)). Thus, the combination of Hughes
and Pattin teaches limitation (d) of claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 55 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
29/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
26
e)
“wherein said memory controller is configured to
schedule accesses to a memory in response to said memory
requests.”
The combination of Hughes and Pattin teaches this feature. (Yalamanchili
¶ 57 (EX1006)). For example, Figure 4 of Hughes discloses to schedule accesses
to memory in response to memory requests. (Yalamanchili ¶ 57 (EX1006)). The
process of Figure 4 begins when the controller receives multiple requests (block
150). ( Hughes at 6:60–61 (EX1002)). The controller then “determines the priority
of the source of the plural requests” in block 151. ( Id. at 6:61–63 (EX1002)).
Thus, the controller must be able to determine which source is making the request,
and when modified based on Pattin, the controller is explicitly provided with the
source of the request. (Yalamanchili ¶ 57 (EX1006)). If multiple requests have
the highest priority, then a process is executed to select the optimum request.
( Hughes at 6:63–65 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 57 (EX1006)). If only one
request has the highest priority, then the high priority request is selected at block
152, the selected request is processed, and the algorithm returns (block 153).
( Hughes at 6:65–67 (EX1002)). Thus, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches limitation (e) of claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 57 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
30/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
27
5.
Claim 4 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The system as recited in claim 1, wherein said
requested memory operation buffer is further configured to
provide one or more parameters for each said memory request
in addition to said source indication to said memory controller
for use in scheduling the memory requests.”
Hughes teaches that parameters are stored in the buffer components 104–
107. ( Hughes at Figure 3 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 59 (EX1006)). Hughes
further discloses that “the memory controller includes logic responsive to
configuration parameters to control the priority of data paths sharing the memory.”
( Id. at 2:31-34 (EX1002)). Hughes teaches that information sent in the paths from
the sources, such as command attributes indicative of “read” and “write”
operations, are “parameters.” ( Id . at 5:42–43 (EX1002)). Thus, Hughes teaches
this limitation. (Yalamanchili ¶ 59 (EX1006)).
Similarly, Pattin teaches fields that are stored with each memory request in
the request queue. For example, Pattin describes that Figure 5 is a “diagram of the
fields for a memory request in the request queue.” ( Pattin at 7:26–37 (EX1003));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 60 (EX1006)). Thus, Pattin also teaches this limitation.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 60 (EX1006)).
6.
Claim 7 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a) “The system as recited in claim 4, wherein the one or
more parameters for each memory request comprise an
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
31/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
28
indication of whether or not the memory request is
speculative.”
For example, Pattin discloses that a “speculative/demand bit is added to
each entry in request queue 26 to indicate if the request is speculative, before cache
look-up, or demand, after cache look-up.” ( Pattin at 10:49–52 (EX1003)). Pattin
therefore teaches parameters that comprise an indication of whether or not the
memory request is speculative. (Yalamanchili ¶ 62 (EX1006)). Pattin also
discloses that “[a]ll speculative requests have a lower priority than other demand
requests.” ( Pattin at 10:25, 10:59–11:2, 11:4–9 (EX1003)).
Hughes discloses that “the priority, or order of arbitration, is programmable
to allow the most critical requester [i.e., source] to be service[d] before the lower
priority requesters.” ( Hughes at 14:41–43 (EX1002)). It would have been obvious
to modify one of the data fields in Hughes to provide an indication of whether or
not the memory request is speculative for the same reason taught by Pattin, which
is, for example, to consider whether a request is speculative when making a
priority determination. (Yalamanchili ¶ 63 (EX1006)). Thus, the combination of
Hughes and Pattin teaches the limitations of claim 7. (Yalamanchili ¶ 63
(EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
32/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
29
7.
Claim 10 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The system as recited in claim 4, wherein the one or
more parameters for each memory request are stored within a
tag associated with each memory request.”
Hughes describes storing parameters in fields for each memory request. The
parameters are stored in the buffer components 104–107. ( Hughes at 5:40–43,
Figure 3 (EX1002))); (Yalamanchili ¶ 65 (EX1006). A person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that the fields stored for each memory request, as
described by Hughes, teach or suggest the recited “tag.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 65
(EX1006)).
8.
Claim 11 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a) “The system as recited in claim 1, wherein said plurality
of sources comprises a central processing unit interface.”
The combination of Hughes and Pattin teaches or suggests claim 11. For
example, Hughes and Pattin each teaches or suggests the recited central processing
unit (CPU) interface. (Yalamanchili ¶ 67 (EX1006)).
Hughes teaches receiving requests from a plurality of units including a
“central processing node.” ( Hughes at 2:62–64 (EX1002)). One of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that a “central processing node” comprises a central
processing unit. (Yalamanchili ¶ 68 (EX1006)). Figure 3 of Hughes shows the
central processing node communicating with the buffer 107 through an interface
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
33/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
30
call an “internal processor complex path 103.” ( Hughes at 5:39–40 (EX1002)));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 68 (EX1006). Hughes further describes that a “processor complex
interface 53” is used. ( Id . at 4:47–48 (EX1002)). It would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art that the internal processor complex path 103 and
the processor complex interface 53 respectively teach CPU interfaces for the
central processing node. (Yalamanchili ¶ 68 (EX1006)).
Pattin teaches receiving requests from “CPU cores.” ( Pattin at 7:55–58
(EX1003)). The CPUs send memory requests using a “[b]us 54.” ( Id . at 6:64–66
(EX1003)). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the bus 54
provides the claimed CPU interface. (Yalamanchili ¶ 69 (EX1006)). Thus,
Hughes and Pattin each teaches or suggests this limitation. (Yalamanchili ¶ 69
(EX1006)).
9.
Claim 14 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The system as recited in claim 1, wherein said
requested memory operation buffer comprises a separate
memory request queue for each of said plurality of sources,”
Hughes teaches that its buffer comprises multiple portions 104–107.
( Hughes at 5:43–46, Figure 3 (EX1002))); (Yalamanchili ¶ 71 (EX1006). One of
ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the respective portions 104–107
provide separate memory request “queues.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 71 (EX1006)).
Hughes teaches to provide these queues for the plurality of sources, including the
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
34/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
31
coresbus, the internal bus and the processor. ( Hughes at 5:43–44, 14:34–37,
Figure 3 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 71 (EX1006)). Thus, Hughes teaches
limitation (a) of claim 14. (Yalamanchili ¶ 71 (EX1006)).
b) “wherein said requested memory operation buffer is
further comprised to provide each memory request to said
memory controller from one of said memory request queues,
wherein said source indication corresponds to one of said
memory request queues.”
Hughes teaches to provide each memory request to the memory controller,
shown above in annotated Figure 3, from the respective memory request queues.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 73 (EX1006)). For example, these memory requests are provided
through the connections shown in Figure 3 between (1) the queues 104–107 and
(3) the request selection processor 108 that forms part of the memory controller.
( Hughes at 5:45–46, Figure 3 (EX1002)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 73 (EX1006).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify
Hughes in view of Pattin, as discussed above, such that the queues 104–107 send
an indication of the source, in addition to the other parameters disclosed as being in
the queues 104–107. (Yalamanchili ¶ 74 (EX1006)). These source indications, for
example, would therefore respectively correspond to the queues 104–107.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 74 (EX1006)). The combination of Hughes and Pattin therefore
teaches limitation (b) of claim 14. (Yalamanchili ¶ 74 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
35/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
32
10.
Claim 15 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The system as recited in claim 1, wherein said source
indication comprises an identity of a request initiator for the
memory request.”
Pattin teaches or suggests the claimed “identity of a request initiator.” Pattin
discloses a source field that identifies the source of each memory request. ( Pattin
at 7:36–37 (EX1003))); (Yalamanchili ¶ 76 (EX1006). As described with respect
to claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify Hughes to include the source
field of Pattin. (Yalamanchili ¶ 76 (EX1006)). A person of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that this source field teaches “an identity of a request
initiator for the memory request.” (Yalamanchili ¶ 76 (EX1006)). Thus, the
combination of Hughes and Pattin teaches or suggests this limitation.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 76 (EX1006)).
11.
Claim 17 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“A method, comprising: receiving memory requests
from a plurality of sources;”
As noted above in Section VII.A.4, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “A method, comprising: receiving memory requests from a plurality of
sources.”
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
36/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
33
b)
“associating a source indication for each memory
request of the one of said plurality of sources from which the
memory request was received; and”
As noted above in Section VII.A.4, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “associating a source indication for each memory request of the one of said
plurality of sources from which the memory request was received.”
c)
“scheduling execution of said memory requests based
on said source indication.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.4, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “scheduling execution of said memory requests based on said source
indication.”
12.
Claim 20 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a) “The method as recited in claim 17, further comprising
associating one or more parameters with each said memoryrequest in addition to said source indication for use in said
scheduling.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.5, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “associating one or more parameters with each said memory request in
addition to said source indication for use in said scheduling.”
13.
Claim 23 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The method as recited in claim 20, wherein the one or
more parameters for each memory request comprise an
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
37/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
34
indication of whether or not the memory request is
speculative.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.6, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “wherein the one or more parameters for each memory request comprise an
indication of whether or not the memory request is speculative.”
14.
Claim 26 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The method as recited in claim 20, wherein the one or
more parameters for each memory request are stored within a
tag associated with each memory request.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.7, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “wherein the one or more parameters for each memory request are stored
within a tag associated with each memory request.”
15.
Claim 27 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The method as recited in claim 17, wherein said
plurality of sources comprises a central processing unit
interface.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.8, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “wherein said plurality of sources comprises a central processing unit
interface.”
16.
Claim 30 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The method as recited in claim 17, wherein said
associating a source indication for each memory request
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
38/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
35
comprises placing each memory requests in a separate
memory request queue for each of said plurality of sources.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.9, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “wherein said associating a source indication for each memory request
comprises placing each memory requests in a separate memory request queue for
each of said plurality of sources.”
17. Claim 31 is obvious in view of Hughes and Pattin
a)
“The method as recited in claim 17, wherein said
source indication comprises an identity of a request initiator
for the memory request.”
As noted above in Section VII.A.10, the combination of Hughes and Pattin
teaches “wherein said source indication comprises an identity of a request initiator
for the memory request.”
B.
Ground II: Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 26, 27, and 31 arerendered obvious by Flynn in view of Gagliardo
Flynn was not applied in a rejection during prosecution of the ’439 patent.
Flynn was cited by the applicant during prosecution. Gagliardo is not of record in
the ’439 patent.
1.
Overview of Flynn
Flynn is directed to a system that includes multiple sources that make
memory requests. (Yalamanchili ¶ 95 (EX1006)). In particular, Flynn discloses
multi-processor computer systems in which a system control unit (SCU) is used for
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
39/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
36
operating a plurality of central processor units (sources) and input/output units
(additional sources) in a parallel fashion. ( Flynn at 2:37–41 (EX1004));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 95 (EX1006)). Memory requests are arbitrated based on the
source of the request to provide system efficiency and fairness to the different
sources. ( Flynn at 2:41–45; 3:4–14) (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 95 (EX1006)).
Figure 1 of Flynn is reproduced below with annotations to show the plurality
of sources that make requests to a common memory 16. ( Flynn at 6:11–17
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 96 (EX1006)). The SCU 14 receives the memory
requests from the CPUs 12 and the input/output (I/O) units 20A. ( Flynn at 6:56–61
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 96 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
40/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
37
Communications between the SCU 14 and the memory 16 are handled
through a dedicated interface means 30. ( Flynn at 6:30–36 (EX1004));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 97 (EX1006)). With respect to details about the interface means
30, Flynn refers to and incorporates by reference U.S. patent application Ser. No.
07/306,326 (the “’326 application”). ( Flynn at 6:36–48 (EX1004)). Gagliardo’s
disclosure of the interface means 30 is discussed further below in more detail.
An objective of Flynn is to arbitrate memory requests “in order to achieve
the dual requirements of system efficiency and unit fairness.” ( Id . at 7:5–10
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 98 (EX1006)). Flynn discloses that “conventional
arbitration schemes, based, for instance, on the ‘round-robin’ approach or the
‘instantaneous execution’ approach are unsatisfactory for use in multi-processing
systems because they fail to provide efficient utilization of system resources in
combination with a reasonable response period in the arbitration of communication
requests.” ( Flynn at 7:16–23 (EX1004)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
41/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
38
Figure 3 of Flynn, shown here, includes a block diagram illustrating an
arrangement for implementing the arbitration scheme for the system in FIG. 1. ( Id .
at 10:64–10:68 (EX1004)). The CPU’s and I/O units send memory request
indications 112 that are stored within a prioritizer 113. ( Id . at 10:68–11:4
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 99 (EX1006)). Commands 114 associated with the
incoming requests are stored in a command buffer 115. ( Flynn at 10:68–11:4
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 99 (EX1006)). The commands indicate, for example,
whether a request is for a memory read or write operation. ( Flynn at 17:23–29
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 99 (EX1006)). The memory commands also require
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
42/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
39
target addresses of the memory being accessed. ( Flynn at 17:55–66 (EX1004));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 99 (EX1006)).
In operation, the prioritizer 113 issues a priority index signal 116 that
indicates which source should have its request prioritized. ( Flynn at 11:4–17
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 100 (EX1006)). The commands 114 and the priority
index signal 116 are sent to a multiplexer 117. ( Flynn at 11:4–9 (EX1004)). The
multiplexer 117 then selects the command corresponding to the source that should
be given priority. ( Id . at 11:4–9 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 100 (EX1006)).
Figure 4 of Flynn is reproduced below with annotations to show the
prioritizer 113 in more detail. The prioritizer includes latches 0–7. ( Flynn at
11:68–12:3, Figure 4 (EX1004)). The command buffer of Figure 3 and its
associated latches 0–7, shown in Figure 4, work together as a team to provide the
information sent to the multiplexer 117. ( Id . at 11:4–9 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili
¶ 101 (EX1006)). A latch is provided for each CPU and I/O unit that makes a
memory request. ( Flynn at 11:66–12:3 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 101
(EX1006)). For example, Latch 0 corresponds to the CPU connected to port “0.”
( Flynn
at 11:55–12:3 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 101 (EX1006)). The requests
REQ 00–REQ 07, from the different sources, are fed to a priority select network
162, also shown in Figure 4, which constitutes a logic arrangement for picking a
particular request on the basis of a predefined hierarchy of prioritizing levels.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
43/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
40
( Flynn at 12:40–44 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 101 (EX1006)). As one of
ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, the requests would contain at least one
bit of information to constitute the signal. (Yalamanchili ¶ 101 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
44/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
41
The prioritizer 113 implements a “hierarchical prioritizing scheme for
selection of requests for arbitration.” ( Flynn at 5:55–57 (EX1004)). The
hierarchical scheme is based on (1) selecting the request which is most outstanding
in terms of time of arrival at the SCU port when multiple requests arrive at a given
port, and (2) selecting, from such outstanding requests a single request “based on a
pre-defined hierarchy of request-originating sources.” ( Id . at 11:10–17 (EX1004));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 102 (EX1006))); (Yalamanchili ¶ 102 (EX1006). Flynn describes
that the hierarchy for assigning priorities is keyed to the particular system unit
originating a communication request:
[T]he highest priority is preferably awarded to requests
originating from memory, while requests from I/O units
are awarded a relatively lower priority, and finally,
requests originating from CPUs are awarded the lowest
priority.
( Flynn at 11:17–24 (emphasis added) (EX1004)).
Flynn therefore discloses to provide an indication of the source by virtue of
sending the REQ “XX” signal. (Yalamanchili ¶ 103 (EX1006)). The memory
requests, including an indication of the source, are then sent to a memory controller
through the interface 30, the details of which are discussed below with reference to
Gagliardo ( Flynn at 6:30–48 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 103 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
45/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
42
2.
Overview of Gagliardo
Gagliardo is intended to be used as the interface means 30 of Flynn, as
discussed further below in section VII(B)(3). (Yalamanchili ¶ 104 (EX1006)). A
comparison of Figure 1 in Gagliardo and Figure 1 in Flynn shows the relationship
between these two references.
Figure 1 of Gagliardo
Figure 1 of Flynn
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
46/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
43
The interface means 30 described in Gagliardo comprises an array control
unit (ACU). (Gagliardo at p. 5, line 57–p. 6, line 5; Figures 2 and 3 (EX1005)).
Figure 3 of Gagliardo is reproduced below to show how the ACU 34 interfaces
between the system control unit (SCU) 14 and the main memory unit (MMU) 36.
The MMU 36 functions as the storage section of the main memory 16. (Gagliardo
at p. 6, lines 2–3) (EX1005)).
The ACU is a memory controller. (Yalamanchili ¶ 106 (EX1006)). For
example, Gagliardo describes that “all communication between the SCU and the
main memory takes place” through the ACU. (Gagliardo at p. 4, lines 20–22
(EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 106 (EX1006)). Gagliardo further discloses that
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
47/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
44
“control for the memory modules [is] provided by the ACU. ( Id. at p. 4, lines 38–
40 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 106 (EX1006)).
As shown in Figure 3, the ACU has subcomponents, including a main
memory control (MMC) 70, memory control DRAM controller (MCD) 72 and
memory data path (MDP) modules 74 and 76. (Gagliardo at p. 8, lines 58–p. 9,
lines 16–20 (EX1005)).
The MMC module 70 in combination with the MCD module 72 provides
control for the data path and the memory modules. ( Id . at p. 8, line 58–p. 9, lines
1–2 (EX1005)). The MMC 70 and MCD 72 are linked to each other for exchange
of command signals, and are linked to the MMU 36 through control/status lines.
( Id . at p. 9, lines 2–4 (EX1005)). The MMC 70 is in direct communication with
SCU 14 by virtue of control/status lines. ( Id . at p. 9, lines 3–4 (EX1005)).
The data path section of the ACU 34 is divided between the two MDP's 74
and 76. ( Id. at p. 9, lines 16–17 (EX1005)). The MDP modules are linked to the
MMC 70 for accepting and acknowledging command signals, and linked to both
the SCU 14 and the MMU 36 through data lines for transfer of data between the
SCU and memory. ( Id.
at p. 9, lines 17–19 (EX1005)).
In operation, if the addressed memory segment is found to be busy, due to a
variety of reasons including a cycle delay in loading and unloading DRAM or due
to the need for the memory to be periodically refreshed on a per segment basis, the
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
48/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
45
ACU 34 continues monitoring the memory segment and reports back to the SCU
when the address segment becomes available, so that a desired memory operation
can proceed. ( Id. at p. 7, lines 4–7 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 110 (EX1006)). In
the meantime, the ACU 34, through suitable buffering, continues the processing,
on a sequential basis, of other memory access commands which are logged with
the SCU and require access to a memory segment which is available at the time.
(Gagliardo at p. 7, lines 8–10 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 110 (EX1006)). Thus,
the ACU 34 schedules access to memory based, e.g ., on the availability of the
memory segments corresponding to the received memory requests. (Yalamanchili
¶ 110 (EX1006)).
The SCU 14 sends memory commands to the MMC 70, located within the
ACU 34. (Gagliardo at p. 10, lines 15–18, p. 11, lines 14–15 (EX1005)). This
action is performed using segment command buffers (180 and 181 in FIG. 10)
which are located within each MMC and which correspond to the memory
segments controlled by the MMC. ( Id. at p. 10, lines 18–20 (EX1005)). These
memory commands correspond to the memory commands received by the SCU
from the devices seeking access to memory,e.g.
, CPU’s and I/O units. ( Id
. at
p. 10, lines 15–18 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 111 (EX1006)).
Gagliardo further discloses that an identification of the source making a
memory request is sent to the ACU 34, along with the memory command.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
49/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
46
(Gagliardo at p. 7, lines 43–44 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 112 (EX1006)).
Gagliardo envisions that the ACU 34 may use this identification to facilitate
“prioritizing of memory commands and help routing of accessed data appropriately
through the ACU and SCU to the system unit originating the command.”
(Gagliardo at p. 7, lines 44–46 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 112 (EX1006)).
Figure 15 of Gagliardo is reproduced below to show additional aspects
involved in executing memory operations using the ACU. (Gagliardo at p. 5, lines
23–24 (EX1005)).
Gagliardo describes the following steps with respect to Figure 15:
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
50/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
47
The interfacing action is initiated at step 261 by the
transmission of a signal from the ACU to the SCU
indicating that a command buffer is available for
accepting memory commands.
At step 262, a memory command prioritized for
execution by the SCU is transferred to the ACU along
with the corresponding index field.
The received memory command is checked at step
263 to determine whether the command was initiated by
a system CPU or I/O unit so that the appropriate protocol
of restrictions applicable to either a CPU or I/O memory
operation may be followed.
( Id. at p. 20, lines 40–48 (emphasis added) (EX1005)).
Gagliardo discloses that “if the requesting unit is found to be a CPU, step
264 is initiated and the memory system follows the CPU restriction protocol which
preferably includes the restriction of write transfers to eight quad-words at a time
and the specification of a single mask bit for every long-word of transferred data.”
( Id. at p. 20, lines 45–48 (EX1005)). Similarly, “[i]f the requesting unit is found to
be an I/O unit, step 265 is undertaken wherein the I/O protocol of restrictions is
followed wherein write transfers are preferably permitted for any one of 1, 2, 4, 6,
or 8 quad-words.” ( Id. at p. 20, lines 49–52 (EX1005)). The memory controller of
Gagliardo, the ACU, therefore receives the source indication, e.g ., indication of
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
51/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
48
whether the requesting unit is a CPU or I/O unit, and takes this information into
consideration to schedule access to memory. (Yalamanchili ¶ 115 (EX1006)).
3.
Motivation to combine Flynn and Gagliardo
Flynn and Gagliardo are each directed to systems that allow multiple
sources to access a shared memory and are in the same field of endeavor.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 116 (EX1006)). Flynn discloses that communications between the
SCU 14 and the memory 16 are handled through a dedicated interface means 30.
( Flynn at 6:30–36 (EX1004)). (Yalamanchili ¶ 116 (EX1006)). Both Flynn and
Gagliardo were owned by a common assignee at the time that Flynn was filed.
( Flynn at 6:40–48 (EX1004)). With respect to details about the interface means
30, Flynn refers to and incorporates by reference U.S. patent application Ser. No.
07/306,326 (“the ‘326 application”). ( Id. at 6:30–48 (EX1004)); (Yalamanchili
¶ 116 (EX1006)).
The ‘326 application was abandoned before issuing as a patent. However,
Gagliardo claims priority to the 326 application and embodies the ‘326 application
specification. (Gagliardo at p. 1 (EX1005)). The relied upon teachings of
Gagliardo are found in the 326 application. (Yalamanchili ¶ 117 (EX1006)). A
copy of the 326 application is included as Exhibit 1012. Thus, instead of referring
to the 326 application, Petitioner makes reference to Gagliardo to remove any
doubt about when the disclosure was first made publicly available. Flynn therefore
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
52/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
49
provides explicit motivation to use the interface means of the ‘326 application and
its corresponding EP counterpart to Gagliardo. (Yalamanchili ¶ 117 (EX1006)).
Adding Gagliardo’s interface to Flynn is well within the abilities of one of
ordinary skill in the art and would be accomplished with a reasonable chance of
success. (Yalamanchili ¶ 117 (EX1006)).
4.
Claim 1 is obvious in view of Flynn and Gagliardo
a) Preamble: “A system, comprising:
Flynn discloses “a multi-processing system 10 which uses a plurality of
central processing units (CPUs) 12 and is adapted to permit simultaneous, i.e.,
parallel, operation of the system CPUs by allowing them to share a common
memory 16 for the system.” ( Flynn at 6:13–17, Figure 1 shows the multiprocessor
system (EX1004)). Gagliardo also discloses “a multi-processing computer system
including a plurality of central processing units (CPUs) and input/output (I/O)
units….” (Gagliardo at p. 1, Abstract (EX1005)). Thus, both Flynn and
Gagliardo disclose a “system” as recited in claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 119
(EX1006)).
b)
“a requested memory operation buffer configured to
receive memory requests from a plurality of sources”
Flynn teaches the recited “requested memory operation buffer.”
(Yalamanchili ¶ 121 (EX1006)). For example, Flynn discloses a series of latches,
shown in Flynn’s Figure 4 above, that receive memory requests from a plurality of
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
53/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
50
sources. ( Flynn at 11:59–65 (EX1004) (“The arrangement 160 includes a series of
latches 161 for accepting incoming requests from eight SCU ports comprising four
CPU ports …two I/O ports…, and two memory ports ….”)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 121
(EX1006)). Flynn also discloses a command buffer 115, shown in Flynn’s Figure
3 above, which receives corresponding memory request information from a
plurality of sources. ( Flynn at 11:1–4 (EX1004) (“commands 114 associated with
incoming requests are accepted and initially stored in a separate command buffer
115”)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 121 (EX1006)). The command buffer 115 of Figure 3 and
its associated latches 0–7 shown in Figure 4 work together as a team to provide the
information sent to the multiplexer 117. ( Flynn at 10:68–11:4 (EX1004));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 121 (EX1006)). As one of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate, the combination of the command buffer 115 and its associated latches
0-7 act in a cooperative manner to temporarily store the memory requests, so as to
teach the claimed requested memory operation buffer. (Yalamanchili ¶ 121
(EX1006)). Even the ’439 patent acknowledges that “those skilled in the art will
recognize that such location is somewhat arbitrary, and that such buffers could be
distributed to other components throughout a system so long as the appropriate
functionalities were preserved.” (’439 patent at 11:27–32 (EX1001));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 121 (EX1006)).
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
54/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
51
Flynn discloses that sources of the requests include multiple CPU units and
I/O units. ( Flynn at 11:46–54 (EX1004) (“Preferably the SCU is adapted to have
up to three requests outstanding at every CPU port in the SCU and up to two
requests for each I/O unit and each memory unit port in the SCU . . . Similarly, up
to 20 corresponding incoming commands need to be stored and the command
buffer 115 is accordingly provided with the capacity to accomplish this.”)). Thus,
Flynn teaches limitation (b) of claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 122 (EX1006)).
c)
“wherein said requested memory operation buffer is
further configured to provide, for each memory request, a
source indication of the one of said plurality of sources from
which the memory request was received; and”
Flynn’s latches, which are considered to be part of Flynn’s overall buffer
configuration, teach this limitation. (Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). As described
above with respect to FIG. 4 and limitation (a) of claim 1, Flynn discloses that the
latches provide an indication of the source by virtue of sending the REQ “XX”
signals. (Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). The signals REQ 00–REQ 07, which are
shown in Figure 4 as being provided by the latches, represent the different sources.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). For example, the signal REQ 00 indicates that the
device at CPU port 0 made a memory request. ( Flynn at 11:68–12:3 (EX1004));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). Similarly, the signal REQ 04 indicates that the
device at I/O port 1 made a memory request. ( Flynn at 12:18–25 (EX1004));
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
55/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
52
(Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). These signals are provided for each memory
request that is made. (Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). The priority selector 162,
shown in Figure 4, knows which device or source sent the memory request based
on the individual signals REQ 00-07 that it receives. ( Flynn at 12:40–44
(EX1004)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)). Thus, Flynn teaches limitation (c) of
claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 124 (EX1006)).
d) “a memory controller configured to receive said
memory requests and said source indication from said
requested memory operation buffer,”
Gagliardo discloses this limitation. (Yalamanchili ¶ 126 (EX1006)). As
noted above, Gagliardo provides the interface means 30 of Flynn. The interface
means includes the ACU 34, which is a memory controller. (Yalamanchili ¶ 126
(EX1006)). For example, Gagliardo describes that “all communication between
the SCU and the main memory takes place” through the ACU. (Gagliardo at p. 4,
lines 20–22 (EX1005)). Gagliardo further discloses that “control for the memory
modules [is] provided by the ACU. ( Id. at p. 4, lines 38–40 (EX1005)).
The ACU of Gagliardo is intended to be used with the SCU 14 of Flynn, to
receive the memory requests and the source indication that are provided by the
buffer configuration of Flynn, i.e., the command buffer 115 and the latches 0–7.
(Yalamanchili ¶ 127 (EX1006)). In particular, Gagliardo discloses that the SCU
14 sends memory commands to the MMC 70, located within the ACU 34.
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
56/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
53
(Gagliardo at p. 10, lines 15–18, p. 11, lines 14–15, p. 20, lines 40–43 (EX1005));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 127 (EX1006)). This action is performed using segment
command buffers (180 and 181 in FIG. 10) which are located within each MMC
and which correspond to the memory segments controlled by the MMC.
(Gagliardo at p. 10, lines 18–20 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili ¶ 127 (EX1006)).
These memory commands correspond to the memory commands received by the
SCU from the devices seeking access to memory, e.g., CPU’s and I/O units. ( Id. at
p. 10, lines 15–18, p. 11, lines 14–15, p. 20, lines 40–43 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchili
¶ 127 (EX1006)). Gagliardo further discloses that an identification of the source
making a memory request is sent to the ACU 34, along with the memory
command. (Gagliardo at p. 7, lines 43–44, p. 20, lines 43–48 (EX1005));
(Yalamanchili ¶ 127 (EX1006)). Thus, the combination of Flynn and Gagliardo
teaches limitation (d) of claim 1. (Yalamanchili ¶ 127 (EX1006)).
e)
“wherein said memory controller is configured to
schedule accesses to a memory in response to said memory
requests.”
Gagliardo’s ACU 34 in combination with Flynn’s SCU 14 teaches this
limitation. (Yalamanchili ¶ 129 (EX1006)). Gagliardo discloses that if an
addressed memory segment is found to be busy, due to a variety of reasons
including a cycle delay in loading and unloading DRAM or due to the need for the
memory to be periodically refreshed on a per segment basis, the ACU 34 continues
-
8/17/2019 Unified Patents Inc. v. Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01026, Paper 1 (May 11, 2016)
57/68
IPR2016-01026 Petition
Patent 6,546,439
54
monitoring the memory segment and reports back to the SCU 14 when the address
segment becomes available, so that a desired memory operation can proceed.
(Gagliardo at p. 7, lines 4–7 (EX1005)); (Yalamanchil