[00:00:00] Speaker 04: to innovative memory systems versus micron. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: May it please the Court? [00:00:53] Speaker 02: Good afternoon. [00:00:53] Speaker 02: My name is Ed Flynn, and I represent the Appellant Innovative Memory Systems. [00:00:58] Speaker 02: Your Honor, as there are two primary sets of claim limitations involved in this appeal, one of the claim limitations is the claim [00:01:09] Speaker 02: term wherein the correspondence of blocks to zones is adjustable by controller. [00:01:15] Speaker 02: That's in claim one. [00:01:16] Speaker 02: And there are related limitations in claim 11 and claim 43. [00:01:20] Speaker 02: And the other claim limitation is the single controller that controls both programming, reading, and erasing, and also adjusts correspondence of blocks to zone. [00:01:32] Speaker 02: That's also a limitation of claim one and related limitations in claims 21, 32, and 43. [00:01:41] Speaker 04: So this is all claim, I'm going back to your principal argument about claims 111 and did you say 43 or 33? [00:01:48] Speaker 02: For the second claim element, single controller claim one and related limitations in claims 21, 32 and 43. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: So there's, it's claim construction dispute, am I correct? [00:02:04] Speaker 02: Yes, this is primarily claim construction dispute. [00:02:07] Speaker 04: One of the things the board faulted you on, or there was discussion, was why you didn't, the board kind of said, well, you should have used the term boundary and not correspondence. [00:02:19] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:02:20] Speaker 04: It didn't use the term boundaries? [00:02:22] Speaker 04: That you did not use the term boundaries. [00:02:24] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:02:25] Speaker 04: And used instead of that correspondence. [00:02:27] Speaker 04: So what's your response to that? [00:02:30] Speaker 02: The board said that one of the things that it considered, and actually Micron in its brief said that this was a fatal flaw, [00:02:37] Speaker 02: in our argument that although the entire specification talks about adjusting zone boundaries, the word boundaries does not appear in the claim. [00:02:46] Speaker 02: The word boundaries doesn't have to appear in the claim in order for the claim to be construed such as it requires adjusting zone boundaries. [00:02:57] Speaker 02: If that's what's described in the specification and the claim construction is to be looked at in light of the specification, the entire specification, [00:03:05] Speaker 02: The fact that the word boundaries itself isn't in the claim is of no consequence. [00:03:11] Speaker 02: It's certainly not a fatal consequence. [00:03:12] Speaker 04: Well, that depends. [00:03:12] Speaker 04: I mean, in some instances, it might be of no consequence. [00:03:16] Speaker 04: And in other instances, it may be. [00:03:17] Speaker 04: And I think part of that maybe is how clear the claim language is. [00:03:22] Speaker 04: If there's clean, clear claim language that says something different, then you've got a problem, right? [00:03:29] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:03:29] Speaker 02: But I think, in all due respect, that the claim language here is very clear. [00:03:34] Speaker 02: It walks through, I mean, if we start there with the claim language, it walks through that it is a memory comprised of a plurality of blocks, that the memory is organized into logical zones, each comprised of one or more blocks for address translation. [00:03:52] Speaker 02: The correspondence of blocks to zones is adjustable by controller. [00:03:57] Speaker 02: And so when you take that claim language and then you look at the specification, [00:04:02] Speaker 02: as to what does that mean? [00:04:03] Speaker 04: Well, let's just stay at the claim language, OK? [00:04:06] Speaker 04: And don't fight me on this, because I may agree with you. [00:04:09] Speaker 04: I'm sorry? [00:04:10] Speaker 04: Don't fight me too badly, because I may agree with you. [00:04:13] Speaker 04: So you're saying the board was focused on the construction of the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:04:21] Speaker 04: And is the dispute here whether the blocks that are being moved were in zone [00:04:29] Speaker 04: in zones or not in zones at the time? [00:04:33] Speaker 04: Is that what the dispute is? [00:04:34] Speaker 02: Well, the claim construction dispute is whether or not in order to adjust the correspondence of blocks to zones, the blocks have to have a correspondence to begin with. [00:04:45] Speaker 01: When you say the blocks have to have a correspondence, the blocks have to have been in another zone? [00:04:48] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:04:49] Speaker 01: The blocks have to have had a correspondence to begin with to a logical zone. [00:04:54] Speaker 02: So that when you're adjusting the correspondence, [00:04:57] Speaker 02: The correspondence, what sets the antecedent basis, if you will, for the correspondence is the assignment or allocation of the block to a logical zone in the first instance. [00:05:08] Speaker 02: And that's the immediately preceding claim element of this claim term that's in dispute. [00:05:13] Speaker 02: And so by having assigned a block to a logical zone in the first instance, which comes out of the immediately preceding claim element, [00:05:21] Speaker 02: then the next element says wherein the correspondence of blocks to zones is adjustable by controller, that the correspondence is referring to the correspondence that was set up by organizing. [00:05:33] Speaker 04: Well, let me ask you, or is there is another way of saying what you're saying is that the final wherein clause reference to correspondence of blocks to zones is referring to the earlier wherein. [00:05:46] Speaker 04: They're talking about exactly the blocks that were [00:05:50] Speaker 04: Organized into logical zones. [00:05:52] Speaker 02: OK. [00:05:52] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:05:53] Speaker 05: How is it not, how do you respond to the argument that it could be referring back to the plurality of blocks in the first limitation of the claim, of the body of the claim? [00:06:04] Speaker 05: May I ask you to repeat that, Your Honor? [00:06:06] Speaker 05: Sure, sure. [00:06:06] Speaker 05: I mean, I understand what your argument is. [00:06:08] Speaker 05: You're saying that when we refer to the, where the second wherein clause refers to the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:06:17] Speaker 05: It's referring to the one or more blocks referred to in the prior wherein clause. [00:06:22] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:06:23] Speaker 05: But why isn't it just as easily understood that those blocks are actually referring back to just the plurality of blocks introduced in the first line of the body of the claim? [00:06:35] Speaker 05: OK. [00:06:35] Speaker 02: So I will address actually the plurality of blocks and then what appears a little bit later, the addressed blocks. [00:06:40] Speaker 02: So the plurality of blocks is talking about the overall memory. [00:06:44] Speaker 02: The memory is comprised of the plurality of blocks. [00:06:47] Speaker 02: So the address blocks, which follow in another claim element, and then the blocks in the last element of the claim, they are all subsets of the memory and the plurality of blocks. [00:06:57] Speaker 02: So when we're talking about up above, when it first recites to the plurality of blocks, that's not even in the context of the claim element that talks about adjusting the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:07:09] Speaker 02: The address blocks does not add any confusion to what is the clear claim language. [00:07:15] Speaker 02: The board seemed to suggest that, well, [00:07:17] Speaker 02: This last claim element could have been referring to the address blocks. [00:07:21] Speaker 02: We don't know. [00:07:21] Speaker 02: Well, the address blocks, if you look at the specification, the way that they're even described, the address blocks are the blocks to which data can be programmed and from which data can be read. [00:07:33] Speaker 02: And that's described throughout in the specification that that's what they're using those address blocks for. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: By definition, by being address blocks, [00:07:42] Speaker 02: they must have associated address translation tables to be able for the controller to be able to translate from the logical address to the physical address of those blocks. [00:07:52] Speaker 02: In order for them to be able to have data written to and read from, they have to be part of the logical zones that have the associated address translation tables. [00:08:09] Speaker 02: So those address blocks [00:08:11] Speaker 02: are by definition within the set of blocks that have been organized into logical zones whose correspondence is adjustable in the last claim element. [00:08:25] Speaker 05: Why could the word correspondence be broad enough to mean just like how many blocks you're going to have and how many zones you're going to have? [00:08:35] Speaker 05: Maybe in one correspondence you'll have two zones and 50 blocks, and then in another correspondence you'll have [00:08:40] Speaker 05: four zones and 60 blocks. [00:08:44] Speaker 02: It doesn't matter necessarily how many blocks are in each zone for purposes of correspondence. [00:08:48] Speaker 05: I understand that, but my point is that correspondence is a broad term. [00:08:51] Speaker 05: How do I know that that's not one possible meaning of correspondence? [00:08:57] Speaker 05: Because correspondence is a broad word. [00:08:59] Speaker 02: Well, and I think that the board construed correspondence as a connection to or a relation to. [00:09:08] Speaker 02: And we took no issue [00:09:10] Speaker 02: with saying that that term in and of itself, correspondence, means relation to. [00:09:14] Speaker 02: But even if you use that common understanding of what correspondence means, it still means that when you're adjusting the correspondence or the relation, that it has to have a correspondence or relation to begin with. [00:09:27] Speaker 02: And the correspondence or the relation to begin with comes from having organized the memory into logical zones. [00:09:34] Speaker 02: That's what gives the relation within the context of the claim language [00:09:38] Speaker 02: and then particularly as informed by the specification. [00:09:42] Speaker 02: That's what gives that correspondence its meaning with respect to the correspondence being adjustable by the controller. [00:09:51] Speaker 05: So your key claim construction argument depends on the words adjustable and also this relationship referring back to the earlier wherein clause. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: Do I understand that correctly? [00:10:01] Speaker 02: Yes, the relationship referring back to the immediately preceding clause, all informed in the context [00:10:08] Speaker 02: of the specification that is all about adjusting zone boundaries. [00:10:13] Speaker 02: So beginning with the title of the patent, which says zone boundary adjustment. [00:10:24] Speaker 02: And there are multiple places in the specification where it talks about the present invention and the principal aspect of the present invention. [00:10:38] Speaker 00: though, is that, and you're making a very good argument here, but the positions that are being articulated in the argument I don't see are in the specification. [00:10:49] Speaker 00: And the main problem that I have is that the claims themselves do not refer to boundaries. [00:10:55] Speaker 00: Now, if boundaries, you're now saying that boundaries, you can find it all throughout the specification. [00:11:01] Speaker 00: That's true. [00:11:02] Speaker 00: Why isn't it in the claims? [00:11:04] Speaker 02: Well, what is in the claim is that they are dividing the memory into the logical zones. [00:11:09] Speaker 02: So those logical zones set up the boundaries. [00:11:15] Speaker 02: So when they talk in the specification about adjusting the zone boundaries. [00:11:19] Speaker 02: No, I understand that. [00:11:20] Speaker 00: I just don't understand why the claims don't use boundaries and contain boundaries as a limitation. [00:11:29] Speaker 02: For whatever reason, the patent he chose not to include the word boundaries in the claim [00:11:34] Speaker 02: Okay, then why should we import that limitation into the claim? [00:11:38] Speaker 02: Because even though the word, we're not asking you to import anything. [00:11:43] Speaker 02: We're only asking you to construe the claim. [00:11:45] Speaker 00: Well, let's say that I, it seems to me that you are asking us to import this limitation. [00:11:51] Speaker 00: Now, explain to me why we should not do that. [00:11:54] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:11:55] Speaker 02: So when we talk about, when the claim language talks about dividing the memory into logical zones, and it talks about adjusting the correspondence of blocks to zones, [00:12:05] Speaker 02: If you go to the specification and you look at the specification and everywhere it talks about how it explains and describes these logical zones and then it describes how you, in order to replace, it's an improved method of being able to replace defective blocks that occur within one of those logical zones so that not only a time of manufacture to increase product yield but to extend the lifetime of the product in the field [00:12:33] Speaker 02: that what you're able to do using this kind of method is you're able to adjust, you're able to take the block from one logical zone. [00:12:43] Speaker 02: It's no longer necessary for you to confine the block in that logical zone. [00:12:49] Speaker 02: You can now adjust the zone boundaries so that a block that was once in one of those zones can now be brought down or brought up into another zone that needs it. [00:13:01] Speaker 04: So do you think those terms correspondence and boundaries are interchangeable? [00:13:08] Speaker 04: Is that your point? [00:13:08] Speaker 04: Are you saying the claims recite the correspondence, not just the word correspondence, the correspondence, which I think is an important point. [00:13:16] Speaker 04: But anyway, between the zone and its components, i.e. [00:13:20] Speaker 04: blocks already part of zones, to assist the zones with defective blocks. [00:13:25] Speaker 04: So whether you express it as changing the boundaries or the correspondence, [00:13:32] Speaker 04: Is it your view that it's the same thing? [00:13:34] Speaker 02: We're not using the term synonymously. [00:13:36] Speaker 02: The correspondence refers to the relation of the block to the zone. [00:13:42] Speaker 02: The boundary is the boundary, if you will, between the logical zones. [00:13:48] Speaker 02: But although the term correspondence and boundary is not synonymous, what we're saying is as informed by the specification, when you adjust the correspondence of the blocks to the zones, the specification tells you [00:14:02] Speaker 02: That's what you're doing. [00:14:03] Speaker 02: You're adjusting the zone boundary. [00:14:04] Speaker 02: You're taking it from one zone, and you're putting it into another zone. [00:14:09] Speaker 05: Does your specification use different words other than changing the zone boundaries to describe this process? [00:14:15] Speaker 05: I'll give you an example. [00:14:17] Speaker 05: In column 10, like around line 60, it talks about the dynamic allocation of spare blocks. [00:14:24] Speaker 05: Is that a different way? [00:14:25] Speaker 02: What line, Your Honor? [00:14:25] Speaker 02: I'm sorry? [00:14:26] Speaker 05: Column 10, line 58 through 59. [00:14:32] Speaker 05: It talks about that dynamic allocation of spare blocks. [00:14:37] Speaker 05: And my question is, do you think your specification uses different words to describe changing of the zone boundaries? [00:14:45] Speaker 02: I don't think they may be different words, what you just referred to. [00:14:49] Speaker 02: But that dynamic allocation of spare blocks, that means the same thing. [00:14:52] Speaker 02: That means dynamically in the field, because you're able to adjust these zone boundaries, you can reallocate blocks from one zone to another. [00:15:01] Speaker 02: That's what that language dynamic allocation is referring to. [00:15:05] Speaker 05: Can I ask you also just on the same column, but further up at lines 51 through 53, it refers to, it says, spare blocks may be evenly distributed among zones. [00:15:22] Speaker 05: after an initial boundary adjustment at test time? [00:15:25] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:15:26] Speaker 05: Is the language evenly distributed among zones? [00:15:30] Speaker 05: Is that the same thing as boundary adjustment? [00:15:34] Speaker 02: When it's talking about being evenly distributed among zones, that means within each zone, you have to have a number of data blocks, active blocks, and then you also have to have a certain minimum threshold number of spare good blocks that can be used to replace defective blocks within that zone. [00:15:51] Speaker 02: So when they're talking there in the specification about being evenly distributed among the zones, they're talking about each zone having as evenly distributed number of spare good blocks in that zone as you can. [00:16:04] Speaker 05: But it's different words that could be used to refer to assigning particular blocks to particular zones. [00:16:14] Speaker 02: That's not adjusting the zone blocks, though. [00:16:16] Speaker 02: That's just putting them in there to begin with. [00:16:18] Speaker 02: And what that's saying, that language is saying, [00:16:20] Speaker 02: First, at time of manufacture, that's when you can initially use this zone boundary adjustment, if you will. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: That's when you can see when you're manufacturing the thing, the whole memory, and you can scan the memory, you can see where the defective blocks are within the memory, and then you divide the memory into the logical zones. [00:16:38] Speaker 02: That's the first time that you can, or if you have them into logical zones and you scan, that's the first time that you can adjust the boundaries of those zones, that you can take a block from one logical zone and put it in another logical zone. [00:16:50] Speaker 02: But that's only the first part of the process. [00:16:53] Speaker 02: That's the first time in the process. [00:16:55] Speaker 02: Now we go into the field. [00:16:56] Speaker 02: And now more blocks are becoming defective in the field. [00:17:00] Speaker 02: And the whole purpose of this patent is by being able to adjust the zone boundary as defects come up even in the field, you can still allocate dynamically, if you will. [00:17:10] Speaker 02: Or you can still adjust the zone boundary to be able to put a good block from one zone, now move it up into another zone that needs that good block and doesn't have enough of them in there. [00:17:20] Speaker 02: You do it. [00:17:21] Speaker 02: And if you look at figures four through six in the patent, you do it by adjusting those zone boundaries. [00:17:26] Speaker 02: That shows you the figures of how they adjust the zone boundaries in order to accomplish that. [00:17:33] Speaker 04: OK. [00:17:33] Speaker 04: You've run over your rebuttal. [00:17:35] Speaker 04: We'll restore some time. [00:17:36] Speaker 04: Let's hear from the other side. [00:17:37] Speaker 02: I appreciate. [00:17:38] Speaker 02: I did my best to respond to your questions. [00:17:40] Speaker 02: Perhaps in rebuttal, you'll allow me to address the other issue, the single controller that [00:17:46] Speaker 04: Well, I think that's unlikely because we want the other side to, you want to have the opportunity to have the other side respond so you can come back, but we'll see how things go. [00:17:55] Speaker 02: Okay, thank you. [00:18:36] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:18:37] Speaker 03: May it please the Court. [00:18:38] Speaker 03: Jared Bobrow for Micron. [00:18:41] Speaker 03: As the Court has been discussing with IMS's counsel, the principal issue here, and frankly the most straightforward way for the Court to affirm the Board's decision below, is to simply affirm its claim construction, which gave natural, ordinary meaning to this phrase, wherein the correspondence of blocks to zones [00:19:03] Speaker 03: is adjustable by control. [00:19:05] Speaker 04: Can you just step back a minute? [00:19:06] Speaker 04: Why don't you go back to the other wherein clause? [00:19:09] Speaker 04: When you're talking about construing the claim language, let's at least put it in the context of wherein the memory is organized into logical zones, each comprised of one or more blocks for address translation. [00:19:24] Speaker 04: So if it's discussing the universe, it's got zones, each of which is comprised by blocks. [00:19:33] Speaker 04: And then when you get to the second we're in, and you're talking about the correspondence of blocks to zones, why is that not fairly construed as going back to the universe we've just been talking about, which is zones comprised of one or more blocks? [00:19:50] Speaker 03: Do you understand the question? [00:19:51] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:19:52] Speaker 03: And it's because there's another universe. [00:19:54] Speaker 03: And that other universe is at the very beginning of the claim, which is referring to the memory. [00:19:58] Speaker 03: And it says, the memory is comprised of a plurality of blocks. [00:20:04] Speaker 04: OK, well, that's talking about the memories. [00:20:06] Speaker 04: But that's preceded by the memory circuit, system circuit. [00:20:11] Speaker 04: And I can't, this isn't my field, so I can't begin to know the nuances between the universes we're talking about. [00:20:19] Speaker 04: But your reading of this is that this means this covers blocks that aren't in zones? [00:20:27] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:20:28] Speaker 03: So really there are multiple points here to try to unpack. [00:20:33] Speaker 03: The first point is that the language says the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:20:39] Speaker 03: It does not say the correspondence of said blocks for address translation to zones. [00:20:47] Speaker 03: That would be clear. [00:20:48] Speaker 03: That would mean that it's specifically referring back to the immediately preceding use of the word blocks. [00:20:54] Speaker 03: All the patentee had to do was say, [00:20:57] Speaker 03: said one or more blocks, but it didn't. [00:21:00] Speaker 04: You're right. [00:21:01] Speaker 04: That might have been nice for your friends on the other side, but that's not the only way. [00:21:07] Speaker 04: I understand your reference to the first thing that just talks about memory comprising plurality of blocks. [00:21:13] Speaker 04: But the section we're looking at, this limitation begins by a controller. [00:21:18] Speaker 04: It's funny. [00:21:19] Speaker 04: It begins by the word controller, and it ends with the word controller. [00:21:24] Speaker 04: And it seems to me a fair reading [00:21:28] Speaker 04: is, so in this limitation, we're starting with the controller, dealing with the blocks, when it says the memory is organized. [00:21:36] Speaker 04: How is the memory that we're talking about being affected by this controller organized? [00:21:42] Speaker 04: And it only says, interlogical zones, each comprised of one or more blocks. [00:21:49] Speaker 04: And then it talks about blocks and zones. [00:21:51] Speaker 04: You following what I'm saying? [00:21:53] Speaker 04: Are you understanding what I'm saying? [00:21:55] Speaker 03: I believe that I do. [00:21:57] Speaker 03: I have two responses. [00:21:58] Speaker 03: So the first response is that the fact that it's talking about blocks in this very last phrase and doesn't use the word the, or said, or what have you, means that it can refer back to the preceding paragraph. [00:22:12] Speaker 03: And indeed, the language that says wherein the memory is organized, that is referring back to the preceding, let's call it paragraph that begins a memory comprising. [00:22:23] Speaker 03: The idea of the patent is that you have a memory [00:22:26] Speaker 03: That memory has a plurality of blocks. [00:22:29] Speaker 03: And indeed, some of those blocks are going to be in logical zones. [00:22:33] Speaker 03: But that doesn't mean that absolutely 110% of the blocks are necessarily and always in a logical zone. [00:22:39] Speaker 03: Some of them may be, some of them may not. [00:22:42] Speaker 05: So I hear what you're saying, but I want to go back to the is organized. [00:22:46] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:22:47] Speaker 05: Where it says the memory is organized. [00:22:49] Speaker 05: It doesn't say the memory comprises logical zones. [00:22:54] Speaker 05: is organized into logical zones. [00:22:57] Speaker 05: So I want to know, do you think that's closed or open language? [00:23:00] Speaker 03: I think it's open. [00:23:00] Speaker 03: And the reason that I think it's open is because you have a memory, you have a plurality of blocks, and you can have within that memory essentially an array that you're going to say is zone one, two, three, and four. [00:23:15] Speaker 03: But that doesn't mean that there can't be other blocks in the memory that are... But why is is organized? [00:23:21] Speaker 05: I understand what the difference is between open and closed phrases. [00:23:25] Speaker 05: And you're just telling me it's open and telling me what open means. [00:23:30] Speaker 05: Why is it open? [00:23:31] Speaker 03: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:23:33] Speaker 03: I was trying to make the point that it's open because when it says the memory is organized into these zones, that's not saying that every block has to be in a zone. [00:23:43] Speaker 03: There can be parts of the organization of a memory that are indeed logical zones. [00:23:49] Speaker 03: But that's not saying that there aren't other parts of the memory where there could be a block. [00:23:54] Speaker 03: And so the fact that you have this plurality of blocks and that that's the memory, there can be blocks that aren't put into a logical zone. [00:24:05] Speaker 03: So that's essentially why it's open. [00:24:07] Speaker 05: Let me make my second point, though, which is... But what about, I understand because it says, is organized into logical zones, each comprised of one or more blocks, right? [00:24:16] Speaker 05: So I see [00:24:18] Speaker 05: what you're saying about how maybe it might be that there's extra blocks. [00:24:23] Speaker 05: But what about, can the memory have anything that's not in a logical zone? [00:24:27] Speaker 05: Because it is organized into logical zones. [00:24:31] Speaker 05: Why is is organized open? [00:24:35] Speaker 03: Because you could have a memory that is organized into zones. [00:24:41] Speaker 03: But that doesn't mean that every single piece of the memory is comprised within or falls within a zone. [00:24:47] Speaker 03: There could be peripheral circuits in the memory that are not part of those logical zones. [00:24:51] Speaker 05: Are you familiar with any case law that is construed is organized or anything like that? [00:24:55] Speaker 05: I mean, you know, we have obviously comprising, consisting essentially of. [00:25:00] Speaker 03: Yes, I'm sorry you're on the right. [00:25:02] Speaker 05: I didn't think you would. [00:25:03] Speaker 03: But if I may, I think there's an important second point to make here, which is that even if [00:25:11] Speaker 03: even if the blocks that are referred to in this very last clause are referring back to these blocks in the penultimate clause where it says interlogical zones, each comprised of one or more blocks. [00:25:25] Speaker 03: Assuming that's the case, Tanaka still renders this obvious and there were findings to this effect because the correspondence of blocks to zones still is adjusted if you bring a block in from outside of the zone [00:25:41] Speaker 03: And you bring it into the logical zone. [00:25:45] Speaker 04: Did the boards give an alternative finding based on a different claim construction? [00:25:52] Speaker 03: It did. [00:25:52] Speaker 03: Where is that? [00:25:55] Speaker 03: Well, the direct answer to your question is on page 23, appendix page 23. [00:26:09] Speaker 03: This is related to the point I was making, which was that the board says. [00:26:13] Speaker 05: Could you tell us what the sentence is that you're relying on on page 23? [00:26:17] Speaker 05: You might find it right now, but I don't want to miss what you're saying by reading this page while you're talking. [00:26:33] Speaker 03: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:26:34] Speaker 03: On page appendix 23, towards the top, there's a paragraph that starts, moreover, and it's in that paragraph that the board made the alternative holding that even if you adopt IMS's proposed construction of, quote, [00:26:49] Speaker 03: adjusting zone boundaries such that blocks from one logical zone are shifted to another logical zone. [00:26:55] Speaker 03: If you adopt that, the board found that Tanaka meets that, because Tanaka has logical zones, it has zones one through four and other zones, there's a redundant block area, and if you bring in a- But then we're talking about they go on to seem to say like there's a sub-claim construction dispute that might be going on here about now the definition of zones, [00:27:17] Speaker 04: and the declarations, so can you point me to our construction? [00:27:22] Speaker 03: So the construction that was proposed was at appendix page eight, I believe. [00:27:32] Speaker 04: This seems to be talking about, I don't know, I'm looking, and I'm still on 23 trying to get through that. [00:27:40] Speaker 04: Our claim construction, meaning the board, [00:27:44] Speaker 04: which patent owner does not contest. [00:27:46] Speaker 04: Was that right? [00:27:48] Speaker 03: Sir, on appendix page 23, the paragraph that starts moreover, it says, even if we adopted patent owner's construction, that's the third line from the top, even if we adopted patent owner's construction, we agree with petitioner that the combined teachings of Tanaka and Astakery would still teach this limitation. [00:28:09] Speaker 03: The construction. [00:28:11] Speaker 05: The question, though, is about what is this reference? [00:28:14] Speaker 05: It's on page 23. [00:28:15] Speaker 05: It's about eight lines up. [00:28:17] Speaker 05: And it says, our construction, which the patent owner does not contest, only requires that a logical zone. [00:28:23] Speaker 05: What is this which the patent owner does not contest? [00:28:26] Speaker 05: It suggests that maybe this is talking about a different claim term. [00:28:32] Speaker 03: No. [00:28:32] Speaker 03: So at the very top, where it says, moreover, even if we adopted the patent owner's construction, [00:28:39] Speaker 03: That's the construction on page nine, appendix page nine. [00:28:42] Speaker 03: At the bottom, that's referring to the undisputed construction of the phrase logical zones, which appears on appendix page eight. [00:28:52] Speaker 03: On appendix page eight, there's an undisputed construction of what a logical zone is, and that's, quote, a logical subdivision of the total capacity of the non-volatile memory die. [00:29:03] Speaker 03: What this is saying and what the board found [00:29:06] Speaker 03: is that when you take that stipulated construction of a logical zone and you take the patent owner's proposed construction, transferring from one logical zone to another, Tanaka meets that because Tanaka's redundant zone area meets that definition of a logical zone. [00:29:26] Speaker 03: So Tanaka has a redundant area, a logical zone, blocks from that logical area go from that redundant area to a zone. [00:29:36] Speaker 05: And that's based on the view that there's no requirement that the blocks have a logical address that's pre-assigned. [00:29:42] Speaker 05: That the adjustment doesn't require a change of the logical address. [00:29:47] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:29:48] Speaker 03: There is no requirement that there be a pre-assigned address. [00:29:52] Speaker 03: There is no requirement that a block come from a logical zone. [00:29:56] Speaker 03: And that relates to that second point that I had mentioned earlier. [00:30:01] Speaker 03: So this is saying the board clearly made an alternative finding that when you take the stipulated construction of logical zone and you apply that to Tanaka, it's met because Tanaka's redundant block area is a logical zone under this definition and I take a block from that redundant area and move it into one of Tanaka's other zones, that changes the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:30:25] Speaker 03: But importantly, even [00:30:27] Speaker 03: Even if you don't accept this alternative under the patent donor's construction, as I mentioned earlier, if you simply take that claim language, wherein the correspondence of blocks to zones is adjustable by controller, and you assume that those blocks are only those blocks that are in the logical zones in the preceding clause, under the construction adopted by the board, [00:30:57] Speaker 03: Tanaka still needs that, because if I have blocks in a logical zone, let's say I have a logical zone number one, and let's say that it has blocks A, B, C, and D in it, snapshot in time, those are the blocks that are in that zone. [00:31:15] Speaker 03: And that is referred, you know, so we can say that that is a logical zone and it's comprised of one or more blocks. [00:31:22] Speaker 03: Now, if I take a block from Tanaka's redundant block area, [00:31:28] Speaker 03: which the patent owner is saying is not in a zone. [00:31:32] Speaker 03: We think it is, but they're saying that. [00:31:34] Speaker 03: If I take a block from that redundant area and I replace, say, block D of one of my four blocks with a replacement block, I have changed the correspondence of blocks to zones in zone one. [00:31:51] Speaker 03: It used to have blocks A, B, C, and D in it, [00:31:55] Speaker 03: I took a block, we'll call it block R, from the redundant zone area. [00:31:59] Speaker 03: I replaced block D with block R. I've changed the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:32:04] Speaker 05: Do I understand correctly what to be your adversary's position, which is that that doesn't actually work because in that hypothetical, the block wasn't initially provided an address for translation. [00:32:22] Speaker 03: I think that is the argument but that doesn't matter because the claim says that there are the memories organized into logical zones each comprised of one or more blocks for address translation. [00:32:36] Speaker 03: There is no dispute at all that in Tanaka zones 1, 2, 3, and 4 in figure 48 that those are logical zones that have blocks for address translation undisputed. [00:32:49] Speaker 03: So if I take a block from the redundant block area [00:32:52] Speaker 03: and that gets reallocated to one of the zones in Tanaka. [00:32:58] Speaker 03: I have absolutely adjusted the correspondence of blocks. [00:33:02] Speaker 04: I'm really, I guess I piggybacking on Judge Stowell's question, is there evidence, we're talking about this redundant block area, so we're now into lots of different terms, but is there anything that the board said about this [00:33:16] Speaker 04: Redundant block area in Tanaka is a zone in which memory is already organized or mapped to an address, because that's what the claims require. [00:33:26] Speaker 03: Aren't you saying that redundant blocks are unassigned? [00:33:33] Speaker 04: In other words, they're not yet organized into a logical zone for addressed translation. [00:33:40] Speaker 04: Am I right about that? [00:33:41] Speaker 03: Yes, they are assigned when the adjustment occurs, they get a logical address. [00:33:46] Speaker 03: But, and this is at appendix page 20, the board found that Tanaka discloses that blocks can be organized into logical zones. [00:33:58] Speaker 03: So that's a specific finding. [00:33:59] Speaker 04: And it further found that Tanaka- Well, that's fine, but how does that [00:34:02] Speaker 04: I didn't see where you disputed that Tanaka spare blocks, in other words, the redundant blocks that we're talking about, are unassigned. [00:34:12] Speaker 04: In other words, they're not yet assigned into a logical zone for address translation. [00:34:17] Speaker 03: Am I wrong about that? [00:34:18] Speaker 03: They are unassigned for a period of time. [00:34:21] Speaker 03: They are for address translation, because that's the whole point of having those blocks, is to use those defective blocks and then the logical zones and the physical blocks get reallocated. [00:34:32] Speaker 03: So yes, they are for address translation. [00:34:34] Speaker 03: and we address that in our brief. [00:34:37] Speaker 03: But the key point here is that there is nothing in the claim, even under the, essentially when you look at this correspondence language, nothing that says that a block has to begin in something that has a logical address or anything for it to adjust the correspondence of blocks to zones in the logical zone. [00:35:00] Speaker 03: Tanaka has [00:35:02] Speaker 03: what it calls logical zones that are indisputably logical zones. [00:35:06] Speaker 03: There's no contesting that on the other side. [00:35:08] Speaker 03: If I take something that is outside of one of those zones and bring it in, I've adjusted the correspondence of blocks to zones. [00:35:16] Speaker 01: Okay, we're way beyond our time. [00:35:18] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:35:19] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:35:36] Speaker 04: We're restoring three minutes of rebuttal. [00:35:39] Speaker 04: Just to be clear, though, you should be responding to this issue. [00:35:42] Speaker 04: Trust me, we've read the briefs on the other issue, so we will not discard that. [00:35:46] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:35:47] Speaker 02: So I'm just going to kind of pick up where Mr. Barbeau left off. [00:35:51] Speaker 02: Indeed, the claims do require that the blocks whose correspondence is adjustable, correspondence of zones is adjustable by the controller, do start off in a logical zone that has been organized for address translation. [00:36:06] Speaker 02: That's why Tanaka's redundant blocks that are admittedly not part of any kind of logical zone that was organized for address translation, that's why the use of those redundant blocks to replace a defective block within a logical zone doesn't meet the claim limitation. [00:36:24] Speaker 00: Your Honor, if you would... What claim limitation doesn't it meet? [00:36:27] Speaker 00: The language wherein the memory is organized? [00:36:31] Speaker 02: Could you repeat that? [00:36:32] Speaker 00: What part of the claim limitation you say does not meet? [00:36:35] Speaker 00: And I'm going back to claim one. [00:36:38] Speaker 00: Are you referring to the language wherein the memory is organized? [00:36:44] Speaker 02: Yes, where it talks about in claim one, wherein the memory is organized into logical zones, each comprised of one or more blocks for address translation. [00:36:52] Speaker 02: That's the element of the claim that requires that the logical zones be organized for address translation. [00:36:57] Speaker 00: So if you have blocks that are organized into the [00:37:01] Speaker 00: redundant blocks, then that does not meet this claim language. [00:37:04] Speaker 02: That's correct, because even though it may be in the context of that those redundant blocks are organized into a logical zone in the sense that they are a subdivision of the total capacity of the memory die. [00:37:21] Speaker 02: And that's what I believe that Chief Judge Post, you were referring to before on page 23 of the final written decision. [00:37:28] Speaker 02: that talked about this part of the construction that we did not contest. [00:37:32] Speaker 02: We did not contest that that's what the definition of logical zone is, that it's a subdivision of the total capacity of the die. [00:37:40] Speaker 02: But that's not the end of the story. [00:37:41] Speaker 02: The logical zone has to be organized for address translation. [00:37:46] Speaker 02: So when Tanaka's are redundant blocks, when they're in their logical zone, as the board has construed logical zone to mean, that's OK. [00:37:55] Speaker 02: But you've got to take it one step further. [00:37:57] Speaker 02: Then you have to be able to show that that logical zone was organized for address translation. [00:38:02] Speaker 02: That's what Tanaka's redundant blocks. [00:38:05] Speaker 02: That's what they don't satisfy. [00:38:06] Speaker 02: That's why the moving of those blocks from outside one of Tanaka's logical zones into a logical zone doesn't meet the claim limitation. [00:38:14] Speaker 04: Can I just ask you a final question? [00:38:15] Speaker 04: If indeed we were, hypothetically, to agree with you on the claim construction point, [00:38:22] Speaker 04: It still seems to me there's enough confusion in the record that would compel us to send it back to the board for a reevaluation of the prior art under a revised claim construction rather than a straight-up reversal. [00:38:37] Speaker 04: I think in the briefs you were asking for a straight-up reversal, and it seems to me, based on the discussion at least, that it's not entirely clear to me what the board was saying about Tanaka. [00:38:51] Speaker 02: We are seeking outright reversal rather than remand and I respectfully disagree that there are more issues that the board would have to resolve or frankly that it could resolve other than what it already has resolved. [00:39:02] Speaker 02: There is no dispute that Tanaka's blocks are in a redundant blocks are in a portion even if they're called a logical zone they're not for address translation and if that's what the claim requires because of the proper claim construction then there is no finding that Tanaka's blocks [00:39:21] Speaker 02: Redundant blocks that are moved from its grouping into a logical zone that that could mean that we have to remand in order for the board to make that finding I There's no dispute about it And I believe that the board has said that even there's been never dispute and and I don't think the board ever took issue with the fact that Tanaka's and certainly micron and its expert did not take issue with the fact that Tanaka's redundant blocks are outside of Tanaka's logical zones and [00:39:51] Speaker 00: There's no finding necessary. [00:39:52] Speaker 00: So just to be clear, if we remanded on the basis of claim construction, then you don't think we'd have to remand to have the board look at the prior art and balance that against the new claim construction? [00:40:08] Speaker 02: No, I think the board has made all of the findings that are necessary to balance that against the proper claim construction. [00:40:15] Speaker 02: The board has made the findings. [00:40:16] Speaker 02: There has been no dispute. [00:40:18] Speaker 02: as to what Tanaka's redundant blocks are. [00:40:21] Speaker 02: So it's not like we have a disagreement that Tanaka's blocks are one, that they say that Tanaka's blocks are one thing and we say another thing. [00:40:30] Speaker 02: There's no dispute that Tanaka's blocks are outside of Tanaka's logical zones. [00:40:34] Speaker 02: There's no dispute that Tanaka's blocks, organized where they are, have any address translation tables associated with them so that they cannot be organized into a logical zone for purposes of address translation. [00:40:47] Speaker 02: That is all undisputed. [00:40:49] Speaker 02: So this is all about claim construction. [00:40:51] Speaker 05: Once they're put into the logical zone, you would then say that they have an address. [00:40:57] Speaker 05: But it's just that they don't have an address beforehand. [00:41:00] Speaker 05: Do I understand that correctly? [00:41:01] Speaker 02: No, I didn't understand that. [00:41:02] Speaker 05: Could I ask you a question? [00:41:04] Speaker 05: If one of those redundant blocks is moved in Tanaka into one of the logical zones, [00:41:12] Speaker 05: then at that point it does have an address. [00:41:15] Speaker 02: That's correct. [00:41:15] Speaker 02: When it is moved into one of the logical zones to replace the defective block within that zone, at that point it has an address, a logical address associated with it. [00:41:24] Speaker 02: But significantly, once that happens, that's the end of the story for that particular redundant block. [00:41:31] Speaker 02: It cannot now be moved into another zone. [00:41:35] Speaker 02: There's absolutely no disclosure in Tanaka [00:41:38] Speaker 02: that once the redundant block is moved into one of the logical zones to replace the defective block, that it can then subsequently be used to transfer into another logical zone. [00:41:48] Speaker 02: So again, that's true and it's undisputed that before it's moved into that logical zone, it does not have a logical address. [00:41:57] Speaker 02: And I would also say that it necessarily follows that it is, before it's moved into that logical zone, it can't have a correspondence to that logical zone. [00:42:08] Speaker 02: It only has a correspondence once it's moved into the zone and then that correspondence cannot be adjusted by the controller. [00:42:16] Speaker 04: Okay, thank you. [00:42:16] Speaker 04: We thank both sides and the case is submitted.