Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 1 of 8

1 Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329) Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126)
Steven M. Perry (State Bar No. 106154) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2 Sean Eskovitz (State Bar No. 241877) 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
3 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
4 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Email: rransom@sidley.com
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
5 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com; Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)
steven.perry@mto.com; sean.eskovitz@mto.com Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)
6 McKOOL SMITH PC
Peter A. Detre (State Bar No. 182619) 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
7 Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976) Austin, Texas 78701
Jennifer L. Polse (State Bar No. 219202) Telephone: (512) 692-8700
8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com;
9 San Francisco, California 94105 ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
10 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
Email: peter.detre@mto.com;
11 carolyn.luedtke@mto.com; jen.polse@mto.com

12 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 2 of 8

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2 SAN JOSE DIVISION
3
RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
4
)
Plaintiff, ) RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO
5 vs. MANUFACTURERS’ JOINT
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
6 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX) REGARDING CLAIM
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING) CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE
7 AMERICA INC., ) PATENTS
8 )
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,) Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,) Trial: January 19, 2009
9 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,)
10 L.P., )
)
11 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,)
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION)
12 U.S.A., )
Defendants.
13 )
)
14 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-002298 RMW
)
15 )
Plaintiff, )
v.
16 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., )
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, )
17 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., )
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, )
18 L.P., )
19 )
Defendants. )
20 )
21
RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
22
)
Plaintiff, )
23 vs.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON)
24 SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., )
)
25 )
Defendants.
26 )
)
27
28
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 3 of 8

1
Pursuant to the Court’s July 25th Order, Dkt. No. 1985, Rambus submits its Reply
2
Supplemental Brief Regarding the “Clock Cycle” Phrase of the Ware Patents. Nothing in the
3
Manufacturers’ Supplemental Brief refutes Rambus’s position that the “Clock Cycle” Phrase
4
should be given its plain meaning and not be construed with the Manufacturers’ limitation to
5
“only” certain types of half clock cycles. Further, the Manufacturers now appear to complicate
6
their proposed construction by adding new limitations that the clock cycle must “begin and end
7
at a detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable point on the clock signal….” Mfs. Br.1
8
passim. Although the Manufacturers and Mr. McAlexander fail to define these terms, they assert
9
that the crossing points of the transitions of a differential clock satisfy these requirements.
10
McAlexander Decl. ¶14. A person of ordinary skill in the art applying these newly-proposed
11
limitations still would find that the relevant accused products meet the claim based on the
12
crossing points of the transitions of the external clock signal as shown in the annotated figure of
13
Rambus’s Supplemental Brief. Thus, regardless of these proposed limitations, the
14
Manufacturers’ non-infringement argument fails. The Manufacturers’ motion for summary
15
judgment of non-infringement should be denied, and in view of the July 25th Order on the other
16
Ware patent terms, Rambus’s motion for summary judgment of infringement now should be
17
granted.
18

19 I. THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT RAMBUS’S INTERPRETATION AND REJECT

THE MANUFACTURERS’ LIMITATION
20
A. The Manufacturers Now Appear to Concede that a Clock Cycle Can Begin at
21 Various Points, Supporting Rambus’s Plain Meaning Interpretation

22
The Manufacturers now concede that the clock cycle can begin and end at a variety of
23
points on the external clock signal consistent with Rambus’s interpretation and that defining
24
where the clock cycle begins is not required to construe this claim term. See Mfs. Br. at 1
25
(“[W]hether the clock cycle begins near the start of the clock signal transition, the midpoint of
26
1
27 Manufacturers’ Joint Supplemental Brief Regarding Claim Construction for the Ware Patents,
Dkt. No. 2009 (“Mfs. Br.”).
28
1
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 4 of 8

1
the transition, or some other point on the transition, is a matter of design choice and is not
2
required to construe this claim term.”). The Manufacturers cannot square their admission that
3
identifying the beginning of the clock cycle is unimportant with their proposed claim
4
construction that construes a “first/second half of a clock cycle” as “beginning with a rising
5
(falling) edge of the clock signal and ending at the next falling (rising) edge.” The
6
Manufacturers’ proposed claim construction is inconsistent and is not at all helpful.2
7
Furthermore, although the Manufacturers have vacillated in their claim construction, the
8
Manufacturers still have not indicated why the “clock cycle” phrase requires construction,
9
especially given that 1) the term “clock cycle” was not construed in Hynix I; 2) there appears to
10
be no dispute that the Ware patent specification does not impart special meaning to the term; and
11
3) there does not appear to be a “genuine” dispute that under the ordinary meaning of their
12
proposed construction the limitation is met as shown in the annotated graph in Rambus’s
13
Supplemental Brief. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“In some
14
cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may
15
be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more
16
than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”).
17

18 B. The Manufacturers’ Attempt to Import New Additional Limitations into

Their Construction Does Nothing to Solve the Problems that “Plague” the
19 Manufacturers’ Proposed Construction

20
Further complicating matters, in response to the Court’s question of “how to measure ‘the
21
beginning of the rising edge’ of a clock signal,” July 25th Order at 21, the Manufacturers attempt
22
to import new additional limitations into their proposed construction, namely, that the clock
23
cycle must “begin and end at a detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable point on the
24

25 2
The Manufacturers and Mr. McAlexander misstate Rambus’s interpretation of the claim
language by asserting that Rambus suggests that a first/second half of a clock cycle begins “at
26 some arbitrary point near the high state or the low state.” Mfs. Br. at 3; McAlexander Decl. ¶ 12.
This is an incorrect statement of Rambus’s position, as these words do not appear in the claim.
27 Notably, the Manufacturers cite no support for this assertion.
28
2
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 5 of 8

1
clock signal,” Mfs. Br. and McAlexander Decl., passim.3 Although the Manufacturers’ Brief
2
uses the phrase “detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable” five times, neither the
3
Manufacturers nor Mr. McAlexander provide any definition for those terms or reason why their
4
unstated definition is important to the construction of clock cycle. Mfs. Br. at 1, 2, 3, 4; see also
5
McAlexander Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 13.4
6
Of particular concern, nothing in the Manufacturers’ Brief or Mr. McAlexander’s
7
declaration excludes the possibility that the Manufacturers will attempt to argue that these new
8
limitations require perfectly repeatable idealized external clock signal waveforms, instantaneous
9
transitions, or zero tolerance, even while the Manufacturers appear to acknowledge that these are
10
impossible in a real world system. See, e.g., Mfs. Br. at 3; McAlexander Decl. ¶ 14
11
(Manufacturers and Mr. McAlexander apparently arguing that one skilled in the art would
12
understand that the clock cycle in the Ware patents is defined by idealized clock transitions
13
“regardless of the fact that the transitions will never be instantaneous”). One of ordinary skill in
14
the art reading the Ware patent specification would know that it is physically impossible to have
15
a system with a perfectly repeatable square-wave idealized clock, instantaneous transitions, and
16
zero tolerance, and that the patent claims do not require an unrealizable system. Murphy Decl. ¶
17
7. But the Manufacturers importation of the phrase “detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and
18
repeatable” only invites misapplication in a way that excludes real-world systems that would
19
necessarily allow for some margin of error with respect to the timing of the receipt of signals.
20

21

22

23 3
The Manufacturers appear to further complicate matters by attempting to distinguish the word
“with” from the word “of,” while arguing that this substitution is not “an issue of semantics.”
24 See Mfs. Br. at 1 (“Rather, the cycle is defined as beginning ‘with’ the edge of the clock
signal.”). To the extent the Manufacturers appear to be construing the claim term “of” (claim
25 language) as the term “with” (Manufacturers’ claim construction), Rambus respectfully submits
that the claim term “of” needs no construction.
26 4
Without the ability to depose Mr. McAlexander on the meaning of the phrase “detectable,
measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable,” it is difficult for Rambus to determine how the
27 Manufacturers intend to apply these newly-minted limitations.
28
3
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 6 of 8

1 C. The Patent Cited by Mr. McAlexander That Was Of-Record is Consistent

with Rambus’s Interpretation of “Clock Cycle”
2

3 Of the references cited by Mr. McAlexander in his declaration, only U.S. Patent No.

4 5,430,688 to Takasugi is part of the intrinsic record. See McAlexander Decl. ¶ 16. One of

5 ordinary skill in the art would have understood this reference to be consistent with Rambus’s

6 interpretation of “clock cycle.” See Murphy Decl. ¶ 4. In fact, cited U.S. Patent No. 5,430,688

7 to Takasugi shows signal S90 going positive for “one clock cycle” where S90 clearly does not

8 coincide with rising or falling edges of the clock. See U.S. Patent No. 5,430,688 at 6:1-7, Fig. 8;

9 Murphy Decl. ¶ 4.

10
II. REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE “CLOCK CYCLE”
11 PHRASE, THE MANUFACTURER’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED AND
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
12 SHOULD BE GRANTED

13
Even applying the Manufacturers’ proposed construction with their newly imported
14
limitations, the Manufacturers’ non-infringement argument fails. The Manufacturers and Mr.
15
McAlexander assert that a “detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable” reference point
16
can be defined “at the crossing point of the transitions of a differential clock.” Mfs. Br. at 3;
17
McAlexander Decl. ¶ 13. It cannot be genuinely disputed that the crossing points of the
18
transitions of the differential external clock signal (CK and /CK) are illustrated in the dotted
19
vertical lines in the annotated figure from Rambus’s Supplemental Brief, again reproduced
20
below. See Rambus’s Supplemental Br., Dkt. No. 2012 at 9. It also cannot be genuinely
21
disputed that the annotated bold vertical lines show that DM and DQ are received during
22
successive half clock cycles even under the Manufacturers’ new construction.5 Hence the
23

24

25 5
Yet another figure illustrating infringement under either party’s construction is shown in
Rambus’s Opposition, Dkt. No. 665, at 21. In the example of the tDQSS MAX case, a first DQ bit
26 and first DM bit are received during the time between T4 and T4n on an edge of DQS, and a
second DQ bit and second DM bit are received during the time between T4n and T5 on the
27 successive edge of DQS. See Murphy Decl. ¶ 10.
28
4
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 7 of 8

1
Accused Devices receive successive mask bits and data bits during successive halves of a clock
2
cycle, and the Manufacturers’ non-infringement argument fails.
3

4
Under Either Party’s Construction, the Accused Devices
5 Meet the “Clock Cycle” Phrase
6

10

11

12

13

14

15
The dotted lines in the original figure delineate half clock cycles under the
16
Manufacturers’ construction. DM and DQ are received on the annotated bold lines
17 (on crossing of DQS, /DQS) during successive half clock cycles even under the
Manufacturers’ construction.
18

19 See Murphy Decl. ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 514, Ex. 24 at NTCR-00054447 (unannotated figure).

20
III. CONCLUSION
21

22 For the foregoing reasons, and for all the reasons set forth in the briefing and supporting

23 papers, the Court should reject the Manufacturers’ proposed limitation on the “Clock Cycle”

24 Phrase, deny the Manufacturers’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement, Dkt. No.

25 504, and grant Rambus’s Motions for Summary Judgment of Infringement, C 05-00334 Dkt.

26 Nos. 503, 505, 506, 507, 509, 510, C 06-00244 Dkt. Nos. 200, 201, C 05-02298 Dkt. No. 355.

27
28
5
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2031 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 8 of 8

1 Dated: August 8, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

3 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

4 MCKOOL SMITH
5

7 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

Pierre J. Hubert
8 Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
9 Austin 45318v3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
6
RAMBUS INC.’S REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE PATENTS
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW