Samsung convinces PTAB to invalidate chip patent claims
Samsung has convinced the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate claims in three processor and memory patents held by Arbor Global Strategies.
Arbor had accused Samsung of infringing the three patents in 2019, asking the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to institute a jury trial.
Arbor alleged that Samsung’s system on chip microprocessors that incorporate computer processing units, graphics processing units and memory onto a single chip infringed its US patents 6,781,226, 7,282,951, and RE42,035.
Samsung filed petitions requesting an inter partes review of the three patents in May 2020, claiming they were invalid over prior art.
On Thursday, November 24, three final decisions were handed down from the PTAB invalidating claims of the three patents.
‘Koyangi’ prior art
Samsung cited prior art referred to as “Koyanagi” in all three IPRs. Koyanagi describes a “three-dimensional integration technology” that involves vertically stacking and interconnecting chips using a “high density of vertical interconnections”.
Samsung argued that Koyanagi teaches “stacking different types of bare dies using through-silicon vias to form 3D multi-chip modules” and a “die element” that invalidated claims in the three patents.
Koyanagi was used in combination with two other prior art examples, referred to as “Cooke” and “Alexander” to convince the board that the claims outlined in Arbor’s patents were obvious.
Claim construction
In the inter partes review, discussion focused on the definition of certain terms in the patent claims, including “wide configuration port”.
Arbor argued that the term “wide configuration data port” should be construed as a “configuration data port that allows the parallel updating logic cells in a programmable array through use of buffer cells.”
It also contended that “[t]he specification demonstrates that the buffer cells form a necessary part of the wide configuration data port and enable the port to perform its recited function of reconfiguring the programmable array within one clock cycle.”
In reply, Samsung argued that the term should have its “plain and ordinary meaning” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term to not encompass the “buffer cells”.
The board agreed with Samsung, agreeing that a person of ordinary skill would not understand wide configuration data port to not include buffer cells.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
Peloton hits back against Lululemon with sports apparel suit
