Re: DONI, OR EMIT
in response to
by
Message: Re: DONI, OR EMIT
SP...Wow...kind of a DM slip.
Anyway..
You might read the following first to see if anything seems similar in argument. It's the IPR filed by Micron with the USPTO for a review of claim 1.
Review IPR doc LINK The defendant filed a copy with the circuit court, IMO, more to try and sway the court to another opinion, where that material has not transpired with the USPTO yet as to Prior art issues. Prior art in light of 108 and 445 conditions together.
For the most part, the defendant wants to, basically, identify the "primary memory" as Ram.
The "primary memory" in the patent is identified as a "Non-volatile memory"....giving no indication as to type. It can be instrumental to any type non-volatile memory. In Freds recent PR.. see comment "such as Flash memory"
That aside, the non-volatile memory considered.....is flash memory...as considered in 774 or 445 to justify the prosecution of each. 445 though, IMO. is as neutral as 108 with regard to no-volatile memory issues...such as flash memory.
There are two types of flash memory at issue, NAND needing a RAM, or NOR not needing RAM and can have direct access by the processor.
NOR, is what the defendant wants the judge to identify with...and identify the NOR flash as RAM..With that, the defendant wants that issue identified as the ONLY entity of claim 1.
This is exactly what happen to 774, the defendants convinced the CO court that 774 only utilizes one type of flash memory..."with out the use of RAM"...with that, the only memory that can be used is NOR.
The 108 has a cross relation to 774 and 445 however, all three patents are separate and distinct patents with separate conditions. The defendants want to take the cross relation of 445 and have it influence claim 1 of the 108.
108 was recently ruled by the appellate to be separate from 774 ...there is not continuity. There is no continuity between 108 and 445 either, however, defendant is pressing an issue between the two. You will see this if you read the IPR brief submitted by defendant.
Thing is, out of all this back and fourth, the fact is, the "primary memory" is identified as a "non-volatile memory". The cache, item claim term (b), of claim one is a separate and distinct issue...as e.g sRAM. This cache sits in front of the "Primary memory (non-volatile memory)"....there in, the cache does not care if the non-volatile memory is NOR, NAND or anything else. It just matters that the non-volatile have a fast enough Programming speed in order to make the process worth while.
FWIW...hope it helps...that's as close I can get it in short word.
doni
17 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply