My opinion....
Microsemi:
i. Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Yorimoto in View of Watanabe ..... On to this one
ii. Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Katayama ........................................ ANSWERED
iii. Claim 1 is Obvious Over Katayama in View of Normile ........ ANSWERED as in it takes two to tango
Micron:
i. Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Katayama In View Of Mills ............ ANSWERED
ii. Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Krueger ............................................ ANSWERED
=============================================================
IMO, prior art, as in one issue...eg Krueger is not going to fit into the claim terms of e.Digital with any complete similarity....and does not distinguish any obviousness on its own.
IMO, prior art, as in one issue...eg Katayama is not going to fit into the claim terms of e.Digital with any complete similarity...and does not distinguish any obviousness on its own.
IMO, prior art, as in one issue...eg Mills is not going to fit into the claim terms of e.Digital with any complete similarity....and does not distinguish any obviousness on its own.
IMO, prior art, as in two issues...eg Katayama / Mills do not distinguish any obviousness as a pair.
Thing is, the word obvious can be subjective. As in, things that are obvious to me might not be obvious to you, and things that are obvious to you might not be obvious to me.
I guess it all depends on who controls the word obvious.....
"Yorimoto in View of Watanabe"
Purcells response to the Microsemi IPR is months away, where, IMO, the same considerations will be answered.
The Logically managed data and the RAW data have to be combined into singular process in order to fit the claim terms challenged by petitioner.. If the prior art moves data on and off memory for any reason it is considered a BAN type memory process as fully explained in the 445 patent.
Purcell has not framed that phrase, that is my conclusion of his Micron response when it's all boiled down.
Trying to draw an obvious consideration of 108/445 issues from two separate Prior art considerations is a stretch.
Noting a cache interface issue on one prior art patent and combining it with a pointer (logical issue) of another prior art patent....is not enough....to draw an obvious consideration of combining Logically managed data and the RAW data, or eliminating secondary data management.
IMVHO, the IPRS amount to nothing as far as I'm concerned. However, I contend the word OBVIOUS has no boundary, as in, being a loose cannon to opinion on, thats the condition petitioners are honing in on..
FWIW
doni
