Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00467

LinkedInTwitterFacebookGoogle+Share

Takeaway: The recitation of “a” or “an” before a claim limitation is generally presumed to mean “one or more,” but when the claim repeatedly recites “the” limitation, the presumption may be overcome.

In its Decision, the Board denied institution of an inter partes review of challenged claims 1 and 8 of the ’750 patent.

Turning to claim construction, the Board noted that the ’750 patent is expired, and thus, the claims are construed “in accordance with their ordinary and customary meanings, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the specification.” The Board provided constructions for three terms, two of which were means-plus-function limitations. Petitioner argued that two of the limitations were ambiguous, but provided a proposed construction without conceding the definiteness of the limitations, in light of the fact that Petitioner could not challenge the claims under Section 112.

Turning to the prior art, the Board’s decision not to institute was primarily based on the recitation of “a direct address translation unit for translating virtual addresses into real addresses” and “a first address translator” including “first direct address translating means, coupled . . . to the direct address translation unit ” in challenged claim 1, with similar recitation in claim 8. Patent Owner contended, and the Board agreed, that both claims 1 and 8 require “a single direct address translation unit” for a plurality of instruction pipelines. In doing so, the Board analyzed the claim language, explaining that while the recitation of “a” or “an” generally indicates “one or more,” because the claims repeatedly refer to “the direct address translation unit,” any presumption that the term should mean “one or more” had been overcome.

With respect to the asserted unpatentability grounds, each ground was based on one of two prior art references, VAX 8800 or the ’477 patent. Patent Owner argued, and the Board agreed, that the two references did not disclose a single direct address translation unit, but rather disclosed multiple units, one for each pipeline. The other relied upon references did not address this deficiency, and thus, the Board denied institution of a proceeding.

ARM Inc. v. Vantage Point Technology, Inc., IPR2014-00467
Paper 10: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
Dated: September 5, 2014
Patent: 5,463,750
Before: Bryan F. Moore, Hyun J. Jung, and David C. McKone
Written by: McKone