Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 9

1 [Parties Listed On Signature Page]

2

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 SAN JOSE DIVISION
10

11
RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
12
Plaintiff, MANUFACTURERS’ JOINT
13 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
v. REGARDING CLAIM
14 CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WARE
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX PATENTS
15 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
16 AMERICA INC.,
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
17
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
18 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
19 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
L.P.,
20
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
21 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
U.S.A.,
22
Defendants.
23

24

25

26

27

28
CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 9

1 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-02298 RMW

2 Plaintiff,
3 v.
4 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
5 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
6 L.P.,
7 Defendants.
8

9 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW

10 Plaintiff,

11 v.

12 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON

SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.,
13
Defendants.
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 9

1 On July 25, 2008, the Court issued its Claim Construction Order For The Ware Patents
2 And Order Denying The Manufacturers' Motion For Summary Judgment, D.I. 1985 ("Order"). In
3 its Order, the Court requested further briefing regarding construction of the phrase "During a
4 First/Second Half of a Clock Cycle of an External Clock Signal." Order at 22. This brief is
5 submitted in response to the Court’s Order.
6 The Manufacturers proposed that the phrase at issue be construed as:
7 Only between two adjacent clock edges beginning with a rising
edge of the clock signal and ending at the next falling edge of the
8 clock signal or beginning with a falling edge of the clock signal and
ending at the next rising edge.
9
The Court recognized that the Manufacturers' construction was supported by the 1996 IEEE
10
Dictionary definition of "clock cycle" as "one period of the [clock] signal, beginning with the
11
rising edge of the signal and ending on the following rising edge of the signal." Order at 21. The
12
Court, however, expressed concern as to "how to measure 'the beginning of the rising edge' of a
13
clock signal" and requested that the parties submit additional briefing on this topic. Id. at 21-22.
14
Neither the Manufacturers' construction, nor the IEEE Dictionary definition, define clock
15
cycle with respect to the "beginning of" the edge of the clock signal. Rather, the cycle is defined
16
as beginning "with" the edge of the clock signal. This is not merely an issue of semantics. As
17
discussed further below, whether the clock cycle begins near the start of the clock signal
18
transition, the midpoint of the transition, or some other point on the transition, is a matter of
19
design choice and is not required to construe this claim term. See Declaration of Joseph
20
McAlexander in Support of the Manufacturers’ Joint Supplemental Brief Regarding Claim
21
Construction for the Ware Patents, ¶¶ 9-12 ("McAlexander Decl."). In any given product, or prior
22
art reference, this point will be the same for each clock transition so that the beginning and the
23
end of a clock cycle is consistent and measurable. Indeed, the Manufacturers' noninfringement
24
position does not rely upon the particular point on the transition at which the cycle begins. See
25
D.I. 504 at pp. 12-15. Rather, the clock cycle simply must begin and end at a detectable,
26
measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable point on the clock signal, and the only possible points
27

28
MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 9

1 where the clock signal meets those requirements is during (or “with”) the transitions of the clock
2 signal. McAlexander Decl., ¶¶ 9-11.
3 To clarify this point requires a basic understanding of clocks and how they are used in a
4 system. A clock signal transitions between a low and high state in a periodic manner. The
5 transitions from low to high (and high to low) are known as the "edge transitions" or simply the
6 "edges" of the clock. McAlexander Decl., ¶ 8. A clock signal can be used to provide timing
7 information for a system because the circuits in the system that receive the clock signal are able to
8 detect the transitions (the edges) of the clock signal. This detection is possible because the
9 voltage levels of the clock signal are changing during the transitions and thus provide a voltage
10 variation that is detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable. The voltage level of the
11 clock signal can be detected and measured along the transition of the signal, whether the
12 transition is from a high to a low voltage or from a low to a high voltage. McAlexander Decl., ¶
13 9.
14 At all times other than during clock voltage level transitions, the voltage level of a clock is
15 essentially above or below the detection reference voltage threshold, providing no detectable,
16 measurable, non-arbitrary, repeatable voltage level at which a single point of reference can be
17 detected and measured. The threshold selected must be a value that is crossed during the clock
18 signal edge transition, but also must be a value necessarily away from both of the high and low
19 levels to ensure that an accurate time detection will occur. McAlexander Decl., ¶ 10.
20 For example, if a clock has a low state of 0 volts and a high state of 3 volts, the circuits
21 can be designed to detect any value between the two voltages, such as 1V, 1.5V or another
22 voltage point along the transition. The designer may select such a value (typically near the
23 middle of the transition) as a reference level for the system, which will then provide a single point
24 of reference to reliably trigger events to synchronize with the clock. The selection of one of a
25 number of reference voltage values along the transition is simply a matter of design choice.
26 McAlexander Decl., ¶ 11.
27 What is important is that there are known, repeatable values to detect, which can then be
28 used to demarcate the beginning and the end of each clock cycle. In contrast, if, as suggested by
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2 CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 5 of 9

1 Rambus, a point is chosen at some arbitrary point near the high state or the low state, there would
2 not be any distinct value to repeatably detect for the purposes of determining and defining the
3 starting and ending points of each clock cycle. If detection is required to be made while the
4 voltage is at a steady state level, a receiving circuit would be incapable of distinguishing where it
5 is within the steady state level and therefore incapable of identifying the beginning or ending of
6 the clock cycle. McAlexander Decl., ¶ 12.
7 Another way that a detectable, measurable, non-arbitrary and repeatable reference point
8 can be defined is at the crossing point of the transitions of a differential clock. Once again, such a
9 point is a voltage value that occurs during the transition of the clock signal such that the cycle is
10 measured with respect to the edge of the clock (i.e., where the voltage level of the clock signal is
11 at the same voltage value as the voltage level of the complementary clock signal that is
12 transitioning in the opposite direction). McAlexander Decl., ¶ 13.
13 Data sheets, standards, and patents from the same time period as the initial Ware patent
14 application confirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that consecutive
15 rising edges, consecutive falling edges, or consecutive crossing points of a differential clock
16 define the clock cycle, regardless of the fact that the transitions will never be instantaneous.
17 McAlexander Decl., ¶ 14. For example, a 1989 data sheet for Motorola's MCM6292 SRAM
18 specifies a clock signal with "pulse levels" of 0 volts for the low state and 3 volts for the high
19 state. McAlexander Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 1. The data sheet further specifies an Input Timing
20 Measurement Reference Level as 1.5 volts. Id. This 1.5 volt reference level is a selected voltage
21 point along the transition that can be used to trigger events and demarcates the beginning and
22 ending of the clock cycle as shown in the figure on page 5-28 of the data sheet. Id. Additionally,
23 attached to the accompanying declaration of Joseph McAlexander are a number of
24 contemporaneous U.S. Patents demonstrating that those of skill in the art consistently demarcated
25 the beginning and ending of clock cycles using the consecutive rising edges or consecutive falling
26 edges of a clock signal, or the crossing points of a differential clock. McAlexander Decl., ¶¶ 16-
27 19, Exs. 2-5.
28
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 6 of 9

1 One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, although the start of the clock
2 cycle must begin somewhere on the edge transition of the clock signal, the selection of a
3 particular voltage level on the transition of a clock signal as a reference for use in demarcating the
4 beginning and ending of the clock cycles is a matter of design choice and not mandated by the
5 patent or anything else. Accordingly, the Manufacturers have not sought to restrict their proposed
6 construction to require that a clock cycle begin at any particular point on the transition or edge of
7 the clock signal, as long as the beginning is defined based on a detectable, measurable non-
8 arbitrary and repeatable point. They also did not attempt to restrict the clock cycle to beginning
9 with the rising edge, as defined in the IEEE Dictionary. Rather, the Manufacturers proposed the
10 most reasonable construction supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Rambus's
11 argument that the Manufacturers' construction is arbitrary because it does not mandate a
12 particular start point along the transition of the clock signal thus is misplaced. The
13 Manufacturer’s proposed construction is the only proffered construction that would allow a
14 meaningful determination of when a clock cycle begins and ends, and is consistent with both the
15 intrinsic and the extrinsic evidence.
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4 CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 7 of 9

1 Dated: August 1, 2008 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

2 By: /s/
JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712)
3 Email: jared.bobrow@weil.com
Attorneys for Defendants
4 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and
5 MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR
PRODUCTS, INC.
6
WILLIAM C. PRICE (Bar No. 108542)
7 Email: william.price@quinnemanuel.com
HAROLD A. BARZA (Bar No. 80888)
8 Email: halbarza@quinnemanuel.com
ROBERT J. BECHER (Bar No. 193431)
9 Email: robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER &
10 HEDGES, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
12 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Attorneys for Defendants MICRON
13 TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
14
By: /s/
15 DAVID J. HEALEY (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: david.healey@weil.com
16 ANITA E. KADALA (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: anita.kadala@weil.com
17 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
18 Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 546-5000
19 Facsimile: (713) 224-9511
20 Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
22 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.

23

24

25

26

27

28
MANUFACTURERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 8 of 9

1 By: /s/
Theodore G. Brown III
2 DANIEL J. FURNISS (Bar No. 73531)
Email: djfurniss@townsend.com
3
THEODORE G. BROWN III (Bar No. 114672)
4 Email: tgbrown@townsend.com
JORDAN TRENT JONES (Bar No. 166600)
5 Email: jtjones@townsend.com
TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
6 379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
7 Telephone: (650) 326-2400
Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
8
KENNETH L. NISSLY (Bar No. 77589)
9 Email: kennissly@thelen.com
SUSAN van KEULEN (Bar No. 136060)
10 Email: svankeulen@thelen.com
GEOFFREY H. YOST (Bar No. 159687)
11 Email: gyost@thelen.com
THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN &
12 STEINER LLP
225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200
13 San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 292-5800
14 Facsimile: (408) 287-8040

15 KENNETH R. O’ROURKE (Bar No. 120144)

Email: korourke@omm.com
16 WALLACE A. ALLAN (Bar No. 102054)
Email: tallan@omm.com
17 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1060
18 Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
19 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
Attorneys for Defendants
20 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., and
21 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2009 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 9 of 9

1 By: /s/
VICKIE L. FEEMAN (Bar No. 177487)
2 Email: vfeeman@orrick.com
Craig R. Kaufman
3 ROBERT E. FREITAS (Bar No. 80948)
Email: rfreitas@orrick.com
4 CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (Bar No. 159458)
Email: ckaufman@orrick.com
5 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
6 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 614-7400
7 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
8 Attorneys for Defendants
NANYA TECHNOLOGY
9 CORPORATION, and NANYA
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
10

11
ATTESTATION CLAUSE REGARDING SIGNATURES
12

13 I hereby attest that I have on file permission to sign for co-counsel indicated by a
14 “conformed” signature (/S/) within this efiled document.
15
/s/ Vickie Feeman
16
Vickie L. Feeman (Bar No. 177487)
17 Email: vfeeman@orrick.com

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MANUFACTURERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW