PTAB

IPR2021-01109

Intel Corp v. Acqis LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Modular Computer System Architecture
  • Brief Description: The ’768 patent describes a computer system architecture featuring a removable "attached computer module" (ACM) that houses core components like the CPU and graphics subsystem. This module connects to a "peripheral console" (PCON) via a high-speed exchange interface system, allowing for modular upgrades and configurations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chu330 and Cupps - Claims 18, 21-24, 26-32, and 36-40 are obvious over Chu330 in view of Cupps.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chu330 (Patent 6,345,330) and Cupps (Application # 2003/0135771).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chu330, a patent from the same inventor and foundational to the ’768 patent's disclosure, teaches nearly every element of the challenged claims. Chu330 discloses a modular computer system with an ACM and a PCON connected by a peripheral bus (XPBus) that uses Low Voltage Differential Signal (LVDS) channels to transmit encoded Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transactions. Petitioner contended that the only significant element not explicitly disclosed in Chu330 is the integration of the CPU, graphics subsystem, and interface controller onto a single chip. Cupps was introduced to provide this teaching, as it explicitly describes combining a non-embedded processor (CPU), graphics controller, and I/O controllers onto a single integrated circuit to achieve known benefits.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Cupps's single-chip integration teaching with Chu330's modular system architecture for predictable and well-understood benefits. Cupps explicitly taught that such integration improves power efficiency, increases performance, and reduces the physical footprint. Since Chu330 itself identified low power consumption as a desirable design goal, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply the integration method from Cupps to achieve further power savings and other efficiencies in the Chu330 system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The components described in Chu330 (CPU, graphics, interface controller) were substantially similar to those that Cupps teaches integrating. The practice of integrating multiple functional units onto a single chip was a well-known technique used to improve computer systems, yielding predictable results.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Contested Priority Date: The central technical contention underpinning the petition was that the challenged claims of the ’768 patent were not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 15, 2011. Petitioner argued that the key claim limitations requiring an "integrated CPU-graphics/controller" in a single chip and a "CPU-LVDS" channel were introduced as new matter into a parent application (which matured into the ’436 patent) via a preliminary amendment. The petition contended that the patent owner's attempt to incorporate this subject matter by reference from an earlier provisional application ('886 provisional) into the priority chain was legally defective because it lacked the required specificity. This later effective priority date was crucial for establishing Chu330 and Cupps as valid prior art against the challenged claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was inappropriate. While Chu330 was listed on an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution, the Examiner never cited it substantively against any claims. More critically, Petitioner contended the Examiner accepted the patent owner's priority claim without analysis and therefore never considered the true, later priority date. This failure meant the Examiner did not properly consider prior art like Cupps, which teaches the very features that Petitioner argued were improperly added new matter.
  • Fintiv Factors (§314(a)): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weighed against discretionary denial. The petition was filed early in the parallel district court litigations, before significant investment in discovery or claim construction. A key argument was that the Petitioner, Intel, was not a defendant in the parallel litigation. Although other real parties-in-interest were defendants, Petitioner asserted they would stipulate not to raise the same invalidity grounds in court if the IPR were instituted, thereby eliminating overlap and concerns of duplicative efforts. The estimated trial date in the parallel litigation was approximately 18 months from the petition filing date, further favoring institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 18, 21-24, 26-32, and 36-40 of Patent 9,529,768 as unpatentable.