Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01179/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Inphi Corporation
Appellant
Netlist, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INPHI CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

NETLIST, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1179

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,381.

______________________ 

Decided: November 13, 2015

______________________ 

DAVID A. JAKOPIN, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT M. FUHRER, McLean, VA. 

MEHRAN ARJOMAND, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los 

Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

BRYAN LEITCH, BRIAN ROBERT MATSUI, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/13/2015
 2 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. 

Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent 

No. 7,532,537 (“the ’537 patent”). Inphi Corporation 

(“Inphi”) filed a request for inter partes reexamination1 on 

June 9, 2010. The examiner rejected claims 1–9, 12–31, 

and 34–44 as obvious in view of the prior art. In order to 

overcome this rejection, Netlist amended its claims, 

narrowing them. Thereafter, the examiner withdrew its 

rejection of the claims and issued a final decision. 

Inphi then filed a Notice of Appeal to the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”), alleging, 

among other things, that the amendment, which introduced a negative claim limitation, failed to satisfy the 

written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1 (2006).2 The Board issued a decision affirming 

the examiner’s final decision declining to reject the relevant claims. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., No. 2013-009066, 

2014 WL 187535 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2014). Inphi filed a 

request for rehearing on February 18, 2014. The Board 

denied Inphi’s request and affirmed its decision. Inphi 

Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., No. 2013-009066, 2014 WL 4180943 

1 The America Invents Act (AIA) repealed the provisions authorizing inter partes reexaminations. Pub. L. 

No. 112-29, § 6, 126 Stat. 284, 299–305 (2011). But the 

pre-AIA provisions apply here because Inphi requested 

the inter partes reexamination before the effective date of 

the AIA. Id. § 6(c)(3)(C), 125 Stat. at 305.

2 Paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with 

newly designated § 112(a) by § 4(c) of the AIA and § 4(e) 

of the AIA makes those changes applicable “to any patent 

application that is filed on or after” September 16, 2012. 

Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 4, 125 Stat. at 296–97. Because the

application resulting in the patent at issue in this case 

was filed before that date, we refer to the pre-AIA version 

of § 112.

 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/13/2015
INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 3

(P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2014) (“Board Decision”). Inphi appeals from this decision. Because the Board’s determination that the negative claim limitation met the 

requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’537 patent, entitled “Memory Module with a Circuit Providing Load Isolation and Memory Domain Translation” has an application date of January 19, 2006.3 The 

invention relates to computer system memory modules, 

which Netlist designs and manufactures. In particular, 

the invention improves the performance and/or capacity of 

the memory modules. ’537 Patent, col. 1, ll. 29–32. 

Conventional computer systems, such as a desktop PC or 

a laptop, are compatible with modular memory systems. 

Users may simply insert a memory module into a slot or 

socket in the motherboard of their personal computer. 

The ’537 patent concerns random access memory (“RAM”), 

which provides short-term storage of data for active 

software programs. Greater performance and/or capacity 

RAM leads, in general, to a better performing computer.

3 The ’537 patent is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 11/173,175, filed on July 1, 2005 (now U.S. 

Patent No. 7,289,386), which claims the benefit of U.S. 

Provisional Application Serial No. 60/588,244, filed July

15, 2004 and which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 11/075,395, filed Mar. 7, 2005 (now U.S. Patent

No. 7,283,436), which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/550,668, filed Mar. 5, 

2004, U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/575,595, 

filed May 28, 2004, and U.S. Provisional Application 

Serial No. 60/590,038, filed July 21, 2004.

 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/13/2015
 4 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

The memory module itself comprises a printed circuit 

board, on which memory devices (also known as memory 

chips) are mounted:

’537 Patent, Figure 16A. Figure 16A presents one side of 

a printed circuit board, 460. The memory devices—410, 

420—of which there can be up to eighteen, are shown 

attached to the printed circuit board. The specification 

discloses multiple memory device types, including “random-access memory (RAM), dynamic random-access 

memory (DRAM), synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), and 

double-data-rate DRAM (e.g., SDR, DDR-1, DDR-2, DDR3).” Id. at col. 5, ll. 41–44.

The memory devices, therefore, can be of the Double 

Data Rate (“dDDR”) Synchronous Dynamic RAM 

(“SDRAM”) type. See id. at col. 36, ll. 28–31 (“In certain 

embodiments, the memory module 400 is a 1-GB unbuffered Double Data Rate (DDR) Synchronous Dynamic 

RAM (SDRAM) high-density dual in-line memory module 

(DIMM).”). At issue in this appeal is a negative claim 

limitation Netlist introduced by amendment, limiting the 

claimed chip selects to exclude three particular types of 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/13/2015
INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 5

signals (CAS, RAS, and bank-address signals).4 Representative claim 1, as amended, is as follows:

1. A memory module comprising:

a plurality of memory devices, each memory device having a corresponding load; and

a circuit electrically coupled to the plurality of 

memory devices and configured to be electrically 

coupled to a memory controller of a computer system, the circuit selectively isolating one or more of 

the loads of the memory devices from the computer system, the circuit comprising logic which 

translates between a system memory domain of 

the computer system and a physical memory domain of the memory module, wherein the system memory domain is compatible with a 

first number of chip selects, and the physical 

memory domain is compatible with a second 

number of chip selects equal to twice the 

first number of chip selects, wherein the 

plurality of memory devices comprises double-data rate (DDR) dynamic random-access 

memory (DRAM) devices and the chip selects 

of the first and second number of chip selects are DDR chip selects that are not CAS, 

RAS, or bank address signals. 

4 DDR is an acronym for “double data rate,” which 

means that data transfers occur on both a rising edge and 

a falling edge of the waveform of a certain timing signal 

for data transfers. CS is an acronym for “chip select,” 

RAS is an acronym for “row address strobe,” and CAS is 

an acronym for “column address strobe.” CS, RAS, CAS, 

and bank address are each names for signals that direct 

the actions of the memory chip.

 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/13/2015
 6 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 1366 (emphasis added). While the 

entire emphasized portion was added during reexamination, Inphi challenges only the underlined portion: “DDR 

chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address 

signals.” The examiner found the amendment sufficient 

to overcome its obviousness rejections. The Board affirmed the examiner’s determination. Inphi contends, to 

the contrary, that the negative claim limitation added by 

amendment is not supported by the specification and thus 

constitutes impermissible new matter in violation of 35 

U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1.

Inphi requested rehearing of the Board’s decision affirming the examiner. In its request, Inphi emphasized 

this court’s decision in Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 

694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012), which states that 

“[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported 

when the specification describes a reason to exclude the 

relevant limitation.” Inphi argued that “[w]hile the Board 

gives lip service to the standard articulated in Santarus . . . the Board also acknowledged that in this case 

there is no such reason expressly articulated in the specification.” J.A. 2241.

The Board explained in its decision on Inphi’s request 

for rehearing that, “the ’537 patent did not articulate 

expressly a reason to exclude RAS and CAS signals . . . .” 

Board Decision, 2014 WL 4180943, at *1. The Board 

identified, however, three parts of the specification of the 

’537 patent upon which it relied in finding that the negative claim limitation was reasonably supported: “(1) 

consistency with [Joint Electron Device Engineering 

Council (“JEDEC”)] standards; (2) the ’537 patent’s excluding RAS and CAS signals in Table 2; and (3) various 

other passages from the ’537 patent [including Figure 

9A] . . . .” Id.

The JEDEC is a global standard setting body for the 

microelectronics industry. The ’537 patent incorporates 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/13/2015
INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 7

by reference a JEDEC standards publication for DDR-1 

memory devices, namely the JEDEC “Double Data Rate 

(DDR) SDRAM Specification,” published February 2004 

(“JESD79D”). J.A. 1866–1948. The incorporation is 

provided in the description of Table 3A of the ’537 patent: 

“Table 3A provides the numbers of rows and columns for 

DDR-1 memory devices, as specified by JEDEC standard 

JESD79D . . . incorporated in its entirety by reference 

herein.” ’537 Patent, col. 22, ll. 28–32. The JEDEC 

standard specifies that DDR signals (including CS, RAS, 

CAS, and bank address signals) are distinct from each 

other. See J.A. 1882 (depicting Truth Table 1a, a logic 

table similar to Table 2 in the ’537 patent).

“Table 2 provides a logic table compatible with certain 

embodiments . . . for the selection among ranks of memory 

devices [] using gated CAS signals.” ’537 Patent, col. 18, 

ll. 25–27. Table 2 distinguishes among the relevant 

signals by providing separate columns for CS, RAS, and

CAS. 

Figure 9A, which the Board references in its discussion of “various other passages,” distinguishes chip select 

signals (CS0, CS1), command signals (understood to include CAS and RAS signals), and bank address signals 

(BA0-BAm) by displaying them on different signal lines in 

Figure 9A. As the patent describes, “[t]he circuit 40 

receives the two chip-select signals (CS0-CS1) and one 

row/column address signal (An+1) from the computer 

system. Both the circuit 40 and the register 230 receive 

the bank address signals (BA0-BAm) and at least one 

command signal (e.g., refresh, precharge, etc.) from the 

computer system.” ’537 Patent, col. 17, ll. 2–7; see also id.

at col. 16, ll. 62–66.

The Board found Inphi’s challenges to the first two 

sources of evidence—the JEDEC standard and Table 2—

“unpersuasive.” Board Decision, 2014 WL 4180943, at *1. 

In particular, the Board found that, “[a]t a minimum, 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/13/2015
 8 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

ordinarily skilled artisans would reasonably infer at least 

an implicit reason to exclude [RAS and CAS signals]

based on their explicit exclusion in the context of [Table 

2].” Id. Inphi’s request for rehearing failed to address the 

“various other passages,” including Figure 9A. But in its 

decision, the Board relied on these “various other passages” that indicate that “chip selects are distinct from CAS, 

RAS, and bank address signals.” Id. at *2.

Finally, the Board described the “[p]atent owner’s reference to JEDEC standards and [Inphi’s expert’s] unrebutted testimony that ordinarily skilled artisans would 

understand a DDR chip select to be exclusive of RAS, 

CAS, and bank address signals” as “bolster[ing] support 

for the negative limitation.” Id. at *2. Inphi appealed. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

This court reviews legal conclusions of the PTAB de 

novo. In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

We review factual findings of the Board for substantial 

evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 

2000); Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 

2005). This is a deferential standard of review. See In re 

Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the evidence in record will support several reasonable but contradictory conclusions, we will not find the Board’s 

decision unsupported by substantial evidence simply 

because the Board chose one conclusion over another 

plausible alternative.”).

Substantial evidence supports a finding that the specification satisfies the written description requirement 

when “the essence of the original disclosure” conveys the 

necessary information—“regardless of how it” conveys 

such information, and regardless of whether the disclosure’s “words [a]re open to different interpretation[s].” In 

re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 424–25 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted); see also FalkoCase: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/13/2015
INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 9

Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1365–66 (Fed. 

Cir. 2006) (finding substantial evidence supported written 

description based on “several passages in the [patentee’s] 

application” and the unrebutted “testimony of [the patentee’s] expert,” which showed that skilled artisans 

would understand the invention); Novozymes A/S v. 

DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1346 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing the metaphor from In re 

Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (1967) that a disclosure should 

“provide sufficient ‘blaze marks’ to guide a reader through 

the forest of disclosed possibilities toward the claimed 

compound”).

Whether a patent claim satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1 depends 

on whether the description “clearly allow[s] persons of 

ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] 

invented what is claimed.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 

935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 

1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

[W]hatever the specific articulation, the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of 

the specification from the perspective of a person 

of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, 

the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that 

the inventor actually invented the invention 

claimed.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

In particular, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a 

reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 

F.3d at 1351.

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/13/2015
 10 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

At the heart of this appeal is whether the specification 

of the ’537 patent provides a “reason to exclude” CAS, 

RAS, or bank address signals that is sufficient to satisfy 

the written description requirement embodied in Santarus. In its briefs, Inphi argued that Santarus requires 

“that the patentee describes a preference for the included 

signal(s) over the excluded signals (or alternatively a 

disadvantage of the excluded signals).” Inphi Reply Br. 6. 

In other words that the specification identify the comparative advantage of the material remaining after any 

narrowing amendment. Id. During oral argument, 

counsel for Inphi appeared to back away from this argument, suggesting that Santarus does not require listing 

advantages or disadvantages to alternative signal types. 

Oral Arg. at 02:14–03:45; 08:22–08:53, available at

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20

15-1179.mp3. The question that remains is whether 

properly describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can 

constitute a “reason to exclude” under the standard 

articulated in Santarus. We hold that it can. 

The patent at issue in Santarus related to the treatment of acid-caused gastrointestinal disorder. Santarus, 

694 F.3d at 1350. This court found that the negative 

claim limitation—“wherein the composition contains no 

sucralfate”—is supported by the specification as required 

by 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1. Id at 1350–51. In 

support of the negative claim limitation, the specification 

described that “sucralfate . . . [has] certain disadvantages

associated with [its] use. . . . Proton pump inhibitors such 

as omeprazole represent an advantageous alternative to 

the use of . . . sucralfate as a treatment for complications 

related to stress-related mucosal damage.” Id. at 1350

(emphasis added). And, further, that sucralfate “was 

known to have occasional adverse effects.” Id. at 1350–

51. The specification, therefore, noted both that the 

disclaimed element—sucralfate—has disadvantages and 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/13/2015
INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 11

that the claimed element—proton pump inhibitors such 

as omeprazole—was advantageous.

In Santarus, the district court below held that “it is 

inadequate that the specification states that [the] claimed 

composition is ‘advantageous’ as compared with sucralfate . . . .” Id. at 1350. In reversing the district court, 

the panel first noted that “the patentee is entitled” to 

narrow the claims. Id. at 1351. The court continued:

The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure explains that claims may state the exclusion of alternatives. See MPEP § 2173.05(i) (“If alternative 

elements are positively recited in the specification, 

they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.”). 

For example, in In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 

101[8] (CCPA 1977), the applicant narrowed the 

claims to exclude the content of a lost interference 

count, and the court observed that: “It is for the 

inventor to decide what bounds of protection he 

will seek.” 

Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to 

exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to 

support both the inclusion and exclusion of the 

same material. The claim limitation that the Phillips formulations contain no sucralfate is adequately supported by statements in the 

specification expressly listing the disadvantages of 

using sucralfate. The district court’s holding that 

the ’772 patent claims are invalid on written description grounds is thus reversed.

Id. (emphases added). The meaning of this passage is the 

central dispute between the parties. Inphi argues that 

the phrase “reason to exclude” requires something more 

than properly describing alternative features of the paCase: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/13/2015
 12 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

tented invention. Netlist, on the other hand, argues that 

the written description requirement is satisfied when 

alternative features are properly described. The Santarus

court found that the patent-at-issue’s express recitation of 

(dis)advantages was sufficient to provide a reason to 

exclude the claim limitation at issue. That court did not 

hold, however, that such recitations were required to 

satisfy the written description requirements of § 112, 

paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations. Nor do we see 

any reason to now articulate a new and heightened 

standard for negative claim limitations.5

When viewed in its proper context, Santarus simply 

reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy 

the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in 

this court’s existing jurisprudence, including through 

compliance with MPEP § 2173.05(i) (“If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may 

be explicitly excluded in the claims.”) and In re Johnson, 

558 F.2d at 1018 (“It is for the inventor to decide what 

bounds of protection he will seek.”). 

The “reason” required by Santarus is provided, for instance, by properly describing alternative features of the 

patented invention. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d at 1019 

(“The facts of the prosecution are properly presented and 

relied on, under these circumstances, to indicate that 

appellants are merely excising the invention of another, to 

5 The dissent in Santarus incorrectly characterized 

the “describe a reason” language in the majority as a “new 

rule.” Id. at 1358–59. It is telling that both the majority 

and dissent cite the same passages in In re Johnson and 

MPEP § 2173.05. Compare id. at 1351, with id. at 1359. 

These references are consistent with the Santarus requirement that “the specification describe[] a reason to 

exclude . . . .” Id. at 1351.

 

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/13/2015
INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 13

which they are not entitled, and are not . . . claiming ‘new 

matter.’”).

That is not to say that in all cases, a patentee may arbitrarily dissect its invention by amending the claims in 

order to avoid the prior art. In one recent case, this court 

found that if the specification directly forecloses the 

negative claim limitation, it is invalid under § 112. See In 

re Bimeda Research & Dev. Ltd., 724 F.3d 1320, 1322 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming Board rejection of negative 

claim limitation for lack of written description where 

“[t]he specification . . . leaves no room for argument that 

the inventor possessed a formulation that excludes only 

[an antiinfective] while permitting the use of antibiotics”).

In this case, however, substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s finding that the specification properly distinguishes the relevant signal types—CS, CAS, RAS, and 

bank address. Indeed, the parties agree that the disclosure in the ’537 patent distinguishes among the relevant 

signal types, but simply disagree about whether that

distinction creates a “reason to exclude” that satisfies the 

requirements of § 112, paragraph 1. Compare Inphi Op. 

Br. 26 (“Thus, in effect, the Board—and Netlist’s attorney’s—confused ‘distinguishment’ of various signals that 

can be used as chip selects with ‘a reason to exclude’ 

certain signals over others as chip selects.”), with Netlist 

Resp. Br. 27 (“This means that a DDR chip select signal is 

not a CAS signal, a RAS signal, or a bank address signal. 

That distinction ‘reasonably conveys’ a reason to exclude, which provides substantial evidence to uphold the 

Board’s decision.”). The Board’s review of the specification makes it clear that there was substantial evidence 

that Netlist possessed the negative claim limitation as of 

the filing date, as is evidenced through the Board’s reliance on the JEDEC standard, Table 2, and other various 

passages in the specification, including Figure 9A.

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/13/2015
 14 INPHI CORPORATION v. NETLIST, INC. 

We affirm the Board’s finding, as supported by substantial evidence, that the “original ’537 patent disclosure 

reasonably conveys a reason to exclude the relevant 

limitations.” Board Decision, 2014 WL 4180943, at *1. 

We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations 

and that properly described, alternative features are 

sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of 

§ 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and because we find that 

Inphi’s remaining arguments are without merit, we 

conclude that the Board properly affirmed its previous 

opinion upholding the examiner’s finding that the negative claim limitation at issue satisfied the standard for 

written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1. 

Accordingly, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1179 Document: 33-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/13/2015