United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION —No. C-06-01668 RMW; No. C-06-01766 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 1/8/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and VIA

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (USA),

Defendants.

No. C-06-01668 RMW

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

[Re Docket Nos. 45, 52, 63]

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendants.

No. C-06-01766 RMW

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

[Re Docket Nos. 66, 71, 74]

(Cases consolidated through claim

construction)

The parties have briefed and argued the issue of construction of U.S. Patent no. 5,072,369. 

One issue is the meaning of "bus" in the '369 patent and whether "bus," as used, is necessarily a

parallel bus or could be either a parallel bus or a serial bus. 

The terms "serial bus" and "parallel bus" are not defined in the '369 patent; the '369 patent

does not even use "serial bus." According to the defendants, buses may be either serial or parallel. 

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 197 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Intel defines a "serial bus" as "a point-to-point connection between two devices."

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION —No. C-06-01668 RMW; No. C-06-01766 RMW

JAH 2

Via explains that a parallel bus is one containing more than one conductor. The defendants also

describe a "'serial' point-to-point bus" as a bus consisting "of 'one' conductor connecting 'one

source' to 'one destination.'" It is not clear to the court whether serial buses of types other than

"point-to-point" exist,1 or how Via's definition of "shared bus" as one capable of connecting two or

more modules fits into this. Via does offer the following analogy:

A parallel bus is like a major multi-late highway connecting multiple cities. Traffic

on the highway can enter and exit at the numerous cities along the way; or one can

think of the several cities "plugging in" to the major thoroughfare, thereby gaining

access to the two most adjacent cities, as well as other cities further away. On the

other hand, a serial point-to-point bus is analogous to a private driveway between a

house and the street: there is only one path and there are no intermediate entry or

exit points between the "one source" (home) and the "one destination" (the street).

From the evidence presented by the parties, the precise meanings of "parallel bus" and "serial

bus," as well as the precise dividing line between the two and whether all buses must be one or the

other, are unclear. 

The court has consulted reference sources, which have not been particularly illuminating. 

For example, the nineteenth edition of Newton's Telecom Dictionary contains the following

definition of "Serial Bus":

Serial Bus was the original name for Intel's standard for a type of very local, local

area network that would be used for connecting peripherals to the motherboard of a

PC. There'd be one plug on the back of the PC into which you'd daisy chain various

peripherals, including a mouse, a keyboard, speakers, printers, a microphone and a

telephone. The idea of serial bus is to clear away all the clutter on the back of the

PC. In March of 1995 when the first technical specs were released, serial bus' name

was changed to Universal Serial Bus (I don't know why). See USB.

The same version of Newton's does not define "parallel bus." The Authoritative Dictionary of

IEEE Standards Terms is similarly unhelpful. It defines "serial bus" as follows:

(1) Intended as a low-cost peripheral connect or an alternate diagnostic control path. 

One instantiation of a serial bus is the "Serial Bus" as specified in IEEE P1394.

(2) A peripheral interconnect and an alternate diagnostic and control path.

The IEEE Dictionary contains no definition of "parallel bus." Neither of these technical

dictionaries appears to use "parallel bus" and "serial bus" in the same manner as in the '369 patent.

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 197 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The explanation provided should be sufficiently detailed for the court to determine whether a

given bus configuration would necessarily be serial or parallel or could be either. For example,

based on the information provided by the parties to date, the court is uncertain whether a bus

connecting three components in 1989 would necessarily have been parallel or could have in theory

been serial.

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION —No. C-06-01668 RMW; No. C-06-01766 RMW

JAH 3

Further information regarding the definitions of "parallel bus" and "serial bus" would assist

the court in construing "bus." The parties are therefore directed to confer among themselves and

determine whether they agree on the meanings of "parallel bus" and "serial bus" that would have

been understood by those skilled in the art at the time the application for the '369 patent was filed. If

the parties agree, they are to submit their definitions as soon as possible. If the parties do not agree,

each side is to file a declaration of no more than three pages explaining the meanings of "parallel

bus" and "serial bus" no later than noon on January 16, 2007.2 

If the parties believe it would be helpful to the court, they may also define any pertinent,

related terms, such as "shared bus" or "point-to-point bus." The parties shall not at this time submit

further briefing, although each side may lodge any necessary evidentiary objections within twentyfour hours of the filing of the other side's declaration.

DATED: 1/8/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 197 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION —No. C-06-01668 RMW; No. C-06-01766 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Lawrence M. Hadley hadleyl@hbdlawyers.com 

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com 

Omer Salik saliko@hbdlawyers.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Jennifer Ochs jochs@wsgr.com 

Maura Rees mrees@wsgr.com 

Robert Paul Feldman rfeldman@wsgr.com 

Matthew R. Reed mreed@wsgr.com 

John Michael Farrell jfarrell@fr.com 

Joseph V Colaianni, Jr. Colaianni@fr.com 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com 

Ruffin B. Cordell 

Timothy Wayne Riffe Riffe@fr.com 

Luann Loraine Simmons lsimmons@omm.com 

Mark E. Miller markmiller@omm.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/8/07 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 197 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 4