Rambus wins reversal of Board's rejection for anticipation

From the CAFC on Rambus


After oral argument, requestor Micron Technology,
Inc. (“Micron”) moved to withdraw from this case, which
we granted in a separate order. Rambus has the right to
appeal the Board’s rejection of its claims irrespective of
Micron’s participation in this appeal. See 35 U.S.C. §
315(a)(1) (2006). Thus, despite Micron’s withdrawal, a
live controversy regarding the patentability of Rambus’s
claims remains before us for resolution.1 We do not reach
Micron’s alternate grounds for affirming the Board,
because these arguments have been withdrawn. As
discussed below, we reverse the Board’s anticipation
decision as unsupported by substantial evidence.



As to the argument


The Board found that, in at least some embodiments
in Bennett, Parameter VI meets the claim limitation at
issue. Specifically, when the embodiments in Fig. 25a
and b both (1) win arbitration on the first attempt and (2)
are not busy for an indeterminate amount of time, then
Parameter VI is a “value that is representative of an
amount of time to transpire after which the memory
device outputs the first amount of data.” We disagree. A
value cannot “represent” an “amount of time” if there are
additional factors, wholly unrepresented by that value,
that necessarily impact, or represent, the “amount of
time.” Certainly, Parameter VI is one factor that may
affect the amount of time that passes before data is trans-
ferred but it does not represent that time. Accordingly,
we reverse the Board’s decision that Bennett anticipates
claims 26 and 28 of the ’916 patent.