Opinion
No. C-05-00334 RMW, [Re Docket No. 2066], No. C-05-02298 RMW, [Re Docket No. 1020], No. C-06-00244 RMW, [Re Docket No. 1415].
August 27, 2008
ORDER GRANTING RAMBUS'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Rambus has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding the court's construction of the phrase "memory device" in the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. To ensure that the court has not committed a ""[a] manifest failure," the court grants the motion. The court accepts Rambus's attached filing as its opening brief. The Manufacturers have 10 days to file a responsive brief, which is not to exceed 10 pages. Once the Manufacturers' brief has been filed, Rambus may file a reply within 5 days, which is not to exceed 5 pages.
Rambus also notes a scrivener's error in the court's prior claim construction. Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2008 WL 2754805 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2008). The court's construction of "sample/samples/sampling" was "To obtain at a discrete point in time; obtains at discrete points in time; and obtaining at discrete points in time." 2008 WL 2754805, *34-*35. Rambus notes that the construction of "samples" and "sampling" suggests that these actions must occur more than once, i.e., at discrete points in time, whereas the court construed "sample" to mean "to obtain at a discrete point in time." This confusion was inadvertent, and Rambus is correct. The court therefore clarifies that "sample/samples/sampling" means "to obtain at a discrete point in time; obtains at a discrete point in time; and obtaining at a discrete point in time."
Rambus's proposed clarification of the "sample" terms permits the actions to occur "at one or more discrete points in time." This clarification broadens the court's prior construction without explanation. Whether a device or method requires the action of sampling to occur multiple times will be dictated by the context of the claims. For example, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,452,863 recites a method during which "the first amount of data is sampled over a plurality of clock cycles of the external clock signal." Clearly, in this context "sampled" refers to an act that occurs more than once. On the other hand, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,426,916 recites a method that includes "sampling the first operation code synchronously with respect to a transition of the external clock signal." In this context, the word "sampling" requires obtaining the value of the first operation code just once to meet the claim's limitation. As it does not appear necessary nor significant to adopt Rambus's additional modification, the court declines to do so.