“The main argument of Micron petition for IPR are based in following paragraphs,

'One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mills’ teaching of using flash memory as the computer system’s main memory with Katayama’s file system for flash memory. Specifically, both references are directed to using flash memory as a way to increase a computer’s processing speed.'”

I can't comment on the technical details of the patents, but I'll offer the following:

This argument looks okay on a quick reading, but it has no real substance. For instance, the phrase “would have been motivated to” indicates not an actual accomplishment, but a desire to accomplish something, a wish to combine Mills' teaching with Katayama's file system and use flash memory to increase processing speed. One of ordinary skill in the art (whoever that is) may have desired to do this (do we have proof?), but where is the evidence that this hypothetical person actually achieved or patented the specific process? Are there any actual products or patents in existence, prior to '108, for actually achieving the result achieved by Claim 1, as defined in the Markman ruling?

Can a wish be considered prior art?