`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC., )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` vs. ) No. IPR2012-00042
`
` ) (SCM)
`
`PATENT OF MENTOR GRAPHICS )
`
`CORPORATION, )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
` )
`
` )
`
`_____________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF MAJID SARRAFZADEH, Ph.D.
`
` Newport Beach, California
`
` Thursday, August 22, 2013
`
` Volume I
`
`Reported by:
`
`SHARON LINDSAY-MILNIKEL
`
`CSR No. 5335
`
`Job No. 1719213
`
`PAGES 1 - 72
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC., )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` vs. ) No. IPR2012-00042
`
` ) (SCM)
`
`PATENT OF MENTOR GRAPHICS )
`
`CORPORATION, )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
` )
`
` )
`
`_____________________________)
`
` Deposition of MAJID SARRAFZADEH, Ph.D.,
`
`Volume I, taken on behalf of Petitioner, at 610
`
`Newport Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor, Newport
`
`Beach, California, beginning at 9:17 a.m. and ending
`
`at 12:40 p.m. on Thursday, August 22, 2013, before
`
`SHARON LINDSAY-MILNIKEL, Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`No. 5335.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`2
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Petitioner:
`
` ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
`
` BY: WILLIAM H. WRIGHT
`
` Attorney at Law
`
` 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
`
` Los Angeles, California 90017
`
` (213) 612-2478
`
` wwright&orrick.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
` O'MELVENY & MYERS
`
` BY: MARK E. MILLER
`
` Attorney at Law
`
` Two Embarcadero Center, Twenty-Eighth Floor
`
` San Francisco, California 94111
`
` (415) 984-8904
`
` markmiller@omm.com
`
`Also Present:
`
` SHANEE Y. W. NELSON
`
`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
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`3
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
` INDEX
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`
`MAJID SARRAFZADEH, Ph.D.
`
`Volume I
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT 5
`
` BY MR. MILLER 68
`
` EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent 6,240,376 7
`
`Exhibit 1003 Article entitled "A Source- 50
`
` level Dynamic Analysis
`
` Methodology and Tool for High-
`
` level Synthesis,"
`
`Exhibit 1007 United States Patent 6,132,109 65
`
`Exhibit 2027 Declaration Of Majid Sarrafzadeh, 29
`
` Ph.D. In Support Of Patent Owner
`
` Response
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
`4
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
` Newport Beach, California, Thursday, August 22, 2013
`
` 9:17 a.m.
`
` MAJID SARRAFZADEH, Ph.D.,
`
` having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Sarrafzadeh.
`
` A Good morning.
`
` Q Do you understand why you're here today?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Could you tell me your understanding.
`
` A That I will be deposed on a declaration that I
`
` have submitted back in June, and respond to any
`
` questions or clarify any matters related to that.
`
` Q Okay. In this somewhat odd patent office
`
` procedure, this is called cross-examination, and what
`
` we do today will be taken down by the court reporter
`
` and will be submitted to the patent trials and appeals
`
` board that is considering the validity of the patent
`
` for which you submitted your declaration.
`
` Since this is being transcribed, please answer
`
` orally, yes or no, or a longer answer, as appropriate.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`5
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` If you don't understand any questions, please
`
` ask me for clarification; otherwise, everyone will
`
` assume that you understood the question.
`
` Of course, we'll take regular breaks, I don't
`
` really anticipate going too long, but I'm always wrong.
`
` And I think that that's any of the basic
`
` ground rules.
`
` Do you have any questions about the
`
` deposition?
`
` A Not at this time. Thank you.
`
` Q Have you been deposed before?
`
` A I have.
`
` Q In what circumstances?
`
` A In a number of cases, two or three, maybe
`
` four, in the past 15 years.
`
` Q Do you recall, were those patent cases?
`
` A Certainly some involved patents, some of them,
`
` perhaps, were trade secret cases.
`
` Q So you have an understanding of the deposition
`
` process?
`
` A To some extent.
`
` Q What technologies were involved in those
`
` depositions?
`
` A They were mostly related to VLSI, CAD and
`
` circuit design.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`6
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q I see you have a book in front of you.
`
` Could you explain to me what that is.
`
` A Sure.
`
` This is the latest copy of my declaration
`
` along with its exhibits.
`
` Q Thank you.
`
` Let's mark Exhibit 1001 of this proceeding.
`
` (Exhibit 1001 was marked for identification
`
` by the court reporter and is attached hereto.)
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Dr. Sarrafzadeh, are you familiar with the
`
` document that has been marked or -- as Exhibit 1001 in
`
` this proceeding?
`
` A I am familiar with this patent.
`
` Q And this patent is U.S. Patent 6,240,376,
`
` Method and Apparatus For Gate-Level Simulation Of
`
` Synthesized Register Transfer Level Designs With
`
` Source-Level Debugging; is that correct?
`
` A That seems to be the title, correct, and the
`
` number seems to be correct.
`
` Q Will you understand if I refer to the patent
`
` as the '376 patent?
`
` A I would understand that.
`
` Q Dr. Sarrafzadeh, when were you first retained
`
` by Mentor for -- in its dispute with EVE and later
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`7
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` Synopsys?
`
` A I might be wrong in this, but I believe it was
`
` fall of 2011, or early 2012, I'm not positive.
`
` Q When did you -- when did you first become
`
` aware of the '376 patent?
`
` A I would say in 2013.
`
` Q Under what circumstances did you become aware
`
` of the '376 patent?
`
` A Initially I was just sent this patent to look
`
` at, review and provide comments.
`
` Q How long do you think you have spent studying
`
` the '376 patent?
`
` A I would say a few months, off and on, of
`
` course.
`
` Q So are you very familiar with the '376 patent?
`
` A I'm very familiar with it.
`
` Q In your declaration you provided an
`
` explanation of the meaning of the term "instrumentation
`
` signal"; is that correct?
`
` A That is correct.
`
` Q What is your definition of instrumentation
`
` signal, in the context of the '376 patent?
`
` A Instrumentation signal are logic that you add
`
` to the source code to being able to check the execution
`
` status of the statement.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 8
`
`8
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q Would you agree that the '376 patent uses a
`
` broader definition of the term "instrumentation
`
` signal"?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by that,
`
` "broader"?
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Well, let me go to an example.
`
` If you could, in Exhibit 1001, turn to column
`
` 2, and the sentence starting at line 47.
`
` And for the record, I will read the sentence.
`
` "Alternatively, gate-level netlist is
`
` not modified but the instrumentation
`
` signals implementing the
`
` instrumentation logic are contained
`
` in a cross-reference instrumentation
`
` database."
`
` A I see the part that you refer to, and, excuse
`
` me, what your question is?
`
` Q What is your understanding of that statement?
`
` A That statement says that you keep track of
`
` signals and you keep them in a cross-reference
`
` instrumentation database.
`
` Q Does this alternate method of creating an
`
` instrumentation signal at all change the gate-level
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`9
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` netlist?
`
` A This is not the definition of an
`
` instrumentation signal as used in claim 1.
`
` Q Well, let's -- we'll get to that later, but
`
` for now just this statement.
`
` MR. MILLER: Can you repeat the question.
`
` MR. WRIGHT: Could you repeat the question,
`
` please.
`
` (Record read as follows:
`
` "Q Does this alternate method of
`
` creating an instrumentation signal at
`
` all change the gate-level netlist?")
`
` THE WITNESS: If you don't mind, let me refer
`
` to my declaration for clarity.
`
` So as I have described in paragraph 35 of my
`
` declaration, this is an embodiment that is not claimed
`
` in 1, 5 and 28.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q And why is that?
`
` A I'm sorry, if I could please have your
`
` question read again, exactly what did you ask.
`
` MR. WRIGHT: Please read back the question.
`
` (Record read as follows:
`
` "Q Does this alternate method of
`
` creating an instrumentation signal at
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 10
`
`10
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` all change the gate-level netlist
`
` "THE WITNESS: If you don't mind, let
`
` me refer to my declaration for
`
` clarity.
`
` "So as I have described in
`
` paragraph 35 of my declaration, this
`
` is an embodiment that is not claimed
`
` in 1, 5 and 28.
`
` "BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` "Q And why is that?")
`
` THE WITNESS: So let's go back to the
`
` definition of instrumentation signals.
`
` So I'll read this quote from the patent,
`
` column 5, line 21 through 26, which says,
`
` "Generally instrumentation logic is
`
` created for a synthesizable statement
`
` in the RTL source code either by
`
` modifying the RTL source code or by
`
` analyzing the RTL source code during
`
` the synthesis process. The
`
` instrumentation logic provides an
`
` output signal indicative of whether
`
` the corresponding synthesizable
`
` statement is active. A gate-level
`
` design including the instrumentation
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 11
`
`11
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` output signal is then synthesized...
`
` the resulting gate-level design
`
` contains additional logic to create
`
` the additional instrumentation output
`
` signals."
`
` So this shows that in your instrumentation
`
` signal you would have additional logic.
`
` Q Could you continue and read the next two
`
` sentences in column 5, which would extend from about
`
` line 31 through about line 38.
`
` A Sure.
`
` "In an alternative embodiment, the
`
` RTL source code is analyzed to
`
` generate a cross-reference database
`
` as instrumentation data 238..."
`
` And that's what is shown in paragraph 35 of my
`
` declaration.
`
` Should I continue reading?
`
` Q Yes, please.
`
` A Sure.
`
` "The cross-reference database
`
` indicates the combination of already
`
` existing signals in the form of
`
` instrumentation logic that can be
`
` evaluated during simulation to
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 12
`
`12
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` determine whether a particular line
`
` of RTL source code is active. The
`
` cross-reference database contains a
`
` cross-reference between these
`
` instrumentation logic output signals
`
` and the position of the corresponding
`
` statement in the source code."
`
` Q So, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, is the -- does the '376
`
` patent use the term "instrumentation logic" to refer to
`
` both the addition of logic to RTL source code or end
`
` the identification of the logic that produces an
`
` instrumentation signal within a database?
`
` MR. MILLER: Can I have that question back,
`
` please.
`
` (Record read as follows:
`
` "Q So, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, is
`
` the -- does the '376 patent use the
`
` term "instrumentation logic" to refer
`
` to both the addition of logic to RTL
`
` source code or end the identification
`
` of logic that produces an
`
` instrumentation signal within a
`
` database?")
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: What they teach here, in many of
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 13
`
`13
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` the examples and methods, is where you would add
`
` combinational logic.
`
` For example, in column 9, line 4 through 9,
`
` they describe the addition of combinational logic and
`
` instrumentation signal.
`
` And regarding the notion of database, they do
`
` not teach the details of how you would use that, and
`
` for the main teaching of this patent, it is the
`
` addition of logic in defining instrumentation signal.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q But you would then agree that the '376 patent
`
` does use the term "instrumentation signal" to refer to
`
` logic that is not added, but is simply identified in a
`
` database?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form and foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat the
`
` question.
`
` (Record read as follows:
`
` "Q But you would then agree that
`
` the '376 patent does use the term
`
` 'instrumentation signal' to refer to
`
` logic that is not added, but is
`
` simply identified in a database?")
`
` THE WITNESS: The main topic of this patent or
`
` the field is related to hardware simulation or
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 14
`
`14
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` emulation, and although the database notion is
`
` described, but in order to perform emulation here, you
`
` must have logic that is used to do instrumentation
`
` signal.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Does that logic have to be added to the
`
` gate-level netlist or can it simply already exist in
`
` the gate-level netlist?
`
` A It must necessarily be added.
`
` Q And what is the basis for your statement?
`
` A Because of the examples and teaching done in
`
` this patent.
`
` Q In coming to that conclusion, then, aren't you
`
` ignoring the alternate embodiment in which the
`
` instrumentation signal is simply identified in the
`
` database and there's no logic added to the gate-level
`
` netlist?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form and foundation,
`
` misstates the words of the patent.
`
` THE WITNESS: Could you explain or show me
`
` where in the patent that you're referring to.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q You've read the lines several times.
`
` Let's start at column 2. This is the summary
`
` of the invention.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 15
`
`15
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q Column 2, line 47, it begins
`
` "Alternatively, the gate-level
`
` netlist is not modified but the
`
` instrumentation signals implementing
`
` the instrumentation logic are
`
` contained in a cross-reference
`
` instrumentation database. In either
`
` case, the instrumentation signals
`
` indicate the execution status of the
`
` corresponding cross-referenced
`
` synthesizable statement."
`
` A Sure.
`
` Because of the main use of this invention,
`
` it's an emulation. If you simply have -- if you simply
`
` make you use of the cross-reference database, you do
`
` not have visibility to the signals, so this embodiment
`
` will not be useful.
`
` And that's what I conclude, in the main
`
` embodiment, you would need to add logic in order to
`
` define the instrumentation signals.
`
` Q Does the '376 patent tell us that it's
`
` alternative embodiment is not useful for emulation.
`
` A That is obvious.
`
` Q I'm sorry, but that wasn't my question.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 16
`
`16
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` A Sure.
`
` Q Does the '376 tell us that the alternate
`
` embodiment, which uses instrumentation signals in a
`
` database, is not useful for emulation?
`
` A One of ordinary skill in the art looking at
`
` this would immediately conclude that this alternative
`
` embodiment is not -- has no use in emulation.
`
` Q Would you say that that part of the '376
`
` patent is nonfunctional?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to the form.
`
` THE WITNESS: What does "nonfunctional" mean?
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Inoperative.
`
` A And what, exactly, that means --
`
` Q Well --
`
` A -- explain to me.
`
` Q Not useful, it doesn't work.
`
` A In the context of this patent, in the context
`
` of claims, I don't know how you would use this in a
`
` emulation environment.
`
` Q You refer to the claims.
`
` Is there anything in claim 1 that identifies
`
` the claim as being limited to emulation?
`
` A The main teaching of this patent where -- as
`
` shown in many of the figures and explanation, would add
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`17
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` logic to create instrumentation signals, and you would
`
` do that only in an emulation environment.
`
` Q First, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, you didn't answer my
`
` question, but your answer appears to then be circular,
`
` that is, that you conclude that it could not -- that
`
` you must add logic because it's an emulation
`
` environment, and you know that you must add logic
`
` because it's intended to be an emulation environment.
`
` Is that not circular?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to the form and
`
` foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: Let me look at other evidence --
`
` I want to show other evidence of that.
`
` My understanding of this patent is consistent
`
` with the examiner's point of view where they point that
`
` the use of simulation breakpoints implemented by
`
` inserting instrumentation logic into the RTL, as
`
` indicated in the spec, page 42, line 24, in a
`
` gate-level circuit simulation.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Dr. Sarrafzadeh, let's go back to an earlier
`
` question.
`
` A Sure.
`
` Q Is there anything in claim 1 that indicates
`
` that claim 1 is limited to emulation?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 18
`
`18
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` A Taking the definition of logic added, in
`
` creating instrumentation signals, then claim 1 must be
`
` limited to emulation.
`
` Q Without reading in the definition that you
`
` derived from the fact that it -- claim 1 must be
`
` limited to emulation, is there anything else in claim 1
`
` that indicates that it covers only emulation?
`
` MR. MILLER: Could I have the question back,
`
` please.
`
` (Record read as follows:
`
` "Q Without reading in the
`
` definition that you derived from the
`
` fact that it -- claim 1 must be
`
` limited to emulation, is there
`
` anything else in claim 1 that
`
` indicates that it covers only
`
` emulation?")
`
` MR. MILLER: Object to the form and
`
` foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: If you don't mind, read the
`
` question so I provide the exact answer, please.
`
` MR. WRIGHT: Please read back the question.
`
` (Record read as follows:
`
` "Q Without reading in the
`
` definition that you derived from the
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`19
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` fact that it -- claim 1 must be
`
` limited to emulation, is there
`
` anything else in claim 1 that
`
` indicates that it covers only
`
` emulation?")
`
` THE WITNESS: The fact that the teaching of
`
` the patent, the techniques they show has to do with
`
` adding logic in defining instrumentation signals.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q So nothing in claim 1 suggests to you that
`
` claim 1 is only about emulation; is that correct?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to the form and
`
` foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I mentioned, with all of the
`
` teaching of the patent about instrumentation signals,
`
` requiring extra logic, one would conclude that claim 1
`
` must be about emulation.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q But my question is what in claim 1 would lead
`
` you to conclude that it is -- it covers only emulation.
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection. Asked and answered.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I mentioned, the use of
`
` instrumentation signal and the conclusion one would
`
` draw from reading the patent on what they are would
`
` require this claim to be about emulation.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 20
`
`20
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Again, is there anything in the language of
`
` claim 1 that indicates that claim 1 is limited to only
`
` emulation?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection. Asked and answered.
`
` THE WITNESS: I just answer that.
`
` MR. WRIGHT: Counsel, the rules are fairly
`
` strict in the patent office for objections, and I
`
` prefer that you limit that.
`
` And Dr. Sarrafzadeh has not answered my
`
` question yet.
`
` THE WITNESS: I --
`
` MR. MILLER: We have not been making any
`
` speaking objections, and I believe he has answered your
`
` question.
`
` MR. WRIGHT: I disagree.
`
` Q Dr. Sarrafzadeh, is there anything in the
`
` language of claim 1 that limits claim 1 to only
`
` emulation?
`
` A Yes. With the use of instrumentation signal,
`
` and it's use in the patent, one would conclude that
`
` claim 1 must be about emulation.
`
` Q Don't you have to ignore the alternate
`
` embodiment identified in the summary of the invention,
`
` starting at column 2, line 47, to reach your
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 21
`
`21
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` conclusion?
`
` A As I mentioned, that embodiment is not
`
` explained in detail in how you would use it, the only
`
` embodiment which is used in about 20 figures and
`
` description has to do with adding logic.
`
` Q Dr. Sarrafzadeh, could you look a bit earlier
`
` in column 2 at the first sentence of the summary of the
`
` invention, starting at line 26.
`
` "Methods of instrumenting synthesizable
`
` register transfer level (RTL) source
`
` code to enable debugging support akin
`
` to high-level language programming
`
` environments for gate-level
`
` simulation are provided."
`
` A Sure.
`
` Q Given that statement, why do you conclude that
`
` the '376 patent is directed to emulation rather than
`
` simulation?
`
` A Because --
`
` MR. MILLER: I'm sorry.
`
` THE WITNESS: Oh.
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection as to form and
`
` foundation.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: Because what they teach
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`22
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` throughout the patent, what they show in detail is the
`
` notion of instrumentation signal with added logic.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q How do you know that you need to ignore the
`
` alternate embodiment?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form and foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by "ignore"?
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Okay. The sentence in the summary of the
`
` invention, starting at column 2, line 47,
`
` Alternatively, the gate-level
`
` netlist is not modified but the
`
` instrumentation signals implementing
`
` the instrumentation logic are
`
` contained in a cross-reference
`
` database."
`
` Why do you disregard that use of
`
` instrumentation signals in your definition of
`
` instrumentation signal.
`
` A Because in the patent they don't show how to
`
` do this.
`
` Q How do I know that I should ignore that
`
` language?
`
` A You read the rest of the patent and show what
`
` they teach.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 23
`
`23
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q But, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, this is in the summary
`
` of the invention, the term "gate-level simulation" and
`
` "instrumentation signals implementing the
`
` instrumentation logic" are in the summary of the
`
` invention, how do I, as a reader, know that I'm just
`
` supposed to ignore them?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form, foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: You would read the rest of the
`
` patent to see what it is that it's teaching you and
`
` based on that, you conclude what is covered in the
`
` patent, what is taught in the patent and what is not.
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q In column 5, starting at about line 31, it
`
` states, "In an alternative embodiment, the
`
` RTL source code is analyzed to
`
` generate a cross-reference database
`
` as instrumentation data 238 without
`
` modifying the gate-level design."
`
` A Sure.
`
` Q In that alternate embodiment, is any logic
`
` added to the gate-level netlist to generate the
`
` instrumentation signal?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection to form, foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: First of all, the term used here
`
` is "instrumentation data," not "instrumentation
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`24
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` signal."
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q Dr. Sarrafzadeh, a few lines later it refers
`
` to "instrumentation logic output signals."
`
` Do you think that that refers to something
`
` different than instrumentation signals?
`
` A Which line are you -- should I keep on
`
` reading?
`
` Q You can keep reading. It's the third sentence
`
` of that paragraph, about line 40.
`
` A Thank you.
`
` I'm sorry, I can't find the word
`
` "instrumentation signal."
`
` Did you say you have seen it?
`
` Q The phrase is "instrumentation logic output
`
` signals."
`
` A They do not show and explain what they mean by
`
` "instrumentation logic output signals."
`
` Q Okay. What does the '376 patent explain about
`
` the alternative embodiments' way of generating
`
` instrumentation signals?
`
` MR. MILLER: Objection. Lacks foundation and
`
` form.
`
` THE WITNESS: And by that you mean the
`
` paragraph, for example, that we just went through?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 25
`
`25
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` BY MR. WRIGHT:
`
` Q This patent that you studied for months on and
`
` off --
`
` A Right.
`
` Q -- what does this patent -- I called out
`
` column 2, I called out column 5 -- can you explain your
`
` understanding of the alternate embodiment.
`
` A Okay. There might be other alternative
`
` embodiments.
`
` Do you mean this specific one or do you want
`
` me to go through the patent to find out if there are
`
` other alternative embodiment.
`
` Q This specific alternative embodiment
`
` referenced in column 2 and column 5.
`
` A What they explain is very high level, it
`
` doesn't show the details. I don't know what,
`
` exactly -- and the definitely embodiment that we talked
`
` about earlier of adding logic is described in more than
`
` 10 columns, probably 10, 15 figures, it shows all the
`
` details and one of ordinary skill in the art would know
`
` what that means, and that's what the examiner has
`
` concluded also.
`
` Q That's not my question.
`
` Could you explain your understanding of the
`
` alternative embodiment?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 26
`
`26
`
`SYNOPSYS 1016, Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`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
`
` A Part of it is there is a database with some
`
` signals in it. I'm not sure which signals, because
`
` they don't describe it, and I'm not sure how you would
`
` draw logic from these signals to make any conclusions.
`
` Q Does the '376 patent refer to the signals in
`
` the database as instrumentation signals?
`
` A It's not what they mean in this embodiment by
`
` instrumentation signal.
`
` Q I don't understand your answer.
`
` A The term that they have used in column 2 -- I
`
` assume that's what you are referring to --
`
` Q Yes.
`
` A -- is not clear what, exactly, these signals
`
` are.
`
` Q Does the alternative embodiment add any logic
`
` to the gate-level netlist?
`
` MR. MILLER: O