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.
`
` 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
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
