throbber
Case IPR2014-01145
`Patent No. 6,237,127
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`ATOPTECH, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01145
`Patent No. 6,237,127
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................... 1 
`THE ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ......................... 4 
`III. THE ’127 PATENT AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................ 5 
`A. Overview of the ’127 Patent ................................................................. 5 
`B.
`Claim Construction of “Timing Table” ................................................ 8 
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ........................................... 11 
`A.
`Belkhale .............................................................................................. 11 
`Tom ..................................................................................................... 15 
`THE PETITION FAILS TO PRESENT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-4 AND 7-11 .................................. 16 
`A.
`The Petition fails to prove that independent claim 1 is obvious
`over Belkhale. ..................................................................................... 16 
`1.
`The Petition fails to provide evidence that Belkhale
`discloses “propagating a plurality of timing tables.” ............... 17 
`The Petition’s allegations that Belkhale’s “set attribute”
`is propagated through a circuit description do not provide
`evidence that Belkhale discloses propagating a reference
`to a tag. ..................................................................................... 20 
`Belkhale does not disclose propagating a reference to a
`tag through a circuit description. ............................................. 22 
`The Petition fails to provide evidence that Belkhale
`discloses “a tag comprising at least a first label indicating
`a marked point in the circuit description, through which
`the table has been propagated.” ............................................... 24 
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Petition does not address multiple Graham factors
`and thus fails to present a prima facie case of
`obviousness over Belkhale. ...................................................... 31 
`The Petition fails to prove that independent claim 1 is obvious
`over the combination of Belkhale and Tom. ...................................... 40 
`1.
`Tom does not cure the deficiencies of Belkhale. ..................... 40 
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
`motivated to combine Belkhale and Tom. ............................... 42 
`The Petition fails to prove that dependent claims 2-4 and 7-11
`are obvious over Belkhale or the combination of Belkhale and
`Tom. .................................................................................................... 45 
`1.
`Neither Belkhale nor the combination of Belkhale and
`Tom discloses or renders obvious the limitations of
`dependent claim 2. ................................................................... 45 
`Neither Belkhale nor the combination of Belkhale and
`Tom discloses or renders obvious the limitations of
`dependent claim 3. ................................................................... 48 
`Neither Belkhale nor the combination of Belkhale and
`Tom discloses or renders obvious the limitations of
`dependent claim 10. ................................................................. 49 
`Neither Belkhale nor the combination of Belkhale and
`Tom discloses or renders obvious the limitations of
`dependent claim 11. ................................................................. 49 
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 50 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B. October 23, 2014) .............................. 33, 34
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................. 31, 32, 34, 38
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 34
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 31, 32
`
`Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp.,
`755 F.2d 158 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................... 35, 36, 38, 39
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................ 35, 36, 37, 38
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. September 15, 2014) ............................. 32
`
`Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01206, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. December 23, 2014) .......................... 32, 33
`
`Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC,
`IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014). ......................................... 35
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................4, 31, 35, 36, 38, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................... 24, 30, 50
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ............................................................................................... 1, 19
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ........................................................... 1, 19, 24, 30, 31, 33, 50
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper
`
`No. 7) (“Decision”), entered January 21, 2015, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent
`
`Owner Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Response in
`
`opposition to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No.
`
`6,237,127 (the “’127 patent”) filed by ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), Petitioner ATopTech has “the burden of proving
`
`a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” And to
`
`prove a proposition of unpatentability, the Petition must specify where each
`
`element of a challenged claim is found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`The burden is thus placed squarely on ATopTech to provide evidence establishing
`
`that all limitations of the challenged claims are met in the prior art. But the
`
`Petition suffers from substantial deficiencies, and ATopTech falls short of meeting
`
`its burden.
`
`The ’127 Patent discloses a method for performing static timing analysis on
`
`a digital electronic circuit. Ex. 1001, Abstract. In the static timing analysis, timing
`
`tables are propagated through a circuit description. Id. at 9:58-13:2. Such timing
`
`tables include delay values, e.g., minimum rise time (minRT), maximum rise time
`
`(maxRT), minimum fall time (minFT), and maximum fall time (maxFT) values, as
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`disclosed at 9:54-57 of the ’127 Patent, and illustrated in Figure 4A:
`
`
`
`The minRT, maxRT, minFT, and maxFT delay values are propagated through the
`
`circuit description as part of the static timing analysis. Id. at 9:58-13:2.
`
`But the propagation of timing tables in the ’127 Patent does not involve the
`
`propagation of only delay values. Rather, delay values and other additional
`
`information are propagated through a circuit description. The additional
`
`information that is propagated through the circuit description includes at least a
`
`reference to a “tag.” A tag is a data structure that includes a “label,” and the label
`
`identifies a point in the circuit description through which the timing table has been
`
`propagated. Id., 3:29-32, 10:21-25, 18:23-50.
`
`Propagating a reference to a tag through a circuit description is illustrated,
`
`for example, in Figure 11 of the ’127 Patent:
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`This annotated portion of Figure 11 shows a timing table 1118 and a tag 1119. As
`
`shown in the annotation above, the timing table refers to the tag, and the tag
`
`includes a label 1121 indicating a marked point (“x1”) in a circuit description.
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:53-60. When the timing table is propagated through the circuit
`
`description, the reference to the tag is also propagated through the circuit
`
`description. Id., 23:66-24:28, Fig. 11.
`
`This feature—propagating a reference
`
`to a
`
`tag
`
`through a circuit
`
`description—is required by the claims of the ’127 Patent. Specifically,
`
`independent claim 1 recites propagating a plurality of timing tables through a
`
`circuit description, where at least one of the propagated timing tables “refers to a
`
`tag comprising at least a first label indicating a marked point in the circuit
`
`description.”
`
`Petitioner fails to recognize this requirement of the claims. This is
`
`evidenced, for example, in Petitioner’s proposed claim construction for “timing
`
`table.” Petition at 23-24. Petitioner alleges that propagating delay values only
`
`satisfies the “propagating a plurality of timing tables” limitation. Id. at 24. This is
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`incorrect: as explained above, the propagating step of claim 1 requires propagating
`
`a “refer[ence] to a tag” through a circuit description.
`
`Petitioner’s misunderstanding of the claim is fatal to its unpatentability
`
`arguments. Having failed to recognize that claim 1 requires propagating a
`
`“refer[ence] to a tag,” Petitioner provides no evidence that the prior art discloses
`
`this feature. In particular, Petitioner relies on Belkhale as allegedly disclosing the
`
`“propagating” limitation but provides no evidence that this reference discloses
`
`propagating a reference to a tag. The Petition thus fails to provide evidence
`
`establishing that all claim limitations are disclosed in the prior art.
`
`The Petition is deficient in other respects, as explained below. For at least
`
`these reasons, the Board should enter judgment that claims 1-4 and 7-11 of the ’127
`
`patent are patentable over Belkhale and the combination of Belkhale and Tom.
`
`II. THE ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`The Institution Decision sets forth the following alleged grounds for
`
`unpatentability in this trial:
`
` Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Belkhale; and
`
` Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Belkhale and Tom.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Decision at 25. The Board denied all other grounds that ATopTech presented in its
`
`Petition. Id.
`
`III. THE ’127 PATENT AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Overview of the ’127 Patent
`The ’127 Patent discloses a method for performing static timing analysis on a
`
`digital electronic circuit. Ex. 1001, Abstract; see also Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 39-52. The
`
`static timing analysis may be used, for example, to verify that the circuit will
`
`perform correctly at target clock speeds. Ex. 1001, 1:36-40. The ’127 Patent
`
`describes the use of “exceptions,” which allow a circuit designer to specify certain
`
`paths through a circuit as being subject to non-default timing rules. Id., 7:57-59.
`
`Using exceptions, certain paths through the circuit can be subject to less
`
`demanding timing requirements. Id., 8:1-8.
`
`To incorporate exceptions in the static timing analysis, a “pin-labelling” step
`
`is performed. Pin-labelling involves marking points in a circuit description
`
`according to their being referenced by an exception. Id., 2:40-43, 23:1-7. Figure 11
`
`of
`
`the ’127 Patent shows pin-labelling of circuit points with exception
`
`flags 1110, 1111:
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`After the marking of the circuit description with the exception flags, timing
`
`tables are propagated through the marked circuit description. Ex. 1001, 9:58-13:2,
`
`23:8-17. The propagation of timing tables is used to determine, for example, an
`
`amount of time required to propagate a signal from an output of a “launch” flip-flop
`
`to an input of a “capture” flip-flop of the circuit description. Id., 12:50-13:2. The
`
`timing tables described in the ’127 Patent include multiple delay values. Id., 9:54-
`
`57. As the timing tables are propagated through the circuit description, the delay
`
`values at each circuit node are added to corresponding delay values of the timing
`
`table from the previous node. Id., 9:58-13:2.
`
`When a timing table propagates through a point in the circuit description
`
`marked by an exception flag, a tag to which the timing table refers is updated to
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`indicate the marked point through which the table propagated. See, e.g., id., 23:39-
`
`60. For example, in Figure 11, in propagating a timing table through the marked
`
`point “x1,” timing table 1118 is generated. Id. Because the point x1 was
`
`previously marked with the exception flag 1110, the tag 1119 to which the table
`
`1118 refers is updated to indicate the marked point x1 through which the table
`
`1118 propagated:
`
`
`
`After the propagation of the timing tables through the circuit description, a
`
`second phase of the timing analysis, relative constraint analysis, is performed. Ex.
`
`1001, 13:3-4. Relative constraint analysis involves the comparison of the delay
`
`values included in the timing tables with the timing constraints of the circuit. Id.,
`
`13:66-14:27. For example, the ’127 Patent describes maximum allowable path
`
`delays (MAPDs) and shortest allowable path delays (SAPDs), which are timing
`
`constraints for a path of the circuit that may be altered based on exceptions. Id.,
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`13:34-63, 14:30-38. The delay values stored in the timing tables are compared to
`
`the MAPD and SAPD values, and if the MAPD and SAPD timing constraints are
`
`satisfied, the circuit has passed the static timing analysis. Id., 13:56-14:26.
`
`B. Claim Construction of “Timing Table”
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and solely for the purposes of this review,
`
`Petitioner construes the claim language such that the claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) at the earliest claimed priority date and consistent with the disclosure of
`
`the ’127 patent. The earliest claimed priority date of the ’127 patent is June 8, 1998.
`
`The ’127 patent is directed to systems and methods for performing static timing
`
`analysis on a digital electronic circuit. See Ex. 1001, Abstract. The POSITA,
`
`working on static timing analysis systems and methods in June 1998, would have a
`
`minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, or a closely-related field. See Ex. 2004, Declaration of Dr. Martin
`
`Walker, ¶ 22. The POSITA also would have a minimum of one to two years of
`
`professional experience in digital electronic circuit design and analysis. Id.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites the step of “propagating a plurality of timing
`
`tables through the circuit description.” In the Institution Decision, the Board
`
`construed “timing table” to be a “table having a timing value.” Decision at 7. The
`
`Board’s construction effectively adopts Petitioner’s proposed construction of this
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`term. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`‘timing table’ is not limited to the four values disclosed as an ‘RF timing table’ in
`
`the ’127 Patent but refers to the propagation of any delay value.” Petition at 24.
`
`Under the Petitioner’s construction, the propagation of a single delay value would
`
`be a propagation of a “timing table.” And under the Petitioner’s construction, the
`
`propagation of multiple delay values, without any additional information, would
`
`meet the “propagating a plurality of timing tables” limitation.
`
`Patent Owner submits that the Petitioner’s construction contradicts the
`
`language of independent claim 1 and is thus improper. Contrary to the Petitioner’s
`
`assertion, the “propagating a plurality of timing tables” limitation cannot be met by
`
`propagating only delay values through a circuit description. Rather, to meet the
`
`“propagating” limitation, at least one of the propagated timing tables must include
`
`certain additional information. The language of claim 1 makes this evident:
`
`wherein at least a first timing table, of the plurality of timing
`tables, refers to a tag comprising at least a first label indicating a
`marked point in the circuit description . . . .
`
`As shown above, at least one of the timing tables that is propagated through the
`
`circuit description must “refer[] to a tag.” A timing table that “refers to a tag”
`
`cannot consist of only delay values. Rather, such a timing table must include at
`
`least some additional information, i.e., a reference to a tag. See Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 62-63.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the plain language of the claims, Patent Owner submits that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “propagating a plurality of timing tables
`
`through the circuit description” requires propagating a reference to a tag through a
`
`circuit description. Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, which omits this
`
`requirement, contradicts the language of claim 1 and is thus improper.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further submits that the Petitioner’s construction contradicts
`
`the plain meaning of the term “table” and is thus improper for this additional
`
`reason. As noted above, under Petitioner’s proposed construction, the propagation
`
`of a single delay value would be a propagation of a “timing table.” But under its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, a table must include a set of data, i.e., more than a
`
`single data item. This is consistent with the term’s use in the ’127 Patent and is
`
`also consistent with the term’s ordinary usage. See Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 64-65. For
`
`example, the ’127 Patent discloses tables having multiple data items:
`
`The RF timing tables propagated are comprised of the following
`four values: minimum rise time (minRT), maximum rise time
`(maxRT), minimum fall time (minFT) and maximum fall time
`(maxFT).
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:54-57. The ’127 Patent includes no disclosure of a table having only a
`
`single data item.
`
`Consistent with the term’s use in the ’127 Patent, the Microsoft Press
`
`Computer Dictionary (Third Edition 1997) defines “table” as “a data structure
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`usually consisting of a list of entries.” Ex. 2006 at 459. Similarly, The Oxford
`
`Desk Dictionary (American Edition 1995) defines “table” as a “set of facts or
`
`figures in columns, etc.” Ex. 2001 at 585. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
`
`Dictionary (10th ed. 1995) defines “table” as “a systematic arrangement of data
`
`usu. in rows and columns for ready reference.” Ex. 2002 at 1198.
`
`In summary, Petitioner’s construction for “timing table” is inconsistent with
`
`the language of the claims and contradicts the plain meaning of the term “table.”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “propagating a plurality of timing
`
`tables” limitation should be construed as requiring the propagation of a reference
`
`to a tag. And under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “timing table” should
`
`be construed as requiring multiple timing values.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES
`A. Belkhale
`Belkhale is related to static timing analysis of circuits. Ex. 1005 at 6; see
`
`
`
`also Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 66-71. Belkhale discloses that a problem with conventional static
`
`timing analysis procedures is that they “do[] not take logic into account.” Ex. 1005
`
`at 6. Specifically, conventional static timing analysis procedures may consider
`
`paths of a circuit description that are not “logically realizable.” Id. Belkhale uses
`
`the term “false path” to refer to a path that is not logically realizable. Id. Belkhale
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`discloses that false paths “must be detected and eliminated from consideration
`
`from the timing analysis.” Id.
`
`
`
`To eliminate multiple false paths from a timing analysis, Belkhale discloses
`
`the use of “false sub graphs.” Ex. 1005 at 6. Belkhale explains that a false sub
`
`graph “is, in general, equivalent to many individual [false] paths.” Id. at 9; see
`
`also id., disclosing example in which 29 false sub graphs include 30,000 false
`
`paths. Example false sub graphs F1 and F2 for a timing graph G are illustrated in
`
`Figure 1 of Belkhale:
`
`Ex. 1005 at 10. False sub graph F1 represents seven (7) false paths, which may be
`
`specified as ordered pairs (v1, v2), (v1, v3), (v2, v4), (v2, v5), (v3, v5), (v4, v7),
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`and (v5, v7).1 Id. at 7. False sub graph F2 also represents seven false paths, which
`
`may be specified as ordered pairs (v1, v2), (v1, v3), (v2, v5), (v3, v5), (v3, v6),
`
`(v5, v8), and (v6, v8). Id.
`
`
`
`To determine an amount of time required to propagate a signal from an input
`
`node of a timing graph (e.g., node v1 of Belkhale’s timing graph G) to an output
`
`node of the timing graph (e.g., node v9), Belkhale discloses “Algorithm 1.”
`
`Ex. 1005 at 7. The algorithm is used to calculate one or more arrival times at each
`
`node of the timing graph. Id. An example output of the algorithm is depicted in
`
`Figure 3 of Belkhale:
`
`
`
`Id. at 10. In Figure 3, a first row includes arrival times (AT) for each of the nodes
`
`v1-v9 of the timing graph G, as computed by the algorithm, and a second row
`
`
`1 Belkhale indicates that false sub graphs F1 and F2 do not include diagonal edges.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 7. Thus, false sub graph F1 does not include paths specified by
`
`ordered pairs (v1, v5) and (v2, v7). Likewise, false sub graph F2 does not include
`
`paths specified by ordered pairs (v1, v5) and (v3, v8).
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`includes required times (RAT) for each of the nodes. Id. An AT value of a node is
`
`compared to an RAT value of the node to determine a “local measure of the
`
`magnitude of the timing violation.” Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`Each AT value in Figure 3 is associated with a “set attribute,” where the set
`
`attribute “gives the set of false sub graphs the signal has come through.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`7. In the example presented in Figure 1 of Belkhale, including false sub graphs F1
`
`and F2, Belkhale’s set attribute is used to indicate false sub graphs as follows:
`
`Set Attribute False Sub Graph
`{}
`Neither F1 nor F2
`{1}
`F1
`{2}
`F2
`{1,2}
`F1 and F2
`
`
`
`To illustrate an application of Belkhale’s set attribute, reference is made to Figure 3
`
`of Belkhale. In the first row of Figure 3, node v4 has an entry (2, {1}). The value
`
`“2” is an arrival time, and the value {1} is a set attribute indicating the false sub
`
`graph F1. The notation (2, {1}) thus means that in propagating a signal from node
`
`v1 to v4 through the false sub graph F1, there is a delay of 2 timing units.
`
`
`
`In instances where the algorithm computes multiple arrival times for a given
`
`node, the different arrival times “are distinguished based on a set attribute.” Id. at 7.
`
`For example, in the first row of Figure 3, node v5 has multiple arrival times “1” and
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“2.” The arrival time “1” is associated with a null ({}) set attribute, and the arrival
`
`time “2” is associated with a {1,2} set attribute.
`
`Tom
`
`B.
`Tom discloses methods for performing automatic delay adjustment in static
`
`
`
`timing analysis procedures. Ex. 1006, Title; see also Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 72-76. Tom
`
`discloses that static timing analysis includes “propagating maximum delays from
`
`the inputs to the outputs of a design in a single pass through the design.” Ex. 1006,
`
`1:29-31. A problem in the static timing analysis may occur if “data is generated at
`
`the output pin of [a] clocked element (the “source” element) later than it is
`
`expected to be clocked into the input pin of [a] next downstream clocked element
`
`(the “sink” element), [because] the data will appear to be too late from the
`
`standpoint of the sink latch.” Id., 1:34-39. This problem may be resolved “by
`
`making a timing adjustment to the delay value which is propagated out of the
`
`output pin of the source latch. The timing adjustment is made by subtracting a
`
`clock cycle from the delay value so that the data will appear to have been clocked
`
`out of the output pin during the clock cycle preceding that during which it is
`
`clocked into the downstream input pin.” Id., 1:39-46.
`
`
`
`Tom discloses that logic designs may employ “multiple-phase system
`
`clocking in which the operations of clocked elements are controlled by a plurality
`
`of clock signals.” Ex. 1006, 2:15-17. Making a timing adjustment, as described
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`above, may be “a difficult task” in systems with multiple-phase system clocking.
`
`Id., 3:34-37. Tom discloses that this task can be made less difficult by
`
`“(1) associating clock information with the delay values which are propagated
`
`through the logic design, (2) propagating multiple delay values downstream in the
`
`logic design . . . , and (3) using the clock information associated with a delay to
`
`automatically adjust [the delay value] as needed.” Id., 4:65-5:6.
`
`
`
`Tom further discloses that a “clock tag” is associated with each delay value
`
`in a logic network. Id., 5:9-10. The clock tag “provides information about how a
`
`signal represented by the delay value was generated by a clocked circuit element.
`
`In FIG. 3, a clock tag is simply the name of the clock signal which operates the
`
`clocked element generating the signal with which the clock tag is associated.”
`
`Id., 5:10-15.
`
`V. THE PETITION FAILS TO PRESENT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-4 AND 7-11
`A. The Petition fails to prove that independent claim 1 is obvious
`over Belkhale.
`
`The Petition alleges that independent claim 1 is obvious over Belkhale.
`
`Petition at 18-28. As explained below, the Petition fails to (i) provide evidence
`
`that Belkhale discloses all limitations of the claim, and (ii) articulate the differences
`
`between Belkhale and the claimed invention, among other deficiencies. For at least
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`these reasons, the Petition fails to set forth a prima facie case that claim 1 is obvious
`
`over Belkhale.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition fails to provide evidence that Belkhale discloses
`“propagating a plurality of timing tables.”
`
`Independent claim 1 requires “propagating a plurality of timing tables
`
`through the circuit description.” As noted (see Section III.B, supra), this limitation
`
`cannot be met by propagating only delay values through a circuit description.
`
`Rather, to meet the “propagating” limitation, at least one of the propagated timing
`
`tables must include a reference to a tag. The language of claim 1 makes this
`
`evident:
`
`wherein at least a first timing table, of the plurality of timing
`tables, refers to a tag comprising at least a first label indicating a
`marked point in the circuit description . . . .
`
`The “propagating” limitation thus requires propagating a “refer[ence] to a tag”
`
`through a circuit description. See Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 79-80.
`
`
`
`As evidenced by Petitioner’s proposed claim construction for “timing table”
`
`(Petition at 23-24), Petitioner fails to recognize this requirement of the claims.
`
`See Section III.B, supra. Statements made by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Soheil
`
`Ghiasi, also make evident Petitioner’s incorrect understanding of the “propagating”
`
`limitation:
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Q. [D]oes [propagating a timing table through a circuit
`description within the context of the ’127 Patent] require
`propagating anything more than a single delay value?
`
`A. So if I understand your question, you’re asking whether
`propagating timing tables requires propagating more than one
`delay value. . . . I don’t think necessarily you need more than one
`delay value for that objective.
`
`Q. Do you need anything other than a delay value?
`
`A. Not for that objective. I don’t think so.
`
`Ex. 2003, Deposition of Soheil Ghiasi, at 25.
`
`Petitioner’s incorrect understanding of the claim is further evidenced in its
`
`discussion of how Belkhale allegedly meets the “propagating” step. See Petition at
`
`22-24. In particular, Petitioner makes evident that it is attempting to equate
`
`Belkhale’s delay values (i.e., arrival times (AT)) with the recited “timing tables” of
`
`claim 1:
`
`Belkhale . . . discloses [the step of “propagating a plurality of
`timing tables through the circuit description.”] Belkhale
`calculates multiple delay values – arrival times (AT) – at each
`point of the circuit and propagates those delay values through
`the circuit.
`
`Petition at 22 (emphasis added).
`
`The timing tables for each vertex are illustrated in Fig. 3 where for
`each vertex v1-v9, at least one delay value is calculated . . . . For
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`some nodes with multiple paths such as v5, multiple delay values
`– AT – and required arrival times (RAT) are calculated. . . .
`Thus, Belkhale teaches “propagating a plurality of timing tables
`through the circuit description” as required by claim 1.
`
`Id. at 23 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner thus argues that Belkhale’s alleged disclosure of propagating
`
`delay values meets the “propagating a plurality of timing tables” limitation. But
`
`as explained above, Petitioner’s argument is incorrect: the propagating limitation
`
`cannot be met by propagating only delay values through a circuit description. For
`
`the propagating limitation to be met, there must be a propagation of a “refer[ence]
`
`to a tag.”
`
`Petitioner’s incorrect understanding of the claim language is fatal to its
`
`unpatentability argument: in discussing how Belkhale allegedly meets the
`
`“propagating” limitation, Petitioner provides no evidence that Belkhale discloses
`
`propagating a “refer[ence] to a tag.” See Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 80-82. Claim 1 explicitly
`
`requires this feature, and Petitioner has the burden to specify where each element of
`
`the claim is found in the prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Petitioner has failed to meet its burden.
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Ghiasi filed by Petitioner does not remedy the
`
`deficiencies of the Petition. Dr. Ghiasi’s declaration regurgitates, nearly word-for-
`
`word, the analysis and conclusions of the Petition regarding the alleged
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`obviousness of claim 1. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 93-140. Like the Petition, the Declaration
`
`provides no evidence that Belkhale discloses propagating a “refer[ence] to a tag.”
`
`For at least these reasons, the Petition fails to set forth a prima facie case that
`
`claim 1 is obvious over Belkhale.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition’s allegations that Belkhale’s “set attribute” is
`propagated through a circuit description do not provide
`evidence that Belkhale discloses propagating a reference to
`a tag.
`
`The Petition includes two isolated passages, which, if read charitably, could
`
`be seen as allegations that Belkhale discloses propagating information other than
`
`delay values. Specifically, these passages may be seen as allegations that Belkhale
`
`discloses propagating a tag through a circuit description. Even assuming these
`
`allegations to be true, Petitioner still fails to provide evidence that Belkhale
`
`discloses propagating a reference to a tag, as required by the claims.
`
`First, the Petition includes an annotated version of Belkhale’s Figure 3.
`
`Petition at 15. Petitioner may argue that this annotated figure is evidence of
`
`Belkhale disclosing propagation of a “timing table” that includes both a delay
`
`value and a set attribute:
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. This argument would be contrary to P

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket