`
`
`
`
`
`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 6,237,127
`
`___________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Table” .................................................................................................. 2
`
`“wherein at least a first timing table . . . refers to a tag” ....................... 4
`
`III. GROUND 1: CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER BELKHALE ...................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Belkhale Propagates A Timing Table That Refers To A Tag ............. 11
`
`A first label indicating a marked point in the circuit description,
`through which the table has been propagated. .................................... 13
`
`C.
`
`Graham Factors ................................................................................... 17
`
`IV. GROUND 2: CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER BELKHALE AND TOM ................................................................ 18
`
`A. Motivation to combine ........................................................................ 19
`
`V. GROUNDS 1 & 2: CLAIMS 2-4 AND 7-11 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER BELKHALE ALONE AND OVER
`THE COMBINATION OF BELKHALE AND TOM ............................. 23
`
`A.
`
`Claims 2-3 and 10-11 .......................................................................... 23
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..... 18
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................... 20, 21
`
`Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
` ....................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................... 18
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pac. Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .. 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................... ii, 8, 18, 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1994) ....................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1997) ........................................................... 3
`
`Oxford Desk Dictionary (1995) ................................................................................. 3
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition 1992) .............................. 3, 4, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Reference Name
`U.S. Patent No. 6,237,127 (“`127 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the `127 Patent
`Complaint, Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-
`02965-MMC (N.D. Cal. 2013).
`Proof of Service, Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. 3:13-
`cv-02965-MMC (N.D. Cal. 2013).
`“Timing Analysis with known False Sub Graphs,” Krishna P.
`Belkhale and Alexander J. Suess, 1995 IEEE/ACM
`International Conference of Computer-Aided Design – Digest
`of Technical Papers, November 5-9, 1995, San Jose,
`California, pgs. 736-740. (“Belkhale”), with Declaration of
`Sherrie Schmidt, ASU Libraries, Arizona State University.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,210,700 (“Tom”)
`Declaration of Dr. Ghiasi
`American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition 1992), pp.
`1241, 1517, 1824
`Transcript of Deposition of Synopsys’ Expert, Dr. Martin
`Walker (6/10/2015)
`Zhou et al, “Efficient Static Timing Analysis Using A Unified
`Framework for False Paths and Multi-Cycle Paths,” ASP-
`DAC '06 Proceedings of the 2006 Asia and South Pacific
`Design Automation Conference, 24-27 January, 2006, pp. 73-
`78.
`Declaration of Dr. Ghiasi in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`IEEE Computer Society 2000 Computer Pioneer Award,
`Harold W. (Bud) Lawson,
`http://www.computer.org/web/awards/pioneer-harold-lawson.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`It has long been known that the claims of a patent define the invention. The
`
`claims of a patent are supposed to avoid coverage of things that already exist, and
`
`instead lay claim to a novel and nonobvious invention. Synopsys drafted the
`
`claims of the `127 patent. Synopsys had a chance to change the wording of those
`
`claims during this inter partes review proceeding, and even stated that such
`
`amendments were being contemplated (Paper No. 10). Synopsys, however, elected
`
`not to amend. Now Synopsys should be held to those claims.
`
`During prosecution of the `127 patent, one of the very references at issue in
`
`this IPR (the Tom reference) was before the examiner and the sole limitation that
`
`Synopsys argued was not taught in the prior art was the claimed “exception.” Ex.
`
`1002 at 145-147. The examiner relied on Synopsys’ argument and granted the
`
``127 patent, saying specifically that “Tom does not teach the use of exceptions or
`
`some equivalent.” Id. at 152. Synopsys does not dispute that Belkhale teaches
`
`those very claimed exceptions. In fact, Synopsys cannot dispute that exceptions
`
`were well known in the prior art because Belkhale teaches one of the very
`
`exceptions listed in the `127 patent—false paths.
`
`So instead, to differentiate itself from the prior art, Synopsys reads all sorts
`
`of limitations into the other elements of its claims: Synopsys argues that when it
`
`recited a “timing table,” it was claiming a table with two or more entries; and
`
`Synopsys argues that when it recited that a “timing table . . . refers to a tag,” it was
`
`claiming that there is a unique “reference” data structure that must be propagated.
`
`But Synopsys did not claim any of these things, either during prosecution or in this
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR. There is no support in the specification or prosecution history of the `127
`
`patent for Synopsys’ construction requiring propagating a “reference.”
`
`But even if Synopsys were able to read its additional limitations into the
`
`claims, these features are all obvious in view of the teachings of Belkhale, the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the teachings of Tom. For
`
`example, it was well known to propagate timing tables with multiple clocks at the
`
`time of invention and Tom (Ex. 1006) teaches just that. Similarly it would have
`
`been obvious to include a reference to a tag with the table being propagated
`
`because a reference is a common data element used to associate data and
`
`Belkhale’s table needs to be associated with the tag (i.e. set attribute).
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`While Synopsys’ Response dedicates a section to “Claim Construction of
`
`‘Timing Table’,” in reality the Response proposes two separate claim
`
`constructions: (1) the term “table” requires more than a single data item; and (2)
`
`the term “a first timing table . . . [that] refers to a tag” requires propagating a
`
`reference to a tag in lieu of the tag itself. Response at 8-11. As will be explained
`
`below, neither of these constructions is warranted and they should be rejected.
`
`A.
`“Table”
`Synopsys argues, as it did in its preliminary response (Paper No. 6), that the
`
`claimed “timing table” limitation must be construed as including “a set of data, i.e.,
`
`more than a single data item.” Response at 10 (emphasis in original). But
`
`Synopsys’ overly restrictive construction is not only wrong under the Phillips
`
`standard of claim construction, it is wholly inappropriate under the Broadest
`
`2
`
`
`
`Reasonable Interpretation standard applicable in this IPR.
`
`The only relevant support for Synopsys’ construction is a definition of table
`found in the Oxford Desk Dictionary (1995), which defines a “table” as a “set of
`facts or figures in columns.” Ex. 2001 at 585.1 Yet Synopsys provides no
`evidence that a “set” must include “more than a single data item.” In fact, contrary
`
`to Synopsys’ argument that its construction “is consistent with the term’s use in the
`
``127 Patent and is also consistent with the term’s ordinary usage” (Response at
`
`10), both the `127 patent and Belkhale undermine Synopsys’ construction. Both
`the `127 patent and Belkhale refer to a “null set,” which is a set having no data
`
`items. Ex. 1001, Fig. 9A, 9E; Ex. 1005 at 737. See also Ex. 1008, The American
`
`Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition 1992) at 1241 (defining “null” as “[o]f or
`relating to a set having no members or to zero magnitude”); Ex. 1009, 43:9-13 (Q.
`
`“there’s an empty set or a null set . . . ?” A. “Yes”); Id., 46:10-20.
`
`Synopsys’ other dictionaries also do not support its construction. Neither
`
`Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1994) (Ex. 2002) nor the
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1997) (Ex. 2006) specify how many data
`
`items a table requires. Webster’s dictionary only requires that a “table” be “a
`
`systematic arrangement of data” (Ex. 2002 at 1198) while the Microsoft dictionary
`
`only requires that a “table” be “a data structure” (Ex. 2006 at 459).
`
`It is worth noting that both Synopsys’ Oxford and Webster’s dictionaries
`
`give a “table of contents” as an example of a table. Ex. 2001 at 585; Ex. 2002 at
`
`
`1 Unless indicated, any bolding, underlining, etc. of text is added by Petitioner.
`
`3
`
`
`
`1198. One does not need any technical knowledge to know that they can generate
`
`a table of contents without any initial entries, just as one can generate a table of
`
`contents with only a single entry.
`
`Finally, Petitioner notes that the preferred embodiment in the `127 patent
`
`uses what the patent calls “RF timing tables,” which have four entries. Ex. 1001,
`
`3:8-11. Synopsys, however, did not claim “RF timing tables,” choosing instead to
`
`recite the broader term “timing tables.” Synopsys also declined to seek an
`
`amendment narrowing the scope of its claims to cover only the preferred
`
`embodiment. It would therefore be improper to read limitations from the
`specification into the claims. RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc.,
`
`326 F.3d 1255, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A basic claim construction canon is that
`
`one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description.”).
`
`B.
`“wherein at least a first timing table . . . refers to a tag”
`Synopsys also argues that by claim 1 stating that timing table “refers to a
`
`tag,” the claim requires the propagation of a separate “reference” data structure
`and, consequently, excludes the propagation of a timing table that include the tag
`
`itself. E.g. Response at 21-22; Ex. 2004, ¶84. Synopsys does not provide any
`
`dictionaries to support its construction. Nor does Synopsys provide any citations
`
`to the specification of the `127 patent that supports its construction. That is
`
`because Synopsys’ construction deviates from both.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “refer” does not require the exclusion of
`
`what is being referred to. The American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition 1992)
`
`contains numerous definitions for the word “refer,” among them are: “[t]o pertain;
`
`4
`
`
`
`concern”; “[t]o direct to a source for [] information”; “[t]o assign or attribute to”;
`
`“[t]o assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class”; “[t]o direct
`
`the attention of.” Ex. 1008 at 1517. None of these definitions lead to Synopsys’
`
`conclusion. In fact, as can be seen by the many definitions above (and as is known
`
`to the general English speaking public), the word “refer” can simply mean “to
`
`concern.” Given the term’s broad plain and ordinary meaning, Synopsys should
`
`have shown where the `127 patent defines the term in a narrower sense, or more
`
`appropriately, Synopsys should have sought to amend the claims to clarify its
`
`narrow definition of the term “refer.” Synopsys has done neither.
`
`In fact, the `127 patent itself contradicts Synopsys’ narrow construction.
`The `127 patent uses the word “refer” to describe things included – not excluded.
`
`For example, the `127 patent explains that its drawings “refer to [] parts” illustrated
`in the drawings using “reference numbers.” Ex. 1001, 6:1-3 (“Wherever possible,
`
`the same reference numbers will be used throughout the drawings to refer to the
`same or like parts.”).2
`Additionally, the basis for Synopsys’ construction -- that the table includes a
`
`“reference” to a tag and cannot include the tag itself -- is a distorted reading of the
`
`claim. Synopsys argues that “[t]he additional information that is propagated
`through the circuit description includes at least a reference to a ‘tag.’” Response at
`
`2. However, the claims only require that the table “refer[]” (i.e., a verb) to a tag.
`
`
`2 The `127 patent also uses the word “refer” to connote that two things are the
`same. E.g. Ex. 1001, 2:1-2 (“units of the circuit, referred to as ‘sections’”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 32:1-5. None of the claims discuss a thing (i.e., a noun) called a
`
`“reference.”
`
`Synopsys’ sole support for its “reference” construction is an arrow in figure
`
`11. Response at 3 (reproduced below). Synopsys does not point to an illustrated
`
`structural component (whether physical or a data structure) or anything that the
`
``127 patent deemed important enough to give a reference number. So it comes as
`
`no surprise that the specification’s description of figure 11 does not talk about this
`
`arrow at all, let alone describe it as a structural “reference.”
`
`Indeed, the portion of the specification discussing Fig. 11 says that “RF
`timing table 1118 is shown, along with its tag 1119.” Ex. 1001, 23:57. When
`
`discussing the RF timing table 1112 that immediately precedes RF timing table
`
`1118, which is conceptually identical and shows the same arrow, the `127 patent
`teaches that “RF timing table 1112 is given a tag 1113.” Id., 23:18. The `127
`
`contains other descriptions of the same concept, and never once describes the
`
`arrow or suggests that a structural reference is present. See e.g., Id., 24:3-5 (“RF
`timing table 1122' gets a tag comprising tag 1123…”); 24:7-8 (“RF timing table
`1118' gets a tag comprising tag 1119…”); 24:15-17 (“RF timing table 1128 has
`
`6
`
`
`
`the same tag as RF timing table 1122, and RF timing table 1129 has the same tag
`
`as RF timing table 1118…”). In sum, in every example in the `127 patent where
`
`the arrow is shown in the Figures, the specification makes clear that the RF timing
`
`table possesses a tag (e.g., “along with its. . . ,” “gets. . . ,” “has. . . ” and “is given.
`
`. .”).
`
`Synopsys relies on its expert Dr. Walker’s argument that “a tag can contain
`
`multiple parts, and only one part indicates a marked point. A reference to a tag
`
`thus refers to the marked point and any other objects contained in the tag. In order
`
`to refer to these multiple parts of the tag, the timing table must include a reference
`
`to the tag.” Ex. 2004, ¶84. The problem with Dr. Walker’s argument is that claim
`
`1 only requires the tag to have one part—“a first label indicating a marked point in
`
`the circuit description, through which the table has been propagated.” Ex. 1001,
`
`32:2-5. Claim 1 does not require any other labels (or “objects,” as Dr. Walker calls
`
`them). In effect, Synopsys is rewriting claim 1 as follows:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Synopsys Construction
`
`wherein at least a first timing table, of
`
`wherein at least a first timing table, of
`
`the plurality of timing tables, refers to a
`
`the plurality of timing tables, includes a
`
`tag comprising at least a first label
`
`reference refers to a tag instead of the
`
`indicating a marked point in the circuit
`
`tag itself, the tag comprising (i) at least
`
`description, through which the table has
`
`a first label indicating a marked point in
`
`been propagated.
`
`the circuit description, through which
`
`the table has been propagated and (ii)
`
`other objects.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that the claimed table did require a
`
`“reference” to a tag, Synopsys’ argument that such a reference precludes
`propagating the tag itself with the timing table is based on faulty logic.3 Synopsys
`relies on Dr. Walker’s argument that “the tag is not part of the timing table itself. . .
`
`. If the tag was part of the timing table, then there would be no need for the
`
`reference to the tag to be included as part of timing table that is propagated through
`
`a circuit description.” Ex. 2004, ¶84. Essentially, according to Dr. Walker, a
`
`“reference” requires that the object being referred to be external. The problem
`
`with this line of logical reasoning, however, is that it completely ignores the
`
`concept of an internal reference or internal citation—a concept that it used in
`the`127 patent itself when the figures use numbers to refer to parts within the
`figures and used within Synopsys’ own Response brief to refer to sections within
`
`its brief (Response at 17 (“see Section III.B, supra”)).
`
`III. GROUND 1: CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER BELKHALE
`As explained in the Petition, Claim 1 is obvious in view of Belkhale. Claim
`
`element 1(a) requires “marking certain points in a circuit description according to
`
`their being referenced by at least a first exception.” The specification of the `127
`
`patent explains that an “exception” “can be any one of” a false path, multicycle
`
`path, max delay or min delay. Ex. 1001, 14:43-48. There is no dispute that
`
`Belkhale describes false sub graphs that have false paths and, as such, discloses
`
`3 The Response itself does not provide the logic, support or theory behind
`Synopsys’ argument. However, the Response cites to Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 83-88.
`
`8
`
`
`
`exceptions. Ex. 1005 at e.g., 737. Belkhale’s false subgraphs contain marks of
`certain points in a circuit description. Ex. 1005 at 737 (“path from vl to vm”)); Id.
`(“all the paths leading from the I1 pin of the first multiplexer MUX1 to the I1 pin of
`the second multiplexer MUX2 are false.”); Id. (e.g., “BG(v),” “EG(v)” and
`“IN(e)”); Ex. 1007, ¶¶104-112; Ex. 2004, ¶114 (where Dr. Walker admits that an
`
`edge in a false sub graph is “a source node and a sink node”). See also Ex. 1001,
`
`claim 8, which requires that “a point in the circuit description is a node.”
`
`Claim element 1(b) requires “propagating a plurality of timing tables
`
`through the circuit description.” As this Court found in its decision to institute, a
`
`“timing table” is a “table having a timing value” and is “not restricted to a specific
`
`type of table or a number of data items in the table.” Paper 7 at 7. Thus, because
`
`Belkhale discloses propagating a plurality tables having a delay value (i.e. a timing
`
`value), Belkhale discloses propagating a plurality of timing tables. Ex. 1005 at 737
`
`(“arrival time propagation phase”); Id. at 740 Fig. 3. However, even assuming
`
`arguendo that a “timing table” requires the propagation of multiple timing values,
`
`Dr. Ghiasi established (and Synopsys has not challenged) that it would have been
`
`obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Belkhale to propagate a
`
`timing table with multiple delay values. Ex. 1007, ¶124; see also Paper 7 at 15.
`
`Claim element 1(c) requires that “at least a first timing table, of the plurality
`
`of timing tables, refers to a tag comprising at least a first label.” As described
`
`above, Belkhale discloses propagating a plurality of timing tables having a delay
`
`value that meet the timing tables limitation. See the RED dashed table with the
`
`RED number “1” in the figure below:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Each of Belkhale’s propagated delay values refers to an associated set attribute.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 740 Fig. 3; Id. at 737 (“The different arrival . . . times at a node are
`distinguished based on a set attribute.”); Id. (“elements of the [set attribute] are
`associated with timing information” (i.e., delay values)). See the PURPLE curly
`
`braces in the figure above. Each set attribute “gives the set of false sub graphs the
`
`signal has come through.” Ex. 1005 at 737. See the ORANGE numbers “1” and
`
`“2” within the set attribute in the figure above. Thus, because Belkhale discloses a
`
`timing table where each delay value is associated with a set attribute that identifies
`
`false sub graphs, Belkhale discloses a table that refers to a tag that has labels.
`
`Claim element 1(c) also requires that the “at least one” timing table refer to a
`
`tag having a label “indicating a marked point in the circuit description, through
`
`which the table has been propagated.” As described above, each set attribute
`
`“gives the set of false sub graphs the signal has come through” and each false sub
`
`graph marks points in the circuit description. Ex. 1005 at 737. So, for example,
`
`looking at the entry for V3 in Belkhale’s Figure 3, the timing table contains the
`
`delay value “1” and refers to a set attribute having false graph 1 and false graph 2,
`
`which indicates that the delay value has propagated to circuit point V3 by
`
`traversing false sub graphs F1 and F2 illustrated in Figure 1. Both false graphs
`
`10
`
`
`
`indicate that the delay value originated from marked circuit point V1:
`
`
`See also Ex. 1009, 50:16-19.
`
`A. Belkhale Propagates A Timing Table That Refers To A Tag
`Claim 1 requires that “a first timing table, of the plurality of timing tables,
`
`refers to a tag.” Synopsys argues that in addition to claim 1 requiring propagating
`
`a plurality of timing tables, this claim language requires propagating a
`
`“‘refer[ence] to a tag’ through a circuit description.” Response at 17, 19. As
`
`described above in Section II.B, Synopsys distorts the claim language of claim 1,
`
`as there is no requirement that a “reference” be propagated. Claim 1 only requires
`
`the propagation of “a plurality of timing tables” and that one of those timing tables
`
`“refers to a tag.” The plain and ordinary meaning of “refer” means “[t]o pertain;
`
`concern.” Ex. 1008 at 1517. Belkhale discloses propagating multiple timing tables
`
`having a delay value. As can be seen in Belkhale’s Figure 3, and as Synopsys
`itself admits, “[e]ach AT [delay] 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.’” Response at 14 (citations omitted). Belkhale itself explains that
`
`each delay value is “associated with” a set attribute so that when multiple tables
`
`with a delay value arrive at a particular node they can be “distinguished based on a
`
`11
`
`
`
`set attribute.” Ex. 1005 at 737; see e.g., Id. at 740 Fig. 3 (V5 has multiple delay
`
`values that are distinguishable based on their set attribute). Even Synopsys’ expert
`
`Dr. Walker confirms this. See Ex. 2004, ¶71.
`
`But even assuming arguendo that claim 1 required propagating a reference
`
`to a tag (i.e., a second type of data structure), a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading Belkhale would understand that for the table and delay value to propagate
`
`through the circuit description and remain associated with a set attribute, the delay
`
`value could have a reference to the set attribute. Notably, even under Synopsys’
`
`construction, the `127 patent would not require that the reference take the form of
`
`any specific data structure. In fact, the only disclosure in the `127 patent that
`
`Synopsys relies on in support is an unlabeled arrow in figure 11. As such, even
`
`though Belkhale does not explicitly describe how the association is maintained
`
`between the delay value (i.e., timing table) and set attribute (i.e., tag), a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the “association” of a
`
`delay value (i.e., timing table) to a set attribute (i.e., tag) can take the form of a
`
`reference in order to accomplish propagating the delay value while maintaining the
`
`association with the set attribute. Ex. 1011, ¶¶5-12; Ex. 1009, 32:1-33:15. In fact,
`
`the use of pointers was well-known in the art prior to the `127 patent’s filing date.
`
`Ex. 1011, ¶9. Indeed, Dr. Walker implicitly made this point in his declaration
`
`when he asserted that the set attributes in Belkhale are “associated with an arrival
`
`time” (Ex. 2004, ¶95) and that an arrival time “is associated with the set attribute”
`
`(Id., ¶98). See Ex. 1011, ¶¶5-10. Likewise, Dr. Walker agreed that the `127 patent
`
`teaches an association between RF timing tables and tags. Ex. 1009, 31:24-33:15.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, ¶¶11-12.
`
`Dr. Walker argues that, under Synopsys’ construction, because he
`
`understands Petitioner’s argument to state that “the tag is part of the timing table
`
`itself,” “there is no need for a reference to a tag to be included as part of a timing
`
`table.” Ex. 2004, ¶85. As Dr. Walker’s argument goes, if two data items are
`
`included in a larger data structure, there is no need for any logical connection
`
`between the two. As described above (supra at II(B)), such logic is faulty as it
`
`completely ignores the need for internal references to associate components within
`
`a larger data structure (e.g., internal citations within a brief, a table of contents).
`
`In addition, Dr. Walker argues that a reference to a tag would not be obvious
`
`because “Belkhale does not disclose timing tables with references to other objects
`
`that contain multiple sources of information relevant to timing analysis.” Ex.
`2004, ¶88. However, even under Synopsys’ construction, the claims of the `127
`
`patent would not require a reference to multiple tags, only a reference to a single
`tag. Ex. 1001, 32:1-2 (“wherein at least a first timing table . . . refers to a tag”).
`
`Dr. Walker’s justification for his rewriting of the claims is therefore not even
`
`consistent with the claim language.
`
`B. A first label indicating a marked point in the circuit description,
`through which the table has been propagated.
`Claim 1 requires that for one of the propagated tables, a tag includes a “label
`
`indicating a marked point in the circuit description, through which the table has
`
`been propagated.” Synopsys argues that a false graph “is a collection of false
`
`paths” and as such, does not indicate marked point. Response at 26-27, citing Ex.
`
`13
`
`
`
`2004, ¶¶101-118. However, a false sub graph does contain marked points in a
`
`circuit description. Ex. 1005 at 737 (a false sub graph is an “ordered pair of
`vertices”); Id. (“The false sub graph is represented by the set {(MUX1/I1,
`MUX2/I1)}”); Id. (“For every node v in G, we define the set BG(v) to be the set of
`all false sub graphs for which the vertex v is a element in the begin set. . . .
`
`Similarly, we define EG(v) to be the set of all false sub graphs for which the vertex
`
`v is in the end set. . . . For every edge e in G, we define the set IN (e) to be the set
`
`of all indices of false sub graphs that contain e.”). See also Ex. 1009, 15:3-16:3,
`
`17:3-18:5, 49:24-50:12, 52:15-20, 54:1-18.
`
`Synopsys cites to Dr. Walker’s declaration, which argues that a false graph
`
`defines “edges” and not “marked points.” Ex. 2004, ¶113. However, Dr. Walker
`
`himself admits that an edge includes a “source node and a sink node” (Ex. 2004,
`
`¶114) and the `127 patent itself explains that a node is a point in the circuit
`
`description (Ex. 1001, 32:24-25 (claim 8 requires that “a point in the circuit
`
`description is a node”)). Moreover, claim 1 does not preclude that a label indicate
`
`multiple points in the circuit description. In fact, claim 1 must be broad enough to
`
`cover multiple points considering that dependent claim 2 requires as much. Id.,
`
`32:6-8. Even Dr. Walker admitted as much at his deposition. Ex. 1009, 48:25-
`
`49:11 (“A. Well . . . Claim 2 depends on Claim 1; Claim 1 needs to be at least as
`
`broad as Claim 2. So if -- since Claim 2, amongst several marked circuit points,
`
`then Claim 1 label needs to have -- needs to be at least as broad as having more
`
`than one marked circuit point.”).
`
`Dr. Walker also argues that because an edge “indicates a directionality” in
`
`14
`
`
`
`addition to “a source node and a sink node,” such an edge is not represented by a
`
`“mere collection of nodes.” Ex. 2004, ¶114. Dr. Walker similarly argues that
`
`because a false graph also indicates “nodes” through which a specific signal has
`
`not propagated it could not be considered as a label that indicates “a marked point
`
`in the circuit description, through which the table has been propagated.” Id., ¶115.
`
`Synopsys itself does not recite these arguments. That is because there is no
`
`language in any claim precluding a label from indicating additional information.
`
`Ex. 1001, 32:1-5.
`
`Synopsys’ main argument relies on the particular delay values and set
`
`attributes listed for V5 in Belkhale’s Figure 3 to argue that “it is not possible to
`
`determine a particular marked point through which the timing table has been
`
`propagated.” Response at 28. Synopsys’ argument has no merit. First, the claims
`only require that “a first timing table, of the plurality of timing tables” refer to a
`
`tag having a label indicating a marked point through which the table has
`
`propagated. Thus, claim 1 requires that multiple timing tables are propagated, but
`
`that only one such table has a label. Synopsys’ entire argument is based on
`proving that only one of the tables that is propagated in Belkhale allegedly makes
`
`it impossible to determine a particular marked point through which the timing table
`
`has been propagated (which, as will be explained below is wrong). However,
`Synopsys does not and could not argue that none of the tables propagated in
`
`Belkhale refer to a label that indicates a particular point through which the table
`
`has propagated.
`
`In fact, Belkhale clearly discloses multiple such tables and marked circuit
`
`15
`
`
`
`points. Take, for example, the entry for V2 in Figure 3:
`
`Ex. 1005 at 740 Fig. 3. The delay value of 1 (i.e., the table) is associated with the
`
`set attribute (tag) that includes false graphs F1 and F2 (labels). Id., Fig. 1. Timing
`
`graph G (not shown) and false graphs F1 and F2 clearly illustrate that there is only
`
`one possible path from V1 to V2, a direct path. As such, false graph F1 in this
`
`example is a first label that indicates a marked circuit point V1 through which the
`
`table has been propagated and false graph F2 is a second label that also indicates a
`
`marked circuit point V1 through which the table has been propagated. See Ex.
`
`1009, 50:16-19. Thus, at least one of the tables disclosed in Belkhale refers to a
`
`tag having a label indicating a particular marked point in the circuit description
`
`through which the table has propagated. See Id. 42:13-43:2 (“there’s only one
`
`connection from V1 to V2”).
`
`But even considering Belkhale’s tables for node V5, Synopsys is wrong that
`
`“it is not possible to determine a particular marked point through which the timing
`
`table has been propagated.” Response at 28. Synopsys argues that for V5, “the set
`
`attribute {1,2} indicates only the false sub graphs F1 and F2 and does not indicate
`
`a specific path through which a timing table has propagated.” Response at 30.
`
`However, the claims do not require that the set attribute indicate “a specific path.”
`
`The claims only require that the set attribute indicate “a marked point in the circuit
`
`16
`
`
`
`description, through which the table has been propagated.” No matter what
`
`specific path the delay value takes to get to V5, false graphs F1 and F2 indicate
`
`that the delay value has propagated though circuit point V1 in the circuit
`
`description. See Ex. 1005 at 740 Figs. 1 and 3:
`
`C. Graham Factors
`Synopsys argues that Petitioner failed to present a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness by not explicitly addressing in its petition the differences between the
`
`prior art and the invention and the level of ordinary skill in the art. Synopsys is
`
`wrong because a Petitioner is not required to include such information in their
`
`petition and, moreover, Synopsys’ complaints are moot.
`
`Fir