Paper 18
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
