IPR2014-01145, Paper No. 23
`IPR2014-01150, Paper No. 33
`IPR2014-01159, Paper No. 31
`December 22, 2015
`
`
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ATOPTECH, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SYNOPSYS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`Technology Center 2800
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Friday, November 13, 2015
`
`BEFORE: TRENTON A. WARD; PETER P. CHEN (via
`audio link only); and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS (via video link);
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday,
`November 13, 2015, at 1:04 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`IPR2014-01150, Paper No. 33
`IPR2014-01159, Paper No. 31
`December 22, 2015
`
`
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ATOPTECH, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SYNOPSYS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`Technology Center 2800
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Friday, November 13, 2015
`
`BEFORE: TRENTON A. WARD; PETER P. CHEN (via
`audio link only); and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS (via video link);
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday,
`November 13, 2015, at 1:04 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY A. MILLER, ESQ.
`KATIE J.L. SCOTT, ESQ.
`Kaye Scholer LLP
`Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 400
`3000 El Camino Real
`Palo Alto, California 94306-2112
`650-319-4500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID SOOFIAN, ESQ.
`Kaye Scholer LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, New York 10019-9710
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID B. COCHRAN, ESQ.
`JOSEPH M. SAUER, ESQ.
`Jones Day
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`216-586-3939
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER: (Continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KRISTA S. SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
`Jones Day
`555 California Street
`26th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`415-626-3939
`
`Shanee Nelson, Synopsys Representative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:04 p.m.)
`JUDGE WARD: Good afternoon. You may be
`seated. Welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We
`are gathered for a hearing in three Inter Partes Review matters
`this afternoon, related cases.
`The matter numbers for these cases are
`IPR2014- 1145, 1150 and 1159, cases in which ATopTech,
`Incorporated is the Petitioner and Synopsys is the Patent
`Owner.
`
`On the panel for the hearing today are my two
`colleagues in our San Jose regional office, Matt Clements,
`Judge Clements you see on the screen here, and then hopefully
`joining us also by audio is Judge Peter Chen.
`Judge Chen, can you hear us? Judge Clements, I
`don't know if you have any indication as to whether or not
`Judge Chen is successfully receiving audio.
`Judge Clements, can you hear and see us clearly?
`Judge Clements, good afternoon, or good morning to you, I
`guess. Can you see and hear us clearly?
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Good morning. Yes, I can.
`JUDGE WARD: Excellent. And, Judge Chen, are
`you also able to hear us? I understand your video is not
`working for you.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`JUDGE CHEN: Yes. Thank you, Judge Ward.
`Technical difficulties on the video but the audio is coming
`through fine. Thank you.
`JUDGE WARD: Excellent. Yes, we hear you loud
`and clear here in the hearing room. So feel free to interrupt
`us at any time.
`My inability to communicate with counsel there
`will be an illustrative point to the attorneys this afternoon.
`Please make sure that, to the extent you are making any
`comments, you make them at the podium because anything
`that is not said into the microphone won't be heard by my
`colleagues, Judge Clements and Judge Chen, in our San Jose
`office.
`
`So I would like to start by getting the appearances
`of counsel from each side, starting with Petitioner, if you
`could. Go ahead and step up to the microphone.
`MR. MILLER: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Jeffrey Miller from Kaye Scholer. I'm going to be arguing on
`behalf of ATopTech on the 1145 matter, the '127 patent. And
`with me is my colleague David Soofian.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Miller and
`Mr. Soofian. Welcome to both of you.
`MS. SCOTT: And my name is Katie Scott, also
`from Kaye Scholer on behalf of the Petitioner, and I will be
`arguing in the 1150 and 1159 matters.
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Ms. Scott. Welcome
`to you. Is that all for Petitioner?
`MR. MILLER: That's all, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WARD: Okay. Thank you. For Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon. I'm Dave
`Cochran from Jones Day. With me is Joe Sauer, also from
`Jones Day. Mr. Sauer is going to be arguing the first case, the
`1145, and I will be handling the second two.
`Also with us here today is my colleague Krista
`Schwartz from Jones Day, and our client, Ms. Shanee Nelson
`from Synopsys.
`JUDGE WARD: Great. Welcome to all of you.
`MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
`JUDGE WARD: A few administrative details
`before we get started. I want to go over the format for your
`arguments this afternoon.
`As we discussed in a previous conference call, we
`are going to hear arguments on the 1145 case first. And our
`trial hearing order, the September 22nd trial hearing order
`gave a total of 90 minutes to each party for the presentation of
`arguments, allowing counsel to determine how they want to
`allocate those 90 minutes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`My question for both parties at the outset, and I
`will start with Petitioner, is how much of your 90 minutes of
`time do you wish to allocate to the 1145 case?
`MR. MILLER: So our current plan is to allocate
`30 total minutes for the 1145 case, and an hour for the other
`cases .
`
`JUDGE WARD: Okay. Mr. Miller, of the 30
`minutes, do you wish to reserve any rebuttal time?
`MR. MILLER: Yes. I would like to reserve 10
`
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE WARD: Okay. So you want 20 minutes
`on 1145 for the initial case and 10 minutes of rebuttal?
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`JUDGE WARD: Okay. And, Mr. Cochran, how
`about for the Patent Owner, how much time on the 1145 case?
`MR. COCHRAN: Same as Mr. Miller, half an hour
`for the first case and one hour for the combined total on the
`second two cases.
`JUDGE WARD: Okay. Thank you for that. I will
`attempt to assist you somewhat in your time management with
`a timing light clock up here. It will give you an indication as
`to when you're running low on time. So I will try to keep the
`respective times for the parties with that.
`One other note that I want to make sure the parties
`are aware of with respect to your reference to the
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`demonstratives today. This nice projector image that we see
`here in the hearing room cannot be seen by our colleagues
`Judge Clements and Judge Chen in San Jose. So to the extent
`that you are referring to a demonstrative, please refer to it by
`slide number. They do have copies of your slides as provided
`to us. So if you are referring to a demonstrative or to a
`portion of the record just make sure that you mention that.
`Often times I will be reminding you of that. I find
`that counsel get busy in their arguments and forget. And we
`want to make sure that Judges Clements and Chen are able to
`follow along with what you are arguing.
`Those are the administrative details I have, and I
`believe we can get started. Petitioner, when you are ready,
`the 1145 case.
`MR. MILLER: Before we get started, Judge Ward,
`we have copies of the slides if you would like us to bring up a
`copy.
`
`JUDGE WARD: That would be great. Thank you.
`MR. MILLER: My colleague, Mr. Soofian, is
`handing you the slides now.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Soofian.
`MR. MILLER: I'm going to be discussing the '127
`patent today, and in order to, so to speak, set the table on
`what we're going to be discussing today, I wanted to start with
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`claim 1 of the patent which is on slide 9 of our presentation.
`We have it up on the screen.
`Slide 9, as you can see, consists of a method
`claim. It has two method steps and then a wherein clause.
`The first method step is propagating certain points of a circuit
`description, according to their being referenced by exceptions.
`And then the second step is a propagating of timing tables
`through the circuit description. And then there is a wherein
`clause.
`
`So in order to put this in context I would like now
`to turn to slide 7, which is the prosecution, portion of the
`prosecution history of the '127 patent.
`On slide 7 we've excerpted a portion of an Office
`Action that was issued by the Patent Office during prosecution
`of this case. And all the claims -- the relevant claims here
`were all rejected as being obvious under a combination of the
`Tom reference, which we may discuss in a little bit, and
`another patent by a gentleman named Osler.
`The Examiner found that all these claims were
`obvious and all of the elements of claim 1 were obvious in
`view of that combination.
`Let's turn to slide 8. Slide 8 is the Patent Owner's
`response to the Office Action. And as you can see, we've
`reproduced the relevant argument on the right- hand side of
`slide 8 where the only issue the Patent Owner had with this
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`rejection was to assert that the claimed exceptions were not in
`the prior art.
`And on that basis the claim was allowed. The
`Patent Owner did not take issue with any of the other elements
`of the claim being prior art. Now let's turn back to slide 9,
`which is claim 1.
`As we mentioned, claim 1 has two method steps
`and a wherein clause. Interestingly enough, during
`prosecution the patentee argued that the marking step with the
`exceptions was not in the prior art and effectively admitted
`that the remaining portions were in the prior art.
`What's interesting is that now in this IPR there is
`no issue here today that the marking of certain points in a
`circuit description, according to their being referenced by an
`exception, is in the prior art, in the Belkhale reference. That
`is not disputed today.
`So let's turn to the propagating step and with that I
`would like to turn please to slide 25.
`JUDGE WARD: Before you turn to the
`propagating step, Mr. Miller, the marking gerund verb --
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`JUDGE WARD: -- how should this Panel construe
`that term marking? What is required when one is marking?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`MR. MILLER: All that is required is a selection
`of certain points in a circuit that are going to be subject to an
`exception.
`JUDGE WARD: Selection by what? By software,
`by a signal?
`MR. MILLER: It can either be by the tool or by
`the user itself. Belkhale actually teaches both.
`JUDGE WARD: Wouldn't the user need to use the
`tool to make that selection?
`MR. MILLER: Generally speaking, yes, the user
`will insert a circuit description, usually in the form of some
`form of hardware description language, and they may flag the
`exceptions or it could be that there is an automated way of
`doing it. The claim is broad enough to cover both.
`JUDGE WARD: Okay.
`MR. MILLER: So let's turn to the propagating
`step. If we could move on to slide 26. The first real dispute
`between the parties is what the proper construction of the term
`"timing tables" is.
`In the Institution Decision, the Board found that
`the construction, the proper construction for the term "timing
`tables" was a table having a timing value. We don't take issue
`with that construction.
`Patent Owner both in his preliminary statement
`and in his Patent Owner's response asserts that the proper
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`construction for the term "timing table" is a set of data and
`that the set has to have more than one item in it.
`Let's turn to slide -- we are going to skip over
`slide 27 and let's go to slide 28. Patent Owner's construction
`is based for the most part on several dictionary definitions.
`The main reference that it relies on is the Oxford Dictionary
`which we've reprinted on the left-hand side of slide 28. And
`the definition that Patent Owner refers to says that a table is a
`set of facts or figures in columns, et cetera. That's where this
`term "set" comes from in the Patent Owner's construction.
`But there is no evidence in the record that suggests
`that a set has to be more than one item as proposed by Patent
`Owner or, in fact, that it has to have any entries.
`For example, the patent itself, the '127 patent,
`discusses, refers to null sets. And we've reprinted a portion
`of figure 9A and 9E at the bottom of slide 28. A null set has
`nothing in it.
`Belkhale itself, which we reprinted on slide 29,
`refers to a null set. Also in slide 29 we provided you with a
`definition of null, which is: "Of or relating to a set having no
`numbers or to zero magnitude."
`Now we can turn to the other definitions that
`Patent Owner has provided. For example, on slide 30 we've
`reprinted the Microsoft Dictionary which states that a table is
`"a data structure usually consisting of a list of entries."
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`Then the Merriam Webster Dictionary says a table
`is "a systematic arrangement of data, usually in rows and
`columns."
`So the fact is, is that even the dictionary
`definitions provided by Synopsys do not support them. So
`given that we believe that, we respectfully submit that the
`construction that the Board adopted in the preliminary
`statement -- or the Institution Decision is correct, we don't
`think that there is any dispute that Belkhale teaches this
`limitation.
`And even if it requires more than one entry, that is
`plainly taught in the Tom reference.
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Miller, can I ask you about
`the propagating step?
`MR. MILLER: Sure.
`JUDGE WARD: I just want to make sure I'm clear
`before you move on.
`The limitation as I read it in claim 1 is
`"propagating a plurality of timing tables through the circuit
`description."
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`JUDGE WARD: Can you help me understand, not
`in view of Belkhale, but can you help me understand in view
`of the disclosure in the '127 patent, primarily figure 11, what
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`is meant by propagating? What is it that is actually
`propagating?
`MR. MILLER: So Belkhale talks about -- I'm
`sorry, the patent talks about propagating many different
`things. And what happens is that -- and if we want, we can
`try to put figure 11 up on the ELMO -- or if we go to slide 6, I
`have figure 12 reproduced, or very similar.
`So what you see is you have a group of tables,
`1203, 1207, et cetera, and in the preferred embodiment in
`Belkhale there are several different timing values that it refers
`to. There is a minimum rise time and a maximum rise time
`and then a minimum fall time and a minimum -- maximum rise
`time, excuse me, there is four of them.
`The way static timing analysis works, and this is
`true for every static timing analyzer ever made, is that certain
`circuit elements have a delay associated with them, the AND
`gates, the OR gates, the flip-flops, and even the wires
`themselves, and the static timing analyzer is preprogrammed
`with a set of delay values or timing values, depending upon
`what's being tracked.
`And the whole idea behind these propagating of
`tables is that you accumulate those delays as you move
`through the circuit when you are actually performing the
`timing analysis.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`JUDGE WARD: Right. But my understanding of
`what is accumulating is simply the software that is doing the
`analysis is creating a tally, if you will, a log, walking through
`the circuit description of the associated delay values for each
`component.
`For instance, in figure 12 here what we see as, it is
`reference numeral 1100 and 1101. Those are launch
`flip-flops, correct?
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`JUDGE WARD: And those are connected directly
`to two AND gates, 1107 and 1104, correct?
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`JUDGE WARD: So the signal that would be
`propagating on the conduit between the launch flip-flop 1100
`and 1104 would not be a data signal that carries these timing
`tables. Is that correct?
`MR. MILLER: That's right. The circuit itself is
`not traversed.
`JUDGE WARD: So we're talking about simple
`components, the launch flip-flop having two states, correct?
`MR. MILLER: If I understand your question, yes,
`I believe that is true.
`JUDGE WARD: So the propagation referred to in
`the '127 patent, when it talks about propagating, what it is
`talking about is the ability for the tool that is performing this
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`static timing analysis to, in essence, tally as an ideal signal
`would be transmitting across this particular circuit
`description. Is that correct?
`MR. MILLER: That's correct. And I know you
`asked me not to do this in the context of Belkhale, but that's
`exactly what Belkhale does. In fact, it even refers to what it
`is doing with its delay values, is propagating them through the
`circuit. And I think that is true for every timing analyzer ever
`made.
`
`JUDGE WARD: So the data that we see, RF
`timing table, reference numeral, well, figure 12 -- I think it is
`1203, the data representing that particular RF timing table is
`maintained where in the '127 patent description?
`MR. MILLER: I don't believe it specifically says
`but I think it would be understood that it is maintained in
`memory in the computer that is running the timing analyzer.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you.
`MR. MILLER: I'm going to turn now to slide --
`JUDGE CHEN: Counsel?
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`JUDGE CHEN: Let me back up just a moment,
`counsel. What is Petitioner's position on the level of ordinary
`skill?
`
`MR. MILLER: So our position, we don't have a
`dispute with the level that was proposed by Patent Owner's
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`expert, which I think was a bachelor's degree in a technical
`electrical engineering field and a year of experience.
`JUDGE CHEN: Okay. Thank you. And then
`getting back to the timing table construction, I wanted to get
`your response specifically to the argument made by Patent
`Owner both in the preliminary response and in the Patent
`Owner response citing to the '127 and column 9, lines 54 to
`57, where the Patent Owner states, for example, the '127
`discloses table 7, multiple data items, and the argument from
`Patent Owner being that the disclosure thereby -- there is no
`disclosure of a table, rather, having only a single data item.
`So what is Petitioner's response to that?
`MR. MILLER: Sure. We actually have a slide, I
`think it is slide 28 -- 27. It is true that the preferred
`embodiment described in the patent discloses a specific
`embodiment with four specific timing values. However,
`throughout the patent those are referred to as RF timing
`tables, which stands for Rise Fall timing tables.
`When it came time to actually draft their claims,
`however, they claimed something far broader. They just
`referred to a timing table.
`And so we submit, Your Honor, that reading those
`four specific timing tables into the construction for timing
`table would be reading limitations into the claim.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`And, of course, it shouldn't go unstated that Patent
`Owner had an opportunity to seek an amendment to the claims
`to limit themselves to that particular embodiment, and they
`didn't do so. So that would be our response.
`JUDGE CHEN: Okay. Thank you. Please
`
`proceed.
`
`MR. MILLER: Okay. I'm going to turn now to
`slide 31, and actually you can start with slide 32. So one of
`the arguments Patent Owner made in the Patent Owner
`response is that the claim, the propagating step, requires
`propagating a reference to a tag. And you can see this on
`slide 32. We've reprinted a portion of their brief.
`And you can see on page 11 of their Patent
`Owner's response they say that under the BRI, the propagating
`step "should be construed as requiring the propagation of a
`reference to a tag." They say that again on page 19 of their
`Patent Owner's response. And as we are going to discuss, this
`construction cannot be correct.
`Let's go to slide 33. Now, we've excerpted a
`portion of the Patent Owner's statement towards the top. And
`their hook to try to read this limitation into claim 1 is actually
`from the wherein clause. It doesn't come from the
`propagating step itself.
`And we've circled that in red, which is just a quote
`of the wherein clause. And then they follow that up by saying
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`that the propagating limitation requires, thus requires
`propagating a reference to a tag through the circuit
`description.
`This construction can't be correct because plain
`language of the wherein clause only requires that one of the
`tables refers to a tag. It doesn't require that all of the tables
`refer to a tag. So that's the first reason why this construction
`is wrong.
`
`And the second reason -- and we're going to get
`into this in a little bit -- is that the claim does not even
`require a reference. All it requires is that the table, one of the
`tables refer to a tag. In other words, the claim has a noun, or
`a verb, and they are trying to read a noun into the claim.
`So, you know, a good example of this is, if I say
`I'm going to refer the Board to slide 34 in my slide deck, that
`doesn't mean that I have created a data structure as a
`reference.
`
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Miller, should this Panel
`construe essentially everything that comes after the word
`"refers" in claim 1 as nonfunctional descriptive material?
`MR. MILLER: Well, I think it does modify the
`claim. I mean, they are limitations to the claim but they are
`not structural in nature. I would agree with you there.
`JUDGE WARD: How do they modify the claim
`
`then?
`
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`MR. MILLER: Well, so, for example, the wherein
`clause requires that the timing table refer to a tag, so that's a
`requirement of the claim.
`The claim further -- the wherein clause also
`requires that the tag maintain a label and that label has to
`indicate a marked point through which the timing table has
`been propagated.
`JUDGE WARD: But is a tag -- it refers to a tag.
`MR. MILLER: Yeah.
`JUDGE WARD: D oes claim 1 require a tag?
`MR. MILLER: I think that, fairly stated, I think it
`probably does require a tag. The prior art plainly teaches
`tags. So even if it does require it, it is in the prior art.
`So let's look briefly at slide 34. An additional
`argument that Patent Owners made about this reference
`business is that they say that, they argue on page 22 of their
`Patent Owner statement, that claim 1 excludes the propagation
`of a timing table.
`So not only are they requiring that there be a
`reference, they are requiring that the reference be an external
`reference and can't be part of the tag.
`Well, the term refer, that is actually in the claim
`as opposed to the word reference, is a very broad term. So
`I've reproduced on the bottom of slide 34 some dictionary
`definitions, you know, we refer specifically to pertain or
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`concern. Patent Owner in their slides, you can see what they
`say, talk about direct or refer to a source for help.
`The point is, is that the term "refer" is very broad
`and doesn't require that there be a separate data structure. All
`there has to be, there is a requirement that the timing table
`refer to a tag, and anywhere that might happen.
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Miller, if we accept your
`proposal for the construction with refer to a tag, if I
`understand it correctly you are proposing that Belkhale's set
`attribute corresponds to that tag, and how is it that the set
`attribute in Belkhale satisfies the claim limitation, a tag?
`MR. MILLER: Sure. So the claim talks about a
`tag that contains a first label, so there has to be a label in it.
`JUDGE WARD: What is the label in Belkhale?
`MR. MILLER: That is the specific false
`sub- graphs that are referred to within the tag of Belkhale. So
`if you go to slide 41, we have a nice description of this.
`So at the bottom, this is reproduced from our reply
`brief on page 10, and as I quote from Dr. Ghiasi who was our
`expert: The arrival times, that's the accumulated delay
`through the timing graph, that's the table, and that that refers
`to the item that is in the curly braces, that would be the tag,
`and then the tag contains labels which are the false sub-graphs
`that we see in Belkhale, which indicate the marked points
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`through the circuit description that indicate where the timing
`table has propagated through.
`JUDGE WARD: Let me ask you about that in
`particular, Mr. Miller. You cited to me page 10 of your reply
`brief and I'm going to read you the statement that you made
`there.
`
`You said: 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 B3 by traversing false
`sub- graphs F1 and F2.
`The term traversing that you use there implies to
`me that what you are talking about is the propagation of a
`signal. How does that relate to the claimed marked point in
`the circuit?
`MR. MILLER: Sure. So if you look at the bottom
`of page 43 of our slides. On the bottom -- so the important
`part from the textual piece of Belkhale that I point your
`attention to, the top portion, we've underlined it in red where
`it says: The set attribute value gives the set of false
`sub- graphs the signal has come through.
`So a full sub-graph in --
`(Timer beeps.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`JUDGE WARD: You are through your first 20
`minutes. If you want to go into your rebuttal time, you are
`free to do so.
`MR. MILLER: I will take a few more minutes to
`answer your question.
`JUDGE WARD: Okay.
`MR. MILLER: So the false sub-graphs are made
`up of all of these points that are part of the exception that are
`false paths. We didn't discuss those today but that's a well
`known concept as well in the timing analysis field. Those are
`basically unrealizable paths and circuits that you don't want to
`put a timing analysis on.
`So the false sub-graph is made up of these points.
`I don't have it up on the screen, but that's shown in figure 3.
`And if you look at the figure 3 that is reproduced at the
`bottom of page 43, this contains the tables with all their --
`with how it refers to those set attributes.
`So V2 is a good example. The timing graph that
`goes from V1 to V2 has a delay of one because Belkhale
`teaches that every edge has a delay of one in the timing graph.
`And the signal that propagates from V1 to V2, in
`other words, the timing table, because that's the signal, that's
`the delay of one, passes through both false sub- graphs F1 and
`F2. So that's where the set attribute, that's the curly braces,
`has the labels that are 1 and 2.
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`JUDGE WARD: I n that particular example what
`do you propose is the marked point, because your brief tells
`me that it could be either V3 or V1, what is the marked point?
`MR. MILLER: Well, they are both marked points.
`JUDGE WARD: How are they marked?
`MR. MILLER: They are identified. The false
`sub- graph is defined by the order, pairs of vertices, V1 to V3,
`V1 to V2, et cetera, et cetera.
`JUDGE WARD: But a pair of vertices is a path
`and not a point.
`MR. MILLER: But Dr. Walker, their expert, said
`that it is made up of a path and a source node and a sync node.
`So false sub-graphs are made up of marked points. Belkhale
`refers to them as nodes. They are absolutely false marked
`points in the circuit description.
`So, you know, and a good example, and then I've
`got to rest, is if you go to slide 45, here we have the timing
`table for the node V3, and the false sub- graph F1 and false
`sub- graph F2 are shown.
`And so the path from V1 to V3 is in both false
`sub- graphs. V1 to V3 in figure 1 -- sorry, in false sub-graph
`F1 is also a false sub-graph F2.
`So this indicates that the timing table, which is a
`delay value of one, has moved from V1, which is a marked
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01145 (Patent 6,237,127)
`Case No. IPR2014-01150 (Patent 6,567,967)
`Case No. IPR2014-01159 (Patent 6,567,967)
`
`point, to V2 or V3. So it absolutely describes
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
