UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, and
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, and
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Observation #1 In the transcript of the January 8, 2016 deposition of Dr. Vojin
`
`Oklobdzija (Ex. 1021) at page 20, line 9 to page 22, line 4, Dr. Oklobdzija agreed
`
`that “it is a matter of semantics” whether “[o]ne can consider a node to be the one
`
`that contains the hub and both processors main memory or one can consider the
`
`processing node just to be the same as the processor.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`paragraph 9 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 2042) and page 8 of MI’s
`
`Reply in Support of Motion to Amend (Paper 27) where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that
`
`Petitioners “are vague with respect to whether they contend that the ‘hub’ is
`
`outside of or is subsumed within a ‘processing node.’” This testimony is relevant,
`
`because it proves that the Opposition’s application of the individual R10000
`
`processor in the Origin system to the claimed “processing node” is valid.
`
`Observation #2 In Ex. 1021 at page 28, line 8 to page 29, line 20, Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`testified that he did not consider “where the probe in a hub-to-hub transmission
`
`originates from.” This testimony is relevant to paragraph 13 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`Reply Declaration and pages 9-10 of MI’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend,
`
`where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that “there is no reason to believe from the teachings
`
`of Culler and Laudon that any message originating from a processor in a request
`
`node is the same as the alleged ‘probe’ received by the hub in a home node such
`
`that it could be said that the ‘probe filtering unit . . . receive probes . . . from the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`processing nodes.’” This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija did not identify an alternative source for a probe in the Origin system
`
`other than a requesting processor.
`
`Observation #3 In Ex. 1021 at page 52, line 10 to page 53, line 12, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija testified that he did “not rely[] upon any language in the '121 patent
`
`regarding the message format of a probe as supporting [his] opinion in paragraph
`
`13” and that “the substitute claims do not recite any specific message formats of
`
`the probe.” This testimony is relevant to paragraph 13 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply
`
`Declaration and pages 9-10 of MI’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, where
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija cites to Culler’s teaching that the Origin system relies on varying
`
`message formats to transport data to support his contention that “messaging
`
`between hubs is also significantly different from the messaging within hubs.” This
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that, contrary to Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`implication, a change in a probe’s message format is not relevant to the limitations
`
`of the substitute claims.
`
`Observation #4 In Ex. 1021 at page 73, line 18 to page 75, line 9, Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`testifies that the ’121 Patent describes an embodiment in which a probe traveling
`
`between clusters traverses communication links using different protocols that
`
`require different message formats. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 13 of
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 9-10 of MI’s Reply in Support of
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija cites to Culler’s teaching that the Origin
`
`system relies on varying message formats to transport data to support his
`
`contention that “messaging between hubs is also significantly different from the
`
`messaging within hubs.” This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that,
`
`contrary to Dr. Oklobdzija’s implication, a change in a probe’s message format is
`
`not relevant to the limitations of the substitute claims.
`
`Observation #5 In Ex. 1021 at page 78, lines 2 to 6, after taking time to review
`
`the Culler reference, Dr. Oklobdzija agrees that “processors issue read requests to
`
`the hub chip through the PI” (i.e., the processor interface of the hub chip).
`
`Moreover, in Ex. 1021 at page 175, lines 17 to 25 and page 176, line 9 to page 176,
`
`line 19, Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the processors issue read requests, which are
`
`passed through the hub, and numbered in order to keep track of where the read
`
`requests are in the system. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 13 of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 9-10 of MI’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that “it would not be reasonable to
`
`assume that requests received by a hub in a home node in SGI Origin is the same
`
`or even a modified version of a message sent by a requesting processor attached to
`
`a different hub.” This testimony is relevant because Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply
`
`Declaration does not present any evidence that the read request received by the hub
`
`in the home node is substantively different from the read request sent by the
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`processor, nor could Dr. Oklobdzija testify to any changes. See, e.g., Ex. 1021 at
`
`56:25-57:24; 65:22-66:5; 68:21-69:3; 69:12-21; 167:8-168:7.
`
`Observation #6 In Ex. 1021 at page 59, line 5 to page 60, line 5, Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`testifies that the substitute claims’ requirement that a probe received by the probe
`
`filtering unit “has to be the same probe which corresponds to memory lines from
`
`the processing node” is “not talking about a specific probe filtering format that
`
`you're talking about, but the information basically that is contained in the probe
`
`filtering message should be the same on all PFU.” Moreover, at page 67, line 15 to
`
`page 68, line 4, Dr. Oklobdzija testifies that as long as any modification to a probe
`
`does not affect the response solicited from the system, it is the same probe for
`
`purposes of the substitute claims. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 13 of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 9-10 of MI’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that “it would not be reasonable to
`
`assume that requests received by a hub in a home node in SGI Origin is the same
`
`or even a modified version of a message sent by a requesting processor attached to
`
`a different hub.” This testimony is relevant because Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply
`
`Declaration does not assert that the read request received by the hub in a home
`
`node does not solicit the same response as the read request issued by the requesting
`
`processor.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Observation #7 In Ex. 1021 at page 45, line 2 to page 47, line 5 and page 49, line
`
`19 to page 50, line 4, Dr. Oklobdzija admits that a probe received by a cache
`
`coherence controller containing the claimed probe filtering unit from a processor in
`
`a remote cluster would “receive” that probe from the processor in accordance with
`
`the substitute claims, even though the cache coherence controller of the remote
`
`cluster would have to “forward the request – the probe.” This testimony is relevant
`
`to paragraph 14 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 10-11 of MI’s
`
`Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that “‘[i]n a
`
`point-to-point architecture,’ there are ‘multiple processors directly connected to
`
`each other through point-to-point links[,]’” so “processors in separate nodes in the
`
`SGI Origin are not directly connected to each other, as required by the substitute
`
`claims and the express teachings of the ’121 Patent” because “they are connected
`
`through, at a minimum, two hub chips” (emphasis in original). This testimony is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Dr. Oklobdzija’s assertion that the ’121 Patent
`
`requires the processing nodes to be “directly” connected, as opposed to connected
`
`through two probe filtering units (i.e., hub chips).
`
`Observation #8 In Ex. 1021 at page 79, line 6 to page 80, line 8, Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`admits that the substitute claims do not require processors that are directly
`
`connected through point-to-point links. Moreover, at page 44, line 5 to page 45,
`
`line 18 and page 79, line 10 to page 81, line 10, Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`point-to-point architecture in the ‘121 patent’s Figure 2 includes processors that are
`
`not directly connected. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 14 of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 10-11 of MI’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that “‘[i]n a point-to-point
`
`architecture,’ there are ‘multiple processors directly connected to each other
`
`through point-to-point links.”
`
`Observation #9 In Ex. 1021 at page 90, lines 3 to 6 and page 92, line 2 to page 93,
`
`line 24, Dr. Oklobdzija admits that there are different types of buses, agrees that
`
`“the’121 patent is comparing a conventional shared bus that is used in a system
`
`that performs snooping against a point-to-point architecture,” and agrees that the
`
`processors of the Origin system do not perform snooping on the SysAD bus. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraph 14 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and
`
`pages 10-11 of MI’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`asserts that “’121 patent expressly distinguishes” buses like the Origin system’s
`
`SysAD bus “from point-to-point interfaces.” This testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that the Origin system’s SysAD bus is not the same type of bus
`
`distinguished by the ’121 patent.
`
`Observation #10 In Ex. 1021 at page 102, line 7 to page 103, line 19, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija acknowledged that, in the implementation of the Origin system relied
`
`upon by Petitioner’s, “there would only be two endpoints for this path connecting
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`processor A and the hub” (i.e., the SysAD bus), and that all communications
`
`“would only go through these two points.” This testimony is relevant to paragraph
`
`14 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 10-11 of MI’s Reply in
`
`Support of Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that, “within a local
`
`node in SGI Origin, individual processors are connected via a ‘SysAD bus,’ which
`
`is also used to connect the processors to the hub chip,” which the “’121 patent
`
`expressly distinguishes such buses from point-to- point interfaces.” This testimony
`
`is relevant, because it demonstrates that the SysAD bus in Origin is a point-to-
`
`point link, as opposed to a snooping-based shared medium.
`
`Observation #11 In Ex. 1021 at page 94, line 4 to page 98, line 16, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija acknowledges that the goal of using point-to-point links in the ’121
`
`Patent, as compared to a conventional shared bus that performs snooping, is the
`
`same as the goal of the manner in which the Origin system utilizes the SysAD bus
`
`(i.e.,“reduc[ing] latency and increase[ing] bandwith”). This testimony is relevant to
`
`paragraph 14 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 10-11 of MI’s
`
`Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that, “within a
`
`local node in SGI Origin, individual processors are connected via a ‘SysAD bus,’
`
`which is also used to connect the processors to the hub chip,” which the “’121
`
`patent expressly distinguishes such buses from point-to- point interfaces.” This
`
`testimony is relevant, because it demonstrates that the SysAD bus in Origin serves
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`the same goals as the point-to-point architecture in the ’121 Patent, and, even if the
`
`SysAD bus were not considered a point-to-point link, it would have been obvious
`
`to “just use[] point to point.”
`
`Observation #12 In Ex. 1021 at page 113, lines 15-19 and page 179, line 19 to
`
`page 180, line 16, after reviewing the ’121 Patent’s disclosure as a result of
`
`questioning on redirect, Dr. Oklobdzija acknowledges that his previous
`
`interpretation of what constitutes a “point-to-point architecture,” as that term is
`
`used in the ’121 Patent has been “incorrect.” After this realization, at page 181,
`
`line 7 to page, 182, line 2, Dr. Oklobdzija acknowledges that the cube architecture
`
`of the Origin system shown in FIG. 3 of the Laudon reference “is a point to point
`
`architecture.” This testimony is relevant to paragraph 14 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply
`
`Declaration and pages 10-11 of MI’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, where
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that, “’[i]n a point-to-point architecture,’ there are ‘multiple
`
`processors directly connected to each other through point-to-point links.’”
`
`(emphasis in original). This testimony is relevant, because it demonstrates that
`
`cube architecture of the Origin system is a point-to-point architecture.
`
`Observation #13 In Ex. 1021 at page 125, line 23 to page 127, line 6, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija admits that in a “system that communicates with a separate memory
`
`which is not cached and, therefore, has no coherency because it's not cached, then
`
`what you're trying to say, it fits the [Patent Owner’s proposed] definition of a
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`noncoherent interface,” though he still distinguishes such a system from a
`
`noncoherent interface. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 15 of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 11-12 of MI’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija notes that, “in discussing how Origin
`
`processes I/O (which is typically associated with non-coherent transactions), the
`
`[Culler] reference describes the ‘Xbow’ interface, which ‘connects the Hub to
`
`other I/O interfaces,’ as permitting not only non-coherent ‘uncached’ I/O
`
`operations, but also ‘coherent DMA operations.’” This testimony is relevant,
`
`because Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the “Xbow” interface fits “the words” of Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed definition of a non-coherent interface when the “Xbow”
`
`interface “communicates with a separate memory which is not cached.”
`
`Observation #14 In Ex. 1021 at page 130, line 13 to page 131, line 8, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija acknowledges that a POSITA would have been able to convert a shared
`
`coherent and non-coherent interface into “separate noncoherent interface and
`
`coherent protocol interfaces.” This testimony is relevant to paragraph 15 of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration and pages 11-12 of MI’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Amend, where Dr. Oklobdzija asserts that “Culler describes SGI
`
`Origin’s coherent and non-coherent operations as being part of a single ‘Origin
`
`protocol’ occurring over the same ‘interfaces.’” This testimony is relevant because
`
`it demonstrates that a POSITA would have been able to convert the shared
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`interface of the Origin protocol into “separate noncoherent interface and coherent
`
`protocol interfaces.”
`
`Observation #15 In Ex. 1021 at page 132, lines 14 to 20, Dr. Oklobdzija testifies
`
`that it’s his “opinion that the substitute claims require that at least some portion of
`
`the coherent protocol interface and a noncoherent protocol interface are separate
`
`structures.” This testimony is relevant to footnote 5 on page 24 of Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend, which states that “[i]t should be understood that Patent Owner
`
`does not intend to suggest that the coherent protocol interface and non-coherent
`
`protocol interface of the proposed substitute claims need be implemented in a way
`
`that requires particular separate structures. Nothing in the intrinsic record of the
`
`’121 Patent restricts the interfaces in that manner.” This testimony is relevant
`
`because it indicates Dr. Oklobdzija applied a claim construction inconsistent with
`
`the ’121 Patent and the Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction when reaching
`
`his conclusion that “SGI Origin does not disclose the limitations of the proposed
`
`substitute claims that the ‘probe filtering unit is coupled to a coherent protocol
`
`interface and a non-coherent protocol interface.’”
`
`Observation #16 In Ex. 1021 at page 132, line 22 to page 133, line 10, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija agrees “that a system that had logic for performing cached and
`
`uncached operations across an interface would meet the claim limitations of a
`
`coherent protocol interface and a noncoherent protocol interface in the substitute
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`
` IPR2015-00158
`
`
`claims.” Next, at page 134, line 14 to page 135, line 6 and page 136, lines 15 to 23,
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the Origin system “must have” some logic for
`
`performing uncached operations. Then, at page 137, line 8 to page 140, line 10, Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija admits that, in the Origin system, “uncached operations are the
`
`accesses to memory, and the hub is in between the processor and memory, so there
`
`has to have a logic to access the memory for cached and uncached operations.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to paragraph 15 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration
`
`and pages 11-12 of MI’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, where Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija asserts that “the proposed claims require a probe filtering unit which is
`
`coupled to physically or logically distinct coherent and non-coherent protocol
`
`interfaces.” This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that the Origin
`
`system has logic for performing cached and uncached operations across an
`
`interface, which Dr. Oklobdzija agrees meets the requirements of the proposed
`
`substitute claims.
`
`Dated: January 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Zaed M. Billah/
`Zaed M. Billah
`Reg. No. 71,418
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004
`Phone: 212-425-7200
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`Email: zbillah@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
` IPR2015-00158
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS was served via email on
`
`January 11, 2016 on the attorneys for the Patent Owner:
`
` Jonathan D. Baker, Reg. No. 45,708
`Michael Saunders, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`Gurtej Singh, Reg. No. 71020
` Farney Daniels PC
` 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350
` San Mateo, California 94402
`
`Phone: 424-268-5200
`
`
`
`Email: jbaker@farneydaniels.com
`Email: msaunders@farneydaniels.com
`Email: tsingh@farneydaniels.com
`Email: MemoryIntegrityIPR@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Zaed M. Billah/
`Zaed M. Billah
`Reg. No. 71,418
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004
`Phone: 212-425-7200
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`Email: zbillah@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Dated: January 11, 2016
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
