throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Morton et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121
`Issue Date:
`Nov. 13, 2007
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/966,161
`Filing Date:
`Oct. 15, 2004
`Title: REDUCING PROBE TRAFFIC IN MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEMS
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158
`IPR2015-00159
`IPR2015-00163
`
`DECLARATION OF VOJIN OKLOBDZIJA, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTIONS TO AMEND
`
`I, Vojin Oklobdzija, PhD, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`My name is Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija. I submit this declaration in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s Replies in Support of its Motions to Amend in
`
`IPR2015-00158, -00159, and -00163. I have been asked to offer technical opinions
`
`relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121, the proposed substitute claims presented by
`
`the motions, and certain arguments of Petitioners and their expert in opposition to
`
`the motions to amend.
`
`2.
`
`In addition to the documents which I already reviewed in connection
`
`with the declaration I submitted in support of the motions to amend, I have also
`
`reviewed the Petitioners’ Oppositions to the motions to amend, and the exhibits
`
`cited therein, including the Opposition Declaration of Dr. Robert Horst. Nothing
`
`in these materials has altered my opinions from my prior declaration that the
`
`proposed substitute claims are patentable over the prior art of record to the ’121
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`Patent, as well as the prior art (dating prior to November 4, 2002) which was
`
`known to the Patent Owner.
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONERS HAVE MISINTERPRETED AND MISCONSTRUED
`MY OPINIONS AND DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners’ Opposition contains a number of statements which
`
`misinterpret my deposition testimony in this matter. Petitioners argue that I
`
`testified that I spent five to ten hours reviewing the prior art in connection with the
`
`motions to amend. However, as I testified at my deposition, I could not give
`
`“precise answers” as to the number of hours I spent on individual tasks “on the top
`
`of my head,” but I estimated that I have spent over 60 hours in total, by the time of
`
`my deposition, in working on the pending -158, -159, and -163 matters.
`
`Oklobdzija Depo. at 17:25-18:8. Likewise, my answers regarding “5 hours” and
`
`“10 hours” were referring to time spent reviewing sub-categories of prior art.
`
`Oklobdzija Depo. at 21:7-24:12. I spent significantly more time, overall, working
`
`on the motions to amend, including analyzing the specific references discussed in
`
`my declaration in support of Patent Owner’s response (including the Pong and
`
`Koster references), as well as the specific references named and discussed in my
`
`declaration in support of Patent Owner’s motion to amend. Because there was
`
`significant overlap in the activities involved in my work on the Patent Owner
`
`Response and the Patent Owner Motion to Amend, it is difficult to precisely
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`estimate and apportion the relative time spent on each. However, I believe
`
`Petitioners’ characterization of my work as “only spen[ding] about 5-10 hours
`
`reviewing the hundreds of prior art references of record” is both inaccurate and
`
`misleading.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the Petitioners also imply that I did not review or
`
`consider the Pong reference with respect to the newly added limitations in the
`
`proposed claims that recites “wherein said probe filtering unit is coupled to a
`
`coherent protocol interface and a non-coherent protocol interface.” To the
`
`contrary, in my declaration in support of Patent Owner’s motion to amend, I
`
`expressly stated that “[a]s to the limitation, ‘wherein said probe filtering unit is
`
`coupled to a coherent protocol interface and a non-coherent protocol interface,’
`
`based on the prior art I have reviewed, I do not believe that such interfaces are
`
`taught in the art prior to November 4, 2002.” Oklobdzija Mot. to Amend Decl. ¶
`
`11. The Pong reference was included in the “prior art” referred to in that
`
`statement. Id.¶ 7 (stating that, among other things, “I have also reviewed the prior
`
`art submitted in connection with IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00161, -00163, and -
`
`00172” and that such prior art was included in what I understood to “together”
`
`“comprise” the “prior art of record of the ’121 Patent as well as all prior art to the
`
`’121 Patent known to the Patent Owner.”).
`
`5.
`
`In my analysis in connection with my declaration in support of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`Patent Owner’s Motions to Amend, I also identified the art that I thought was most
`
`relevant to these newly added limitations, including the other patents issued to
`
`Newisys, Inc. and naming Mr. Glasco as an inventor, as well as the Hellwagner
`
`reference. Oklobdzija Mot. to Amend Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. I did not identify the Pong
`
`or Koster references as the most material prior art regarding these limitations
`
`because I did not believe that they were material to these limitations. In particular,
`
`neither Pong nor Koster discuss or demonstrate a coherent and non-coherent
`
`protocol interfaces. Pong and Koster do not discuss non-coherent operations at all.
`
`Moreover, the Pong patent application, US 2002/0053004, describes itself as
`
`directed to “asynchronous cache coherence method and a multiprocessor system
`
`that employs an asynchronous cache coherence protocol” and identifies a single
`
`“Memory Control Path.” Pong ¶¶ 12, 15, 28-30. This demonstrates that the Pong
`
`reference does not disclose a non-coherent protocol interface.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that Petitioners characterize a portion of my deposition
`
`testimony as “admitting that a probe filtering unit with a path to main memory is a
`
`non-coherent interface.” Once again, Petitioners misconstrue my testimony and
`
`opinions. At the deposition, counsel asked a “hypothetical” question about an
`
`incompletely described system, where “you have a system with a probe filtering
`
`unit, and it has paths going to cache memory, and then it has a separate path going
`
`to main memory.” See Oklobdzija Depo. at 89:6-15. I understood counsel’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`question of “[w]ould the path going to main memory be a non-coherent interface?”
`
`as asking which of the two paths in the hypothetical system would be the non-
`
`coherent interface, assuming that the system had coherent and non-coherent
`
`interfaces. Obviously, in a system with a coherent protocol interface and a non-
`
`coherent protocol interface, the non-cache coherent protocol interface would not be
`
`concerned with communicating with the cache. However, this does not mean, nor
`
`should my testimony be understood, as opining that any “path to main memory” is
`
`a non-coherent protocol interface, or that any system which has a “path to main
`
`memory” and supports coherent protocol operations necessarily practices these
`
`limitations. Indeed, as I testified, a “non-coherent interface” is an interface which
`
`does not have to keep coherency with the other caches in the system. Oklobdzija
`
`Depo. at 88:7-15.1 Thus, a path to main memory can be a non-coherent protocol
`
`interface, but would not necessarily always be one. That is because a path to main
`
`memory could be accessed through a single interface which handles both coherent
`
`and non-coherent operations. Such a system would not be within the scope of the
`
`
`1 This testimony is consistent with and merely restates the Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of “non-coherent protocol interface,” which was stated in
`
`the motions to amend as “an interface for communicating with components in a
`
`computer system without regard to maintaining cache coherency.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`newly added limitations, which requires separate physically or logically distinct
`
`interfaces.2
`
`7.
`
`I understand that Petitioners cite to my testimony in support of their
`
`argument that the proposed substitute claims are not enabled and lack written
`
`description. Again, Petitioners misconstrue my testimony. As a threshold issue, as
`
`part of my opinions in support of the motion to amend, I was not tasked with
`
`opining as to whether the proposed substitute claims were enabled or described in
`
`the specification of the ’121 Patent, or any of the documents incorporated in the
`
`specification by reference. Thus, I had not analyzed that issue when asked those
`
`questions at my deposition. However, I attempted to provide responses to
`
`Petitioners’ counsel’s questions at the deposition to the best of my ability. As I
`
`
`2 This is not to suggest that there can be no overlap in the components which
`
`implement a “coherent protocol interface” and a “non-coherent protocol interface.”
`
`However, a single shared interface, handling both coherent and non-coherent
`
`operations, with no physical or logical separation of coherent and non-coherent
`
`protocols, would not fall within the scope of the claims, because, for example, it
`
`would not be a non-coherent protocol interface, as it would not be an interface that
`
`communicates in a computer system without regard to maintaining cache
`
`coherency.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`noted in my deposition, based on the brief analysis that I preformed at the
`
`deposition itself in response to Petitioners’ counsel’s questions, I did believe that
`
`these claims were described and enabled in the specification of the ’121 Patent.
`
`Oklobdzija Depo. at 90:18-102:4. As I noted in my deposition, based simply on
`
`my review during the deposition itself, I believed, and I continue to believe, that
`
`the specification of the ’121 Patent contains a number of “implementation hint[s]”
`
`which would enable one of skill in the art to practice the “coherent protocol
`
`interface” and “non-coherent protocol interface” limitations without undue
`
`experimentation. I also note that neither Petitioners nor their expert have
`
`articulated any particular argument for why they believe these limitations are not
`
`enabled, either at my deposition or in their Opposition, and thus I have no
`
`particular non-enablement argument to respond to.
`
`II.
`
`THE SGI ORIGIN SYSTEM IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE
`PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS
`
`8.
`
`I understand that Petitioners also present certain arguments
`
`regarding the SGI Origin system based on the Culler and Laudon references. I
`
`understand that Petitioners imply that I did not analyze the Culler reference, or the
`
`SGI Origin system, in performing my analysis set forth in my declaration in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s motion to amend. This is incorrect. The Culler
`
`reference was one of the pieces of prior art included in the statement in my prior
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`opinion that “the limitation, ‘wherein said probe filtering unit is coupled to a
`
`coherent protocol interface and a non-coherent protocol interface,’ based on the
`
`prior art I have reviewed, I do not believe that such interfaces are taught in the art
`
`prior to November 4, 2002.” Oklobdzija Motion to Amend Decl. ¶ 11. Although I
`
`considered the Culler reference, based on my analysis, I did not believe that the
`
`SGI Origin system described in Culler was particularly important or material art. I
`
`did discuss the art that I thought was most relevant and material in describing these
`
`limitations and demonstrating the state of the art. Oklobdzija Motion to Amend
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. As described in further detail below, I believe that there are
`
`fundamental architectural differences between the SGI Origin system, as described
`
`in the Culler and Laudon references, and that of the proposed substitute claims.
`
`9.
`
`Although the Petitioners and their expert identify the SGI Origin’s
`
`“hub” as the alleged “probe filtering unit” of the substitute claims, they are vague
`
`with respect to whether they contend that the “hub” is outside of or is subsumed
`
`within a “processing node.” As described below, neither scenario is consistent
`
`with the SGI Origin practicing the substitute claims.
`
`10.
`
`To the extent that Petitioners argue that the SGI Origin’s hub is
`
`subsumed within what they contend is the “processing node,” that is plainly
`
`inconsistent with the claims themselves. Each of the substitute claims recite “[a]
`
`probe filtering unit for use in a computer system comprising a plurality of plurality
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`of processing nodes interconnected by a first point-to-point architecture,” and that
`
`the “probe filtering” is “operable to receive probes . . .from the processing nodes”
`
`and to “transmit the probes . . . to . . . processing nodes.” These passages
`
`demonstrate that the probe filtering unit is a separate limitation and cannot be
`
`understood as being subsumed within a processing node. Other disclosures in the
`
`’121 Patent are consistent. For example, claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
`
`recites that the “probe filtering unit” corresponds to “an additional node [i.e. but
`
`not a processing node] interconnected with the plurality of processing nodes.” A
`
`number of the other original claims of the ’121 Patent draw distinctions between
`
`whether the processing nodes or the probe filtering unit have certain functionality.
`
`’121 Pat. cls. 8 (“each of the processing nodes is operable”), 11 (“each of the
`
`processing nodes is programmed to complete a memory transaction . . .”), 12, 13
`
`(“the probe filtering unit is operable to forward . . .”), 14-15. The ’121 Patent also
`
`depicts and describes the probe filtering unit as being separate from the processors
`
`or processing nodes. See, e.g., Fig. 18 and accompanying text.
`
`11.
`
`Additionally, a theory that the SGI Origin’s hub is both a “probe
`
`filtering unit” and subsumed within a “processing node” would also be inconsistent
`
`with practicing the proposed substitute claims because, in such a scenario, the
`
`home node/hub would be a processing node to which the received probe is always
`
`“transmitted” without being “selected,” which is inconsistent with the substitute
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`claims’ recitation of “transmit the probes only to selected ones of the processing
`
`nodes with reference to probe filtering information.” In particular, the hub of a
`
`home node in SGI Origin always “speculatively” forwards received requests to the
`
`hub’s associated memory, without regards to the contents of the hub’s directory
`
`(i.e. even if the directory would indicate that home hub’s memory did not the most
`
`recent data). Culler at 597 (“the Origin2000 uses . . . speculative memory
`
`operations in parallel with directory lookup”), 600 (“At the home, the data for the
`
`block is access speculatively in parallel with looking up the directory entry.”);
`
`Laudon at 244 (“3. Read request goes across network to home memory . . . 4.
`
`Home memory does memory read and directory lookup.”). Thus, if the hub is
`
`subsumed within a processing node, the claim is not practiced because the home
`
`hub always transmits the received request (i.e. the alleged probe) to that home node
`
`without any “select[ion]” and without regards to the contents of the directory (i.e.
`
`the alleged probe filtering information).
`
`12.
`
`To the extent that Petitioners and their expert argue that the SGI
`
`Origin’s hub is not subsumed within a processing node, their arguments are still
`
`inconsistent with SGI Origin practicing the proposed substitute claims. As a
`
`threshold issue, the claims require that “the probe filtering unit being operable to
`
`receive probes corresponding to memory lines from the processing nodes.”
`
`However, if the hub is not within a processing node, then the hub at the home node
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`of SGI Origin is not receiving probes from the processing nodes, it is receiving a
`
`request from another hub. See Horst Opp. Decl. ¶ 17. That is because processors
`
`in SGI Origin can only communicate with each other through hubs. See, e.g.,
`
`Culler at 597, 615 (“The PI hides the processors from the rest of the world, so any
`
`other interface must only know the behavior of the PI and not of the processor and
`
`SysAD bus themselves”); Laudon at 242.3
`
`
`3
`Petitioners do not discuss the case where the requesting processor happens to
`
`be in the home node. However, even if that scenario did meet the “transmit” and
`
`“receive” limitations of the substitute claims with respect to one “processing node”
`
`(i.e. the local processor), the hub would still not be “operable to receive probes”
`
`from a “plurality of processing nodes” as the claims require. Moreover, even in
`
`the scenario where there are two-processors per hub (Petitioners focus on the one-
`
`processor per hub scenario), and the requesting processor was in the home node,
`
`that would not meet the limitations of the substitute claims because the home node
`
`would not be transmitting a “probe” “only to selected” processing nodes—it would
`
`be transmitting to an owner hub that contains two processing nodes (of which only
`
`one could be the owner of the memory line). Culler at 598, Fig. 8.15. The two-
`
`processor-per-hub embodiment of SGI Origin would also not practice the claims
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`13.
`
`Petitioners may argue that the hub in the home node is receiving a
`
`probe “from the processing node” because ultimately a request sent by the
`
`requesting node’s hub is due to a processor’s cache miss. However, 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 processing nodes.” Indeed, neither
`
`Culler or Laudon discuss the message format of any of the messages sent by the
`
`processors, or sent or received by the hubs. Moreover, the disclosures in Culler
`
`and Laudon suggest that what is sent by a “processor” is not the same as the
`
`alleged “probe” received by the home node’s hub. The processor in the requesting
`
`node is connected to a hub in the requesting node via a “SysAD bus.” Culler at
`
`615, 616, Fig. 8.21. However, the hubs in SGI Origin communicate with each
`
`other via a “Craylink” interface. Culler at 616, Fig. 8.21; Laudon at 245.
`
`Additionally, the hub chip has significant logic between these interfaces. Culler at
`
`614-618, 616, Fig 8.21. This logic, among other things, “hides the processors from
`
`the rest of the world, so any other interface must only know the behavior of the PI
`
`
`because the two processors located at one hub are connected by a “SysAD bus”
`
`rather than a point-to-point architecture. Culler at 615, 616, Fig. 8.21.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`[processor interface] and not of the processor and SysAD bus themselves.” Culler
`
`at 615. The messaging between hubs is also significantly different from the
`
`messaging within hubs: “[t]he router and the Hub internals use different data
`
`transport formats protocols, and speeds.” Culler at 618. Culler teaches that, in
`
`SGI Origin, in some instances, there is not even a one-to-one relationship between
`
`the processor’s outgoing messages and the outgoing messages from the hub.
`
`Culler at 617 (“If the processor (or cache) provides data as a reply to an incoming
`
`intervention, it is the logic in the PI’s outgoing FIFO that expands the reply into
`
`the two responses required by the protocol.”). Culler also identifies at least some
`
`details of the cache coherent protocol as to which the processors are ignorant
`
`about, and which the hub is responsible for implementing. Culler at 617 (“All
`
`requests passing through the PIE in either direction are given request numbers . . .
`
`the processor itself does not know about the request number . . . it is the PI’s job to
`
`. . . match the processor’s responses to the outstanding interventions /
`
`invalidations.”). In light of all of these disclosures together, 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.
`
`14.
`
`Additionally, the references demonstrate that the SGI Origin system
`
`does not have a “plurality of processing nodes interconnected by a first point-to-
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`point architecture.” The ’121 Patent makes clear that “[i]n a point-to-point
`
`architecture,” there are “multiple processors directly connected to each other
`
`through point-to-point links.” ’121 Pat. at 4:38-40 (emphasis added). However,
`
`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. Culler
`
`at 598, Fig. 8.15. The ’121 patent expressly distinguishes such buses from point-
`
`to-point interfaces. ’121 Pat. at 4:40-42; see also Culler at 588-589. Moreover,
`
`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. Rather, they are connected through, at a minimum, two hub chips (one hub
`
`chip per each node), each of which “hides [its respective] processor from the rest
`
`of the world, so any other interface must only know the behavior of the [hub
`
`chip’s] PI [processor interface] and not of the processor and SysAD bus
`
`themselves.” Culler at 615, 616, Fig. 8.21.4 Additionally, the communication
`
`
`4
`This is not meant to indicate that the mere presence of some physical
`
`components between individual processors is inconsistent with those processors
`
`being directly interconnected by a point-to-point architecture. Indeed, the point-to-
`
`point architecture itself can have components, such as in the ’121 Patent’s
`
`teachings regarding use of a “switch” or a “ring.” ’121 Pat., Figs. 1B, 19, col.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`between a hub chip and its processor, the communication within a hub chip, and
`
`the communication in the network between hub chips all involve “different
`
`transport formats protocols, and speeds.” Culler at 618. Together, these teachings
`
`make clear that SGI Origin does not possess a “plurality of processing nodes
`
`interconnected by a [] point-to-point architecture.”
`
`15.
`
`Finally, SGI Origin does not teach the claimed limitation of the
`
`proposed substitute claims that the “probe filtering unit is coupled to a coherent
`
`protocol interface and a non-coherent protocol interface.” It appears that
`
`Petitioners and their experts are making an inherency argument. Notably, neither
`
`Culler nor Laudon expressly state the SGI Origin’s hub is connected to both
`
`coherent and non-coherent protocol interfaces. Also, although Culler describes the
`
`hub as having a number of interfaces, Culler at 614-618, neither Petitioners nor
`
`their expert identify any one of those interfaces as being the claimed coherent
`
`
`6:24-35, 27:32-40. However, the description of the SGI Origin’s hub’s as “hiding”
`
`processors and using “different . . . protocols” to communicate within hubs as
`
`opposed to between hubs demonstrates that Origin’s processor-to-hub and hub-to-
`
`hub communications are separate architectures (e.g. a SysAD bus and a “Craylink”
`
`network) rather than the claimed single point-to-point architecture which
`
`interconnects a plurality of processing nodes.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`protocol interface or the claimed non-coherent protocol interface. Rather,
`
`Petitioners’ expert argues that the fact that “both a processor and a Hub in the SGI
`
`Origin architecture are capable of communicating coherent messages (e.g., cache
`
`misses) and noncoherent messages (e.g., uncached I/O operations) to other
`
`components in the machine (e.g., each other)” “mean[s] that each contains a
`
`‘coherent protocol interface’ and ‘non-coherent protocol interface.’” Horst Opp.
`
`Decl. ¶ 7. However, I believe that Petitioners’ argument plainly misapplies the
`
`language of the proposed substitute claims. The fact that the SGI Origin’s hub and
`
`processors can be involved in coherent and noncoherent operations does not
`
`necessarily imply that the SGI Origin’s hub is coupled to a coherent protocol
`
`interface and a noncoherent protocol interface. As described above, the proposed
`
`claims require a probe filtering unit which is coupled to physically or logically
`
`distinct coherent and non-coherent protocol interfaces. This is consistent with the
`
`teachings of the ’121 Patent. ’121 Pat. at Fig. 3, 8:5-19. A system outside the
`
`scope of the substitute claims could still perform both coherent and non-coherent
`
`operations using one or more shared coherent/non-coherent interfaces, i.e. a single
`
`interface which performs both coherent and non-coherent operations without any
`
`physical or logical separation or distinction. A shared coherent/non-coherent
`
`interface is not, for example, a non-coherent protocol interface because it is not “an
`
`interface for communicating with components in a computer system without regard
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`to maintaining cache coherency.” Nothing in Culler or Laudon’s description of
`
`SGI Origin is inconsistent with having only such shared interfaces. Indeed, to the
`
`contrary, Culler describes SGI Origin’s coherent and non-coherent operations as
`
`being part of a single “Origin protocol” occurring over the same “interfaces.”
`
`Culler at 604, 610. Moreover, in discussing how Origin processes I/O (which is
`
`typically associated with non-coherent transactions), the 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.” Culler at 613-614. Thus, 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.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`Case Nos. IPR2015-00158, -00159, -00163
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on: December 31, 2015
`
`Vojin G. Oklobdzija, PhD
`
`
`
`18

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket