UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`ATopTech, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Synopsys, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00xxx
`Patent 6,237,127
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF SOHEIL GHIASI, Ph.D.
`
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,237,127
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 01 of 11
`
`
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`ATopTech, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Synopsys, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00xxx
`Patent 6,237,127
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF SOHEIL GHIASI, Ph.D.
`
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,237,127
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 01 of 11
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS.............................1
`II.
`III. BASIS FOR OPINIONS AND MATERIALS REVIEWED.....................1
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS.................................................................2
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES..................................................................................2
`V.
`VI. THE PRIOR ART..........................................................................................2
`VII. BELKHALE RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 6 OBVIOUS ..........................3
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`The Prior Institution Decision Regarding Claim 5..........................3
`Belkhale Renders Claim 5 Obvious...................................................4
`The Prior Institution Decision Regarding Claim 6..........................7
`
`Belkhale Renders Claim 6 Obvious...................................................7
`D.
`VIII. BELKHALE IN VIEW OF TOM RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 6
`OBVIOUS.......................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The Prior Institution Decision Regarding Claims 5 and 6..............8
`Belkhale in View of Tom Renders Claims 5 and 6 Obvious ...........8
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 02 of 11
`
`
`
`I, Soheil Ghiasi, declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I previously submitted a declaration in the inter partes review
`1.
`
`proceeding brought by ATopTech, Inc. (“Petitioner”) regarding U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,237,127 (“the `127 Patent”) that was assigned Case No. IPR2014-001145 (Ex.
`
`1007). My opinions stated in that declaration remain unchanged.
`
`2.
`
`The present declaration provides additional opinions regarding the
`
`applicability of the prior art references to claims 5 and 6 of the `127 Patent for
`
`which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute a trial because they
`
`adopted a grammatically different claim construction for claim 5. My additional
`
`opinions concern the application of the prior art references to the Board’s claim
`
`construction in the Instituted Decision for IPR2014-001145. Accordingly, I submit
`this declaration in support of Petitioner’s petition for inter partes review of claims
`
`5 and 6 of the `127 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS
`4.
`My qualifications and credentials are provided in paragraphs 4-12 of
`
`my prior declaration. Ex. 1007.
`
`III. BASIS FOR OPINIONS AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`5.
`The opinions set forth in my declaration are based on my personal
`
`knowledge gained from my education, professional experience, and from the
`
`review of the documents and information described in this declaration.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 03 of 11
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In preparation of this declaration, I have studied
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 6,237,127 (Ex. 1001);
`
`b. The file history of U.S. Patent No. 6,237,127 (Ex. 1002);
`
`c.
`
`The reference entitled “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”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 5,210,700 (“Tom”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
`e.
`
`Institution Decision for IPR2014-001145.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`7.
`It is my opinion that claims 5 and 6 of the `127 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Belkhale under the Board’s construction in the
`
`Institution Decision for IPR2014-001145.
`
`8.
`
`It is also my further opinion that claims 5 and 6 are rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Belkhale in view of Tom under the Board’s construction
`
`in the Institution Decision for IPR2014-001145.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`9.
`My understanding of the legal principles is provided in paragraphs 17-
`
`27 of my prior declaration. Ex. 1007.
`
`VI. THE PRIOR ART
`10.
`I discuss the scope and content of Belkhale in paragraphs 76-92 and
`
`the scope and content of Tom in paragraphs 201-205 of my prior declaration. Ex.
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 04 of 11
`
`
`
`1007. I further explain the motivation to combine Belkhale with Tom in
`
`paragraphs 206-216 of my prior declaration. Ex. 1007.
`
`VII. BELKHALE RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 6 OBVIOUS
`A.
`The Prior Institution Decision Regarding Claim 5
`11.
`I have studied the Board’s Institution Decision (“`127 Inst. Dec.”)
`
`regarding claim 5. In that decision, the Board found Petitioner had met its burden
`
`of showing that claims 1 and 4 were likely obvious in view of Belkhale. `127 Inst.
`
`Dec. p. 12. The Board also found that Petitioner had not met its burden regarding
`
`claim 5 because the Board adopted a different claim construction than petitioner
`
`and “[p]etitioner has not provided arguments indicating how Belkhale discloses the
`
`recited limitations under this construction.” `127 Inst. Dec. p. 17.
`
`12. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further requires the step of
`
`“satisfying an exception, prior to comparing the first timing value, with the first
`
`label.” In my prior declaration I stated that:
`
`I believe this claim contains a typographical error and that the phrase
`“with the first label” should actually be “with the first constraint
`value.” In the context of claim 5, it does not make sense to compare a
`timing value with a label like those in the `127 Patent because a label
`is never a timing constraint. Ex. 1007, ¶157.
`13.
`In the institution decision the Board explained:
`
`We are not persuaded that claim 5 requires a timing value to be
`compared to a first label. As written, a comma separates the phrase
`“prior to comparing first timing value” from the phrase “with the first
`label.” Thus, rather than comparing the timing value with the first label,
`we read claim 5 to recite “satisfying an exception . . . with the first
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 05 of 11
`
`
`
`label.” `127 Inst. Dec. p. 8.
`14.
`I understand the Board’s construction of claim 5 to associate the first
`
`clause and the third clause of claim 5 together and require satisfying an exception
`
`with the first label.
`
`15.
`
`I further understand the Board’s construction of claim 5 to explain
`
`that the second clause “prior to comparing the first timing value” does not refer to
`
`the third clause “with the first label” but rather relates back to dependent claim 4,
`
`which requires “comparing a first timing value…to a first constraint value.”
`
`16.
`
`The difference between construction of claim 5 I originally relied on
`
`and the Board’s construction of claim 5 is a grammatical one and does not relate to
`
`the construction of any terms in the claim. The construction I originally relied on
`
`for claim 5 associated the second and third clauses together instead of the first and
`
`third clauses as adopted by the Board.
`
`17.
`
`To this end, my construction of all claim terms in this declaration is
`
`completely consistent with my opinion in my original declaration. In adopting the
`
`Board’s proposed claim construction, I am simply demonstrating that even if the
`
`first and third clauses of claim 5 are associated together instead of the second and
`
`third clauses, the resulting claim is still obvious in view of Belkhale and obvious in
`
`view of Belkhale and Tom.
`
`B.
`18.
`
`Belkhale Renders Claim 5 Obvious
`In order to figure out which false sub graphs to remove, Belkhale uses
`
`the set attribute to indicate when the path is entirely through a false sub graph. In
`
`this context, and consistent with my prior declaration, the set attribute is equivalent
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 06 of 11
`
`
`
`to a tag with a label and the false sub graph is equivalent to an exception. See Ex.
`
`1007, ¶76-78 and ¶131. Thus, by adding tags and labels to the timing tables in the
`
`form of a set attribute and comparing those set attributes to exceptions using
`
`Algorithm 1, Belkhale teaches “satisfying an exception…with the first label.
`
`19.
`
`Examining Belkhale’s Algorithm 1,
`
`reproduced to the right, demonstrates exactly
`
`how Belkhale teaches satisfying an exception
`
`with the first label. As the timing analysis passed
`
`through the timing graph calculating the arrival
`times (AT) at each node (v), Algorithm 1
`calculates a new element set (s’) for each node (v). This is demonstrated in
`
`Algorithm 1 at the line with the red box around it annotated 1. As may be seen in
`
`the line annotated 1, the new element set (s’) is calculated by taking the old
`
`element set (s) and adding a set attribute (label) for any new false sub graphs that
`have been entered by s ᴗ BG(u). Next, labels are removed for any false sub graph
`that the path has departed from by ᴖ IN(e). Accordingly, the line annotated 1 of
`Algorithm 1 calculates the new element set (s’) for the node (v). Belkhale, refers
`
`to this new element set (s’) as the sink element set. The set attributes of the nodes
`
`are equivalent to what the `127 Patent refers to as labels.
`
`20.
`
`The specific portion of Algorithm 1 where Belkhale determines
`
`whether an exception is satisfied with a label is the line annotated 2 in Algorithm 1
`
`above. In the line annotated 2, the intersection of the sink element set (s’) is taken
`with the set EG(v). Because the set EG(v) is the set of all false sub graphs for
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 07 of 11
`
`
`
`which the vertex v is in the end set, this line of Algorithm 1 determines whether the
`
`current path through the timing graph is completely through a false sub graph and
`
`if it is, no arrival time is calculated. The conditional statement that takes the
`intersection of “s’” with the set EG(v) and compares it to Ø is the determination of
`
`whether an exception is satisfied by the label as required by claim 5 under the
`
`Board’s construction.
`
`21. Belkhale also teaches that “satisfying an exception…with the first
`
`label” happens “prior to comparing the first timing value,” as required by the
`
`Board’s construction of claim 5.
`22. Belkhale teaches a SLK calculation, which compares a timing value
`(AT) to a constraint value (RAT). Ex. 1005, p. 736. Belkhale teaches that prior to
`
`any comparison between the AT and RAT to compute the SLK, all the ATs and
`RATs are computed. Id. Because Algorithm 1, which checks to see if an exception
`has been satisfied by a label, is used during the AT calculations prior to the SLK
`
`calculations, Belkhale teaches the “prior to comparing the first timing value,”
`
`requirement of claim 5.
`
`23. A full illustration of the limitation in claim 5 being performed in
`
`Belkhale is seen in Fig. 3 by the propagation of the delay values from v4 to v7.
`
`The timing table for v4 is (2, {1}) indicating a delay value of 2 and that the
`
`propagation is subject to false sub graph 1. When propagating from v4 to v7, the
`
`delay value would be increased to 3 if the exception was not satisfied. However,
`
`there is no entry in the timing table of v7 for (3, {1}). This is because node v7 is
`the ending node for false sub graph F1 and therefore, {1} is in the set EG(v7).
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 08 of 11
`
`
`
`Thus, the result of the intersection between s’ and EG(v7) is not null (Ø) and
`
`therefore, the exception of false sub graph F1 is satisfied by label {1} prior to any
`
`SLK calculation being performed.
`
`24.
`
`To this end, it is my opinion that claim 5 is rendered obvious by
`
`Belkhale under the Board’s proposed construction in its Institution Decision of
`
`IPR2014-001145.
`
`C.
`25.
`
`The Prior Institution Decision Regarding Claim 6
`I have studied the Board’s Institution Decision regarding claim 6. The
`
`Board found that because claim 6 depends from claim 5, claim 6 requires the same
`
`satisfying step as claim 5. `127 Patent Inst. Dec., p. 17. Consequently, the Board
`
`found that Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail with respect to claim 6 on this ground. Id.
`
`Belkhale Renders Claim 6 Obvious
`D.
`26. As I have stated above, it is my opinion that claim 5 is obvious in
`
`view of Belkhale under the Board’s claim construction. Accordingly, it is also my
`
`further opinion that claim 6 is obvious in view of Belkhale.
`27. Belkhale teaches the limitations of claim 6 when it modifies a RAT
`
`from a constraint value in the form of a number to the value “No RAT.” Ex. 1005,
`
`Fig. 3 Caption. In Belkhale, the modified constraint value is the modified RAT and
`
`an exception is satisfied when Algorithm 1 determines the path under consideration
`
`is through a false sub graph. As I stated in my previous declaration, this is
`
`logically equivalent to the `127 Patent changing the MAPD to infinity for the set
`false path command because the RAT is modified as a result of a satisfied
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 09 of 11
`
`
`
`exception. See Ex. 1007, ¶167. To this end, it is still my opinion that Belkhale
`
`teaches modifying a constraint value according to a satisfied exception.
`
`28. Belkhale also teaches making the modification “prior to comparing it
`
`[the constraint value] to the first timing value,” as required by claim 6. In
`Belkhale, the arrival time (AT) teaches the “first timing value” of claim 6. The
`
`required arrival time (RAT) teaches the constraint value of claim 6. As explained
`in Belkhale, the arrival times AT and the required arrival times RAT are first
`
`calculated at each vertex before any comparison between the two is done. Ex.
`
`1005, p. 736. Accordingly, the RAT is modified from a numerical value to “N”
`prior to comparing the RAT with the AT and claim 6 is taught by Belkhale.
`
`VIII. BELKHALE IN VIEW OF TOM RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 6
`OBVIOUS.
`A.
`The Prior Institution Decision Regarding Claims 5 and 6
`29.
`I have studied the Board’s Institution Decision regarding the
`
`applicability of Belkhale in view of Tom to claims 5 and 6. In that decision, the
`
`Board found Petitioner had met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that
`
`claims 1 and 4 were obvious in view Belkhale and Tom. `127 Inst. Dec. p. 24. For
`
`the same claim construction reasons the Board rejected claims 5 and 6 in view of
`
`Belkhale, the Board also found that Petitioner had not met its burden for claims 5
`and 6 using Belkhale in view of Tom. Id.
`
`B.
`30.
`
`Belkhale in View of Tom Renders Claims 5 and 6 Obvious
`It is my opinion that all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 would
`
`be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time given the disclosure of Belkhale in
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`view of Tom. Petitioner’s claim construction for “exception” and “timing table”
`
`were accepted by the Board in their Institution Decision in IPR2014-001145.
`
`However, to the extent the Patent Owner raises any claim constructions issues
`
`regarding “timing table” or “tag” in this preceding, they are rendered obvious by
`
`Belkhale in view of Tom as detailed in paragraphs 201-224 of my prior
`
`declaration.
`
`31.
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that one skilled in the art at the time would
`
`have found the limitations of claims 5 and 6 rendered obvious by Belkhale in view
`
`of Tom even under the Board’s claim construction in their Institution Decision in
`
`IPR2014-001145.
`
`32.
`
`This declaration is based on my present assessment of material and
`
`information currently available to me.
`
`33.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made herein on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true. Rather, these statements were made with the knowledge
`
`that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine,
`
`imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`________________________________
`Soheil Ghiasi
`Dated:
`February 13, 2015
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1008 - Page 11 of 11
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
