IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ________
` HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
` and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
` Patent Owner
` -----------------------------------------------
` Case IPR2015-01502
` Patent 7,542,045
` -and-
` Case IPR2015-01500
` Patent 7,321,368
` -and-
` Case IPR2015-01501
` Patent 7,777,753
` *************************************************
` ORAL / REALTIMED DEPOSITION OF
` MITCHELL A. THORNTON, Ph.D.
` JUNE 17, 2016
` *************************************************
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 1
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ________
` HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
` and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
` Patent Owner
` -----------------------------------------------
` Case IPR2015-01502
` Patent 7,542,045
` -and-
` Case IPR2015-01500
` Patent 7,321,368
` -and-
` Case IPR2015-01501
` Patent 7,777,753
` *************************************************
` ORAL / REALTIMED DEPOSITION OF
` MITCHELL A. THORNTON, Ph.D.
` JUNE 17, 2016
` *************************************************
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 1
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`2
`
` ORAL / REALTIMED DEPOSITION of MITCHELL A.
`THORNTON, Ph.D., produced as a witness at the instance
`of the Petitioner, and duly sworn, was taken in the
`above-styled and numbered cause on Friday, the 17th day
`of June, 2011, from 9:04 a.m. to 12:53 p.m., before
`Pat English-Arredondo, CSR, RMR, CRR, CLR, in and for the
`State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand in
`realtime translation, at the offices of Sidley Austin,
`LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 6000, Houston, Texas,
`pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Procedures; that the Witness will read the deposition.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 2
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER LG ELECTRONICS, INC.:
` Mr. Aidan C. Skoyles
` Mr. Rajeev Gupta (Present via phone as noted)
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20001-4413
` Phone 202.408.4000
` Fax: 202.408.4400
` e-mail: aidan.skoyles@finnegan.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR APPLE COMPUTERS:
` Mr. David Alberti (Present via phone)
` FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI & THOMPSON LLP
` 1600 El Camino Real Suite 280
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` Phone: 650.618.4360
` e-mail: dalberti@feinday.com
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 3
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` (Continued)
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS HTC CORPORATION and
`HTC AMERICA, INC.:
` Mr. Samuel A. Dillon (Present via phone)
` SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` Phone: 202.736.8298
` e-mail: Samuel.dillon@sidley.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER, PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY
`ARCHITECTURE, LLC:
` Mr. Masood Anjom
` AHMAD ZAVITSANOS ANAIPAKOS ALAVI MENSING
` 1221 McKinney, Suite 3460
` Houston, Texas 77010
` Phone: 713.655.1101
` e-mail: manjom@azalaw.com
`
`COURT REPORTER:
` Ms. Pat English-Arredondo, CSR, RMR, CRR, CLR
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 4
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`5
`
` I N D E X
` PAGE
`
`APPEARANCES..................................... 3
`
` WITNESS: MITCHELL A. THORNTON, Ph.D.
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. SKOYLES..................... 9
`
` REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE............................ 141
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 5
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`6
`
` E X H I B I T S I N D E X
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`PUMA EXHIBIT Apple document titled 128
`2005, PART 1 "Macintosh Quadra 840AV and
`OF 10 Macintosh Centris 660AV
` Computers" dated 1993,
` 66 pages
`PUMA EXHIBIT HP document titled 133
`2008 "Interactive Video from
` Desktops to Settops," dated
` June 1995, 18 pages
`PUMA EXHIBIT Declaration of Mitchell A. 10
`2009-368 Thornton, Ph.D., dated 4-5-16,
` with attachments, 67 pages
`PUMA EXHIBIT Declaration of Mitchell A. 10
`2009-045 Thornton, Ph.D., dated 4-5-16,
` with attachments, 67 pages
`PUMA EXHIBIT Declaration of Mitchell A. 10
`2009-753 Thornton, Ph.D., dated 4-5-16,
` with attachments, 68 pages
`PUMA EXHIBIT Affidavit of Mitchell A. 129
`2004 Thornton, Ph.D., P.E.,
` 33 pages
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 6
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`7
`
` E X H I B I T S I N D E X
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`HTC-LG-SAMSUNG Copy of Patent No. US 49
`EXHIBIT 1001 7,321,368 B2 dated 1-22-08
`('368 Patent) titled Electronic System and
` Method for Display Using a
` Decoder and Arbiter to
` Selectively Allow Acces to a
` Shared Memory," 20 pages
`HTC-LG-SAMSUNG Copy of US Patent No. 50
`EXHIBIT 1001 7,542,045 B2 titled
`('045 Patent) "Electronic System and Method
` for Display Using a Decoder
` and Arbiter to Selectively
` allow Access to a Shared
` Memory," dated 6-2-09,
` 19 pages
`HTC-LG-SAMSUNG Copy of US Patent No. 50
`EXHIBIT 1001 7,777,753 B2 titled
`('753 Patent) "Electronic System and Method
` for Selectively Allowing
` Access to a Shared Memory,"
` dated 8-17-10, 21 pages
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 7
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`8
`
` E X H I B I T S I N D E X
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`HTC-LG-SAMSUNG Copy of US Patent No. 54
`EXHIBIT 1003 5,546,547 titled "Memory bus
` Arbiter for a Computer System
` Having a DSP Co-Processor,"
` dated 8-13-96, 25 pages
`
` * * *
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 8
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
` THE REPORTER: We are going on the
`record at 9:04 a.m. Will we be taking this deposition
`according to Federal Rules or --
` MR. SKOYLES: It's according to PTAB
`rules, which is similar to Federal.
` THE REPORTER: Okay. Thank you.
` Sir, will you go ahead and raise your
`right hand to be administered the oath, please?
` MITCHELL A. THORNTON, Ph.D.,
`being called as a witness, and having been duly sworn,
`testified as follows:
` THE WITNESS: I do.
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SKOYLES:
` Q. Good morning. My name is Aidan Skoyles. I'm
`from the firm of Finnegan Henderson and I represent LG
`in this IPR proceeding.
` Could you please state your name for the
`record?
` A. Mitchell Thornton.
` Q. Dr. Thornton, you understand that you have
`submitted declarations in three IPR proceedings and
`specifically I'm referring to IPR 2015-1500, -1501 and
`-1502.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 9
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`10
`
`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
`
` Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you three documents,
`all of which are Exhibit 2009, but for clarity we will
`append the three digits from patent numbers so we know
`what we're talking about.
` So I'm going to go ahead and mark on
`these. This is PUMA-2009-368.
` (Marked was PUMA Exhibit 2009-368.)
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) The next one I'm going to
`hand you is PUMA Exhibit 2009-753.
` (Marked was PUMA Exhibit 2009-753.)
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) And the next one I'm going
`to hand you is your '045 declaration.
` MR. SKOYLES: This wasn't labeled PUMA
`Exhibit-2009. I assume that's just an oversight and
`you're okay with me adding that?
` MR. ANJOM: Yes. Go for it.
` (Marked was PUMA Exhibit 2009-045.)
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Dr. Thornton, do you
`recognize these three documents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what are they?
` A. These appear to be the declarations that I
`submitted.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 10
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. I want to start off with a number of
`questions about your work history. You were employed
`by a company called Cyrix in 1992. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You said in your report that you designed a
`microprocessor that is compatible with the Intel
`Pentium in 1992. Right?
` A. No, I didn't say I designed a microprocessor.
`I think -- I can't remember if it was '91 -- it was in
`'92, yes; but I would not claim to design an entire
`microprocessor. I was on the team.
` Q. I think what you said was your duties
`included the designed of the bus controller and the
`memory interface circuitry for this IC.
` Is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You're referring to that microprocessor --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- compatible with Intel Pentium?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. What did the bus controller do?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, a bus controller is a general circuit
`that's present in many devices. It's an interface
`between a bus and some other circuitry.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 11
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Did it control access to
`the bus?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, I wouldn't say it controlled access to
`the bus. It was a control circuit that allowed some
`other circuit to access the bus.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) So in order for anything to
`access the bus, you have to go through a bus
`controller. Right?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. No, I wouldn't say that. It's often the
`case, though, that bus controller circuits will be used
`as interfaces.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) What kind of bus
`did -- well, strike that.
` Was there a name for this microprocessor
`that you designed or that you worked on?
` A. I remember the code name was M1. I don't --
` Q. That's fine.
` A. Yeah, I don't remember the actual part number
`that it --
` Q. Let's call it the M1.
` What kind of bus did the M1 include?
` A. Well, I'm talking about a system bus, so it
`was a system memory bus. It was not a standardized bus
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 12
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`25
`
`such as USB or something like that. It was internal.
` Q. What does it mean to be compatible with the
`Intel Pentium?
` A. That means that the processor executes the
`Intel Pentium instruction set.
` Q. Did the M1 include a CPU?
` A. It was a CPU.
` Q. Was it coupled to a memory?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, when you talk about
`micro-architectures, there's lots of little memories
`internally, even those hidden from the user. So it
`would be eventually coupled to a memory, but it also
`had memory in various forms incorporated internally.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Did it include an audio
`decoder?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. This was just a CPU chip, so I don't think
`so; but I, you know, wasn't on that part of
`the -- there were about 20 or 30 of us and we were each
`responsible for different portions of the processor, so
`I couldn't say for sure but I think not.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Same answer for video
`decoder?
` MR. ANJOM: Same objection.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 13
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`14
`
`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
`
` A. I was responsible for the bus controller and
`memory access portions; so I did a little bit of work
`on the pipeline, a little bit of work on the ALU.
` Other than that, I'm not -- it was about
`20 years ago. I don't remember all the other parts.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) You don't remember whether
`it had any kind of video decoder at all?
` A. I mean, I don't think it did. It was a CPU;
`but as I sit here today I'm not going to say
`definitively not without --
` Q. Because it was 20 years ago?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Was the M1 a single chip microprocessor?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. The device was intended to be in a single
`package. That was the time when it was common to have
`MCMs. The Pentium Pro was actually two chips in one.
`And so I don't know if it was all on one chip or not.
`But it was in one package.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Why was it designed as a
`single package rather than a variety of separate
`components?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form. Lacks
`foundation.
` A. It was designed that way because it was
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 14
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
`compatible with -- intended to be compatible with the
`Intel Pentium.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) So to be compatible with
`Intel Pentium, did it have to be combined into a single
`package?
` MR. ANJOM: Same objection.
` A. It had to -- so by "compatible with Intel
`Pentium," that means someone could unplug a Pentium and
`plug this in, so that's why it was in one package.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) So it's a function of the
`physical requirements.
` A. That's one reason, yeah.
` Q. Was cost a consideration in the design of the
`M1?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. I would say in general, cost is always a
`constraint. Whenever you're designing a single chip,
`there's many optimizations. These optimizations are
`kind of the trade-offs, though.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Of any design, right?
` A. All designs have optimizations that are
`traded off.
` Q. Was the cost of memory a concern of the
`design of the M1?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 15
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
` A. I don't -- I don't really understand that.
`When you talk about cost for a design, you're talking
`about things like numbers of transistors, so it was a
`CPU. It wasn't a memory.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) You said it had internal
`memories, though, right? At least small internal
`memories?
` A. It had internal storages, so things like
`registers, flip-flops, small caches.
` Yes, I will say it had internal storage.
`Whether -- I don't know if you consider that all memory
`or not. I do.
` Q. But it didn't have an internal SRAM or
`something like that, right?
` A. Cache was probably SRAM.
` Q. And that would have had a cost associated
`with it, right? A dollar value cost?
` A. Oh, in dollars? I'm sure it did. But I
`never went -- used units like that.
` A cost function and design trades off
`parameters like area, power, things like -- that's what
`I thought you meant by the cost.
` Q. Sure. Sure. I appreciate the clarification.
` But the inclusion of memory would have
`introduced cost from all of those things: area, power
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 16
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`17
`
`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
`
`and dollars. Right?
` Memory consumes area. Memory consumes
`power. Memory consumes dollars. Right?
` A. Memory consumes dollars? I don't think I
`would word it that way. I mean, memory -- memory
`requires transistors; and depending on the technology,
`that requires some area on the silicon.
` Also depending on the technology and the
`design, that requires a certain amount of power.
` Q. You began your graduate studies in about
`1991. Is that correct?
` A. Actually, no, I got my first master's degree.
`I started in '86 or '87 while I was working full-time.
`And then I went full-time into graduate school in '91
`for a second master's and Ph.D.
` Q. So you resigned from industry to begin
`full-time grad school in 1991?
` A. Yeah, I actually took a leave of absence. I
`didn't resign, but yeah.
` Q. Okay. And you didn't go back to industry
`after that?
` A. Well, I did work at Cyrix during that time;
`but I went to academia after I graduated in '95.
` Q. And you stayed in academia?
` A. I have, but I've, you know, done consulting
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 17
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
`as well. I have close ties with industry to this day.
` Q. You received your Ph.D. in 1996. Right?
` A. I think it's '95, December of '95.
` Q. As of August of 1996, August of 1996, you had
`published two papers regarding spectral coefficients
`and their applications.
` Can you describe for me briefly what that
`is about? Briefly.
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Briefly. I'm not looking
`for the elevator pitch here.
` A. Can I see my resume'? I don't even remember
`which two papers you're talking about. I'm sorry.
` Q. Can you just give me a two-second explanation
`of what is a spectral coefficient?
` A. Oh, sure. I'm trying to not give you the
`elevator pitch, so let me try and frame this.
` When we have a set of values, an array of
`values, we can multiply that array of values by a
`matrix known as the transform and that gives us another
`set of values, each of which are spectral coefficients.
` Now, one caveat to that, since I said
`"use a matrix," that's a special type of transform.
`That's a linear transform, which most are.
` Q. So that has nothing to do with computer
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 18
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
`architecture, right?
` A. My dissertation was the intersection of
`spectral methods and digital design architecture. That
`was my research.
` Q. Okay. But --
` A. So it does.
` Q. Hang on a minute. Let me ask my question.
` As August of 1996, your papers that were
`published had been directed to the spectral
`coefficients, right? That's what your CV says,
`Page 54.
` A. Oh, thank you (reviewing.)
` Q. I'm in Exhibit 2009-045.
` A. Page 54.
` Q. I think it's the same from the other one.
` A. Okay. Which ones are we looking at? The
`bottom two, on the journals?
` Q. So these are arranged -- these are your
`published papers --
` A. Yeah. Yes. Yes, sir.
` Q. Hang on.
` -- arranged in chronological order.
`Right?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Publication date. And there's three papers
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 19
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
`that were published before August of 1996. Right?
` A. There are three journal papers. There is
`probably some conference papers on a section below, as
`well, before that time frame.
` Q. Those three papers are not directed to
`computer architecture or MPEG decoders. Right?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. They are directed towards digital design,
`which is a computer architecture concept. Do you
`see --
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) As that relates to spectral
`coefficients, right?
` A. So may I read the title of one? I think it
`will be descriptive.
` Q. Just answer my question, please.
` A. Okay.
` MR. ANJOM: Please let him answer the
`question the way he needs to answer it. And, counsel,
`I don't think you should tell him how to answer his
`question.
` Go ahead and answer.
` A. Can you ask again? So I have forgotten it.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) The three papers that you
`published in journals before August of 1996 relate to
`spectral coefficients, right?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 20
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`21
` A. They relate to that and other topics as well.
` Q. In 1996 you were a research assistant at SMU,
`right?
` A. No.
` Q. I'm sorry. You were an assistant professor
`at University of Arkansas?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You were not working industry at that time?
` A. I was not in industry when I was an assistant
`professor.
` Q. You're currently a professor at SMU, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What classes do you teach?
` A. I teach many different classes.
` Q. This past semester what did you teach?
` A. This past semester I taught a course called
`formal verification.
` Q. Does that relate to computer architecture?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. You mentioned before that you spend time
`consulting. Correct?
` A. I have done some consulting, yes.
` Q. How much of your time is devoted to
`consulting with law firms regarding patent issues?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 21
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`22
`
`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
`
` A. I don't know the percentage.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Ballpark? 20 percent?
`50 percent? 80 percent?
` MR. ANJOM: Same objection, asked and
`answered.
` A. I don't know the exact percent. It's within
`the guidelines of SMU, what they allow.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) What do they allow?
` A. Well, I don't remember exactly.
` Q. So how do you know they're within the
`guidelines?
` A. Well, because I don't -- I looked at it a
`long time ago, and I know that I don't exceed it.
` Q. I'm just looking for a ballpark number.
` A. So, I don't know. It comes in spurts.
`Sometimes I have no engagements at all.
` So on average? Is that what you want?
` Q. Let's look in the past year.
` A. Probably -- I don't know. 10 percent.
` Q. Approximately how much time have you spent
`working on these three IPRs?
` A. I started working on them after the first of
`the year, and then they were submitted a few weeks ago.
` I didn't -- I didn't count up all the
`hours.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 22
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`
` Q. Could you give me a ballpark number? 10?
`100?
` A. More than 10.
` Q. More than 50?
` A. It's probably on the order of, I don't know,
`50 to 100 each, maybe 200. I don't know exactly. I
`didn't look that up before I came here.
` Q. Your research has not focused specifically on
`the MPEG standard, correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. So research is the investigation of
`unknown -- of unsolved problems, so I don't understand
`what it would mean to research a standard. So I don't
`do that.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) You don't do work on the
`MPEG technology, broadly speaking?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. Sorry. I don't know what it means to "do
`work on an MPEG technology."
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Well, you would describe
`yourself as a professor who is working on computer
`architecture topics, right? Is that fair?
` A. I do some computer architecture work, yes.
` Q. And that is distinct from work on video codec
`standards, right?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 23
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`25
`
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form.
` A. I wouldn't agree with -- I wouldn't agree
`with that.
` Q. (By Mr. Skoyles) Why not?
` A. I believe in this era of systems-on-chip with
`multiple peripherals and multimedia devices that that's
`part of the set of topics known as computer
`architecture.
` Q. When did that era begin, the era of
`systems-on-chip?
` A. I don't know exactly when an actual date is.
`I could tell you; but as technology increased, more and
`more functionality could be placed on one chip.
` So it's been a process that started since
`the very first chip. The very first chip was a few
`transistors. Now we've got billions. It increases
`gradually over time.
` Q. So we're talking about Kilby's integrated
`circuit, Moore's law? This is a long progression
`towards this, correct?
` A. Yeah, all I'm saying is that's a continuous
`progression, as you said. And I don't know during that
`progression of what year someone would say: Ah, this
`is system-on-a-chip.
` Q. Sure. Did you review any source code in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 24
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`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
`25
`
`preparation of your declarations?
` A. No. I mean, there was pseudocode in the
`standard, but no one's personal.
` Q. The MPEG standard, you're referring to?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You don't dispute that as of 1996, the filing
`date of the patents at issue here, the MPEG standard
`was a well-known standard for video compression, right?
` A. I think MPEG-1 was in the '93 time frame.
` Q. But, I mean, the patents themselves
`acknowledge that MPEG was sort of a known, established
`standard by '96, right?
` A. I know the MPEG is mentioned in the patents.
`I don't remember them saying it was a known established
`standard. Maybe they didn't.
` Q. And you're broadly familiar with MPEG?
` A. I'm familiar with MPEG.
` Q. You understand that an MPEG stream is
`comprised of I-images and P-images and B-images, right?
` A. A compressed group of pictures is. I
`wouldn't say a stream is.
` Q. I think you called them "image frames" in
`your report. Is that an accurate term?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. What is an I-image and a P-image and a
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 25
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01502; IPR2015-01500;IPR2015-01501
`Thornton. Ph.D., Mitchell A.
`June 17, 2016
`
`26
`
`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
`
`B-image, broadly speaking?
` A. So an I-image is one that's undergone
`spacial compression only. A P-image is one that is
`extrapolated; so it has the spacial compression, but
`it's got a temporal extrapolation. And a B-image has
`spacial compression and is a temporal interpolation.
` Q. How many kilobytes would you say is an
`average I-image or P-image or B-image?
` A. It depends on the profile and level. There
`is size, resolution. The profile and level defines
`size and resolution. So it would depend on the size of
`the uncompressed image.
` Q. So let's put ourselves in the 1996 time
`frame. Can you give me a ballpark number of kilobytes?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection, form. Asked and
`answered.
` A. So again, it depends on the profile and
`level. There were several identified in H.262 at that
`time.
` So, ballpark, I don't know what that
`means. Do you want me to just pick one? I would have
`to calculate an average for the ones defined.
` Q. Do you understand what I mean by "ballpark"?
`I mean an approximation. I'm not going to hold you to
`it. I mean is it 1 kilobyte? Order of magnitude? 10
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Petitioners HTC and LG - Exhibit 1037, p. 26
`HTC and LG v. PUMA, IPR2015-01501
`
`
`
`IPR2015
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
