Paper No. 45
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01501
`U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`CORRECTED PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBSERVATIONS ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HAROLD S.
`STONE, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01501
`U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`CORRECTED PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBSERVATIONS ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HAROLD S.
`STONE, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01501
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Observations
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Responses to Observations .............................................................................. 1
`
`A. Observation No. 1 .................................................................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Observation No. 2 .................................................................................. 1
`
`Observation No. 3 .................................................................................. 2
`
`D. Observation No. 4 .................................................................................. 3
`
`E.
`
`Observation No. 5 .................................................................................. 3
`
`III. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01501
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Observations
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner’s hereby submit the following responses to Patent Owner’s
`
`observations on the cross-examination of Dr. Stone (Paper 36).
`
`II. Responses to Observations
`
`A. Observation No. 1
`
`This observation ignores the context of Dr. Stone’s testimony, where he had
`
`explained that Dr. Thornton has not supported his theory about what was “typical”
`
`for prior art decoders. Ex. 1032 at ¶¶2-3. Paragraph 29 of Dr. Thornton’s
`
`declaration cites no evidence to support his point that “[t]ypically, a decoder
`
`requires its own dedicated memory,” and there is ample evidence in the record of
`
`prior art decoders not having dedicated memory. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 319-326;
`
`Ex. 1023; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1032. Dr. Stone’s testimony that he cannot say what was
`
`typical does not contradict the absence of support in Dr. Thornton’s testimony.
`
`B. Observation No. 2
`
`This observation mischaracterizes Dr. Stone’s testimony to make it seem
`
`like he agreed with Dr. Thornton’s position that the “Local RAM” memories in Ex.
`
`2001’s Figure 2-2 were dedicated memories resident on the DSP. Dr. Stone’s
`
`declaration explained that the “Local RAM” and “Local LRAM” memories in
`
`Figure 2-2 are not shown resident on the DSP. Ex. 1032 at ¶¶33-35. Dr. Stone’s
`
`deposition testimony does not contradict his earlier testimony, but instead confirms
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01501
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Observations
`
`it: “And if you have Dr. Thornton's report, I'll show you the arrow that points to
`
`these and says that's local RAM and where his statement is that local RAM is on
`
`the DSP. And I -- that's wrong. Because I have a picture of the DSP. And that's not
`
`on the DSP. So that's why I differ with Dr. Thornton.”). Ex. 2013 at 52:1-6; see
`
`id. at 50:9-54:16.
`
`C. Observation No. 3
`
`This observation quibbles with the terminology used by a technical expert
`
`(“in conflict with”/“inconsistent with”), but cannot not change that expert’s
`
`testimony. The cited passage of Dr. Stone’s reply declaration is consistent with
`
`and confirmed by the cited cross-examination testimony—in both cases Dr. Stone
`
`testified that the patents disclose at least one embodiment in which access to
`
`memory is controlled by controlling access to the memory bus:
`
`I'm not offering an opinion on whether it's consistent. I'm offering --
`my opinion is that now that I know what Professor Thornton means by
`access to memory, and there's a claim that talks about access to
`memory and the -- it excludes the embodiments that are in the patent,
`I'm saying that now I don't know how to build it. It may be consistent.
`It may not be consistent. I just don't know how to build it.”
`
`Ex. 2013 at 56:11-18 (emphasis added); Ex. 1032 at ¶ 47 (“… Prof. Thornton's
`
`opinion [that controlling access to memory is not the same as controlling access to
`
`the memory bus] is in conflict with the specifications of the '368, '753, and '045
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01501
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Observations
`
`patents. The '368, '753, and '045 patents disclose an embodiment with the structure
`
`ruled out by Prof. Thornton in Fig. 7, reproduced below.”).
`
`D. Observation No. 4
`
`This observation misleadingly crops the quote from Dr. Stone’s Reply
`
`Declaration, which actually states “[t]he requirement of 524 MIPS in Ex. 2008 at 8
`
`is specious because it is not itself explained in Ex. 2008.” Ex. 1032 at ¶ 21(c)
`
`(emphasis added). Dr. Stone further explained that the cited source for the 524
`
`MIPS number (Ex. 1036) includes no basis for that number. See id. Dr. Stone’s
`
`deposition testimony merely agreed that Ex. 2008 in fact lists the 524 MIPS
`
`number, but Patent Owner never asked about whether there is any basis for that
`
`number in the source which Ex. 2008 cites for it. See Ex. 2013 at 77:12-19 (asking
`
`Dr. Stone only whether the cited table of Ex. 2008 “says” what the MIPS
`
`requirement is).
`
`E. Observation No. 5
`
`This observation is irrelevant and mischaracterizes Dr. Stone’s testimony.
`
`Dr. Stone testified that he agreed that Px64 is “part of MPEG-2,” was an “MPEG-1
`
`bit stream” and “also an MPEG-2 bit stream,” and that Table 2 of Konstantinides
`
`would “be limited to the MPEG streams that are Px64 streams.” Ex. 2013 at 79:25-
`
`80:12. Dr. Stone then explained that his declaration analysis was based on
`
`converting from MPEG-2 to MPEG to rely on a lower frame rate and resolution:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01501
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Observations
`
`So in -- in making my comparison, I was trying to figure out how to
`go from MPEG-2 to MPEG. And I divided by 18.1. And that would
`be -- that would incorporate what would happen if you had a lower
`frame rate, lower resolution. But, you know, hey, I did -- I explained
`what I did. And now you know. But they -- Kitson did not explain
`what he did. I don't have a clue of how he got that number.
`
`Ex. 2013 at 80:16-81:8 (emphasis added). Thus, the cited testimony is consistent
`
`with and further confirms Dr. Stone’s declaration testimony that “[t]he requirement
`
`of 524 MIPS in Ex. 2008 at 8 is specious because it is not itself explained in Ex.
`
`2008.” Ex. 1032 at ¶ 21(c).
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Stone’s testimony is consistent with his
`
`declaration testimony, and his testimony should be given substantial weight.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Registration No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01501
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Observations
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 29th day of
`
`August, 2016, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by e-
`
`mail on the following counsel:
`
`Masood Anjom (manjom@azalaw.com)
`Alisa Lipski (alipski@azalaw.com)
`Amir Alavi (aalavi@azalaw.com)
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Registration No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
