Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC., § Case IPR2016-01114
` § Patent No. 7,777,753
` Petitioner, §
` § - and -
`V. §
` § Case IPR2016-01135
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY § Patent No. 5,812,789
`ARCHITECTURE, LLC, §
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` MITCHELL A. THORNTON, PH.D., P.E.
` MAY 22, 2017
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF MITCHELL A. THORNTON,
`PH.D., P.E., produced as a witness at the instance
`of the Petitioner and duly sworn, was taken in the
`above styled and numbered cause on Monday,
`May 22, 2017, from 2:03 p.m. to 5:04 p.m., before
`Tamara Chapman, CSR, RPR, CCR (LA) in and for the
`State of Texas, reported by computerized stenotype
`machine, at the offices of Ahmad, Zavitsanos,
`Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C., 1221 McKinney
`Street, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77010, pursuant
`to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any
`provisions stated on the record herein.
`
` Job No. 124560
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC., § Case IPR2016-01114
` § Patent No. 7,777,753
` Petitioner, §
` § - and -
`V. §
` § Case IPR2016-01135
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY § Patent No. 5,812,789
`ARCHITECTURE, LLC, §
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` MITCHELL A. THORNTON, PH.D., P.E.
` MAY 22, 2017
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF MITCHELL A. THORNTON,
`PH.D., P.E., produced as a witness at the instance
`of the Petitioner and duly sworn, was taken in the
`above styled and numbered cause on Monday,
`May 22, 2017, from 2:03 p.m. to 5:04 p.m., before
`Tamara Chapman, CSR, RPR, CCR (LA) in and for the
`State of Texas, reported by computerized stenotype
`machine, at the offices of Ahmad, Zavitsanos,
`Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C., 1221 McKinney
`Street, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77010, pursuant
`to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any
`provisions stated on the record herein.
`
` Job No. 124560
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`REPRESENTING PETITIONER:
` Yakov Zolotorev, Esq.
` David Alberti, Esq.
` FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI & THOMPSON
` 1600 El Camino Real
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
` REPRESENTING PETITIONER:
` Michael Parsons, Esq.
` HAYNES AND BOONE
` 2505 N Plano Road
` Richardson, Texas 75082
` -and-
` Raghav Bajaj, Esq.
` HAYNES AND BOONE
` 600 Congress Avenue
` Austin, Texas 78701
`
` REPRESENTING PETITIONER:
` Curt Holbreich, Esq.
` SIDLEY AUSTIN
` 555 California Street
` San Francisco, California 94104
`
` REPRESENTING PATENT OWNER:
` Masood Anjom, Esq.
` AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING,
` 1221 McKinney Street
` Houston, Texas 77010
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5678
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
` PAGE
` APPEARANCES.................................. 2
` MITCHELL THORNTON, PH.D., P.E.
` EXAMINATION
` By Mr. Alberti............................ 4
` By Mr. Anjom.............................. 85
` E X H I B I T S
` PAGE LINE
` Exhibit 1001, U.S. Patent 7,777,753 11 24
` (No Bates - 21 pages)
` Exhibit 1001, U.S. Patent 5,812,789 64 15
` (No Bates - 13 pages)
` Exhibit 1003, Declaration of Robert 79 11
` Colwell, Ph.D.
` (No Bates - 85 pages)
` Exhibit 1005, U.S. Patent 5,546,547 31 16
` (No Bates - 25 pages)
` Exhibit 1006, TMS320C8x System-Level 82 16
` Synopsis
` (No Bates - 75 pages)
` Exhibit 1007, U.S. Patent 5,001,625 83 24
` (No Bates - 51 pages)
` Exhibit 1011, U.S. Patent 5,787,264 55 22
` (No Bates - 21 pages)
` Exhibit 2009, Declaration of Mitchell 5 15
` A. Thornton, Ph.D., P.E. regarding
` Patent 7,777,753
` (No Bates - 43 pages)
` Exhibit 2011, Declaration of Mitchell 61
` A. Thornton, Ph.D., P.E. regarding
` Patent 5,812,789
` (No Bates - 44 pages)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` MITCHELL THORNTON, PH.D., P.E.,
` having been first duly sworn, testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. ALBERTI:
` Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Thornton. Could you
` please state your full name for the record.
` A. Mitchell Aaron Thornton.
` Q. Are you acting as an expert witness for
` PUMA in the two IPRs, IPR 2016-01114 and
` IPR 2016-01135?
` A. I think those numbers are correct, if
` those pertain to the '753 and '789 patent.
` Q. That's correct. We'll start with the '753
` patent and we'll ask questions about that IPR, the
` 1114, and then we'll turn to the '789, which is the
` 1135, if that's okay.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Did you provide a declaration with respect
` to those two IPRs?
` A. I did.
` Q. Two separate declarations, one for the
` '753 patent, and one for the '789 patent. Is that
` right?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` A. Correct.
` Q. And you’re prepared to discuss your
` opinions with respect to both of those today?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Is there anything else that you believe
` you needed to do before today to be fully prepared to
` testify about those opinions?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. We'll start with the '753, which is
` the -01114 IPR. I'm going to repurpose some exhibit
` numbers here which will correspond to the exhibit
` numbers in that IPR.
` What I'd first like to do is show you
` Exhibit 2009, if you could take a look at that and
` confirm that is a declaration that you provided in
` the -1114 IPR.
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` It appears to be, yes.
` Q. Did you read this declaration in
` preparation for today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are the opinions contained in this
` declaration complete and accurate with respect to the
` '753 patent in this IPR?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` A. As far as I know, yes.
` Q. You didn't notice any errors or anything
` missing?
` A. There's been a few changes. Paragraph 11,
` so I have four issued and two -- or sorry -- three --
` I don't know how to classify one of them. One of
` them I have a notice of allowance, and it has an
` issue. So I have four issued, one notice of
` allowance, and two applications.
` Q. Other than the background information
` about your qualification, were there any substantive
` errors or something that was incomplete in the
` declaration that you're aware of today?
` A. Not that I'm -- no, not that I'm aware of.
` Q. When did you starting writing the
` declaration corresponding to the '753 patent in this
` IPR?
` A. It was, I think, January or maybe February
` of this year. I think that's about when I started
` working on it. After the first of the year.
` Q. You started maybe January or February of
` this year preparing the declaration?
` A. I don't recall exactly when. I don't
` remember if I found out about these before -- before
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` the holidays or after, but I certainly did a lot of
` work after the first.
` Q. About how long did you spend preparing the
` declaration?
` A. I can't answer exactly. I have no idea.
` Q. As part of that declaration, did you read
` through Dr. Colwell's declaration regarding the '753?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And anything that you thought was
` appropriate to dispute would be contained in this
` declaration. Is that correct?
` A. Yes. I was attempting to respond to
` Dr. Colwell's.
` Q. There are no other opinions that you
` provided to PUMA with respect to the '753 in this IPR
` that are not contained in this declaration. Is that
` correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. So I did my analysis, considered different
` opinions, and this is the final product.
` Q. So there are no other opinions you're
` going to testify today with respect to claim
` limitations or claims that you contest are missing
` from the prior art that are not in this declaration.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Fair?
` A. I was anticipating only testifying about
` the content of my declaration.
` Q. So if we could take a look at Page 14 of
` your declaration. You'll see there is a section
` entitled "Bowes, Datasheet, Artieri, and Christiansen
` fail to disclose or render obvious 'an arbiter
` included in the memory interface circuit of the
` decoder.'" Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You're familiar with that limitation being
` part of Claim 7 of the '753 patent. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in connection with Claim 7, you have
` not provided any separate opinions, outside of this
` one limitation that you believe are missing in
` connection with this IPR. True?
` A. It's the only one I believe I’ve included
` in this declaration. Yes.
` Q. So with respect to all the other
` limitations of Claim 7, you haven't contested those
` in this IPR. True?
` A. In this IPR, I have only listed this one
` limitation.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Q. And you’ve not provided any separate
` opinions as to why any of the dependent claims,
` including Claims 8, 9, 10, and 12, are not rendered
` obvious, other than this one limit -- missing
` limitation in Claim 7. True?
` A. I address those on Paragraphs 40, 41, and
` 42, and I rely on the fact that they are dependent to
` independent Claim 7.
` Q. So you haven't made a separate argument
` that any of the extra limitations contained in
` dependent Claims 8, 9, 10, and 12 are not satisfied
` by the prior art. True?
` A. I have not. Not in this IPR, no. Or
` sorry. This declaration.
` Q. Well, other than this declaration, you
` haven't provided any other opinions in this IPR.
` Correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay. If I can draw your attention now to
` Page 13 of your declaration. Do you see there is a
` section entitled "Claim Construction" in
` Section VIII?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Paragraph 34 says "I have used the Board's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` constructions of the terms 'decoder,' 'video
` circuit,' and 'memory interface circuit' in
` performing my analysis."
` With respect to those terms, you have not
` disputed the board's construction of those terms in
` this IPR. Correct?
` A. I simply adopted their constructions. I
` didn't even think about whether to dispute or not. I
` just adopted it.
` Q. You had an opportunity to dispute them if
` you wanted to, though. Correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. I adopted the board's constructions.
` Q. And you didn't dispute them in this IPR.
` True?
` A. No, I adopted them.
` Q. With respect to all the other terms, did
` you apply the plain and ordinary meaning?
` A. Yes. As known to one skilled in the art
` at the time of invention.
` Q. You didn't believe that any of the other
` terms required a special construction, outside of the
` plain and ordinary meaning. True?
` A. I don't know that I gave a lot of thought
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` to construction. I just simply -- I don't recall
` doing that.
` Q. But if you would have presented an
` alternative construction for any other term, that
` would be contained in your declaration. Right?
` A. I would attempt to make sure it was.
` Q. And you don't recall doing that. True?
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` I don't recall doing that, no.
` Q. So with respect to this IPR, you did not
` believe that any further construction of any term not
` addressed by the board was required for you to
` provide opinions. True?
` A. Unless I elaborated in my -- I tried to be
` clear what I was talking about in Paragraphs 35
` through -- through 39, to the extent that that's my
` understanding of plain and ordinary meaning.
` Q. But with respect to the memory interface
` circuit term, you did apply the board's construction
` there. True?
` A. That was my intention, yes.
` Q. I'm now going to give you an exhibit
` marked Apple Exhibit 1001. This is a copy of the
` '753 patent. Do you recognize this exhibit?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this is the patent that's the subject
` of this IPR. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you take a look at Claim 7, which can
` be found in Column 16. Are you ready?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. If you take a look at Lines 24 and 25 in
` Column 16, you'll see there is a phrase that reads
` "the decoder having a memory interface circuit." Do
` you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then further down in the claim you'll
` see, around Line 29, there is the phrase "the memory
` interface circuit of the decoder." Do you see those
` two terms?
` A. I'm sorry. Where was the second one?
` Q. If you'd take a look starting at Line 29,
` it reads "an arbiter included in the memory interface
` circuit of the decoder." Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you agree that the memory interface
` circuit of the decoder refers to the previous phrase
` that says "the decoder having a memory interface
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` circuit"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, with respect to that phrase, "the
` decoder having a memory interface circuit," outside
` of the term "memory interface circuit," did you apply
` the plain and ordinary meaning?
` A. I'm sorry. Can you run that by me again?
` Q. And just to refresh your recollection, you
` recall the board gave a construction for just the
` phrase "memory interface circuit"?
` A. Correct.
` Q. But the board didn't separately construe
` the phrase "the decoder having a memory interface
` circuit" or "the memory interface circuit of the
` decoder"?
` A. Not that I recall.
` Q. So did you apply the plain and ordinary
` meaning to determine the meaning of that entire
` phrase?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in your opinion --
` A. Well, let me --
` Q. Okay.
` A. I think "decoder" was also construed.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` So it wasn't -- oh, sorry. Maybe not in this one.
` Yeah. No, it was. So I -- I tried to apply the two
` constructions the Court ordered in that phrase.
` Q. Okay. Understood. My question is going
` to be more about the word "having." So what it
` means, that the decoder has a memory interface
` circuit or that memory interface circuit is "of the
` decoder."
` So in your opinion, what does it mean to
` say that a decoder has a memory interface circuit?
` A. It means it's the memory interface circuit
` used by the decoder.
` Q. It doesn't mean that the memory interface
` circuit has to be physically inside the decoder.
` Correct?
` A. Before I could answer that, I would have
` to know more about the boundaries you place around
` the decoder.
` Q. Just with respect to the '753 patent, when
` you see that phrase "the decoder having a memory
` interface circuit," you agree that in the '753
` patent, in your opinion, you're not saying that that
` memory interface circuit has to be physically inside
` the decoder, so long as the decoder uses it.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Correct?
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` I think it's difficult to answer that
` because it depends on the boundary you would place
` around the decoder itself. The decoder's construed
` as hardware and/or software that translates data
` streams into video or audio information.
` So some decoders include memories; some
` don't. I mean, it just depends on the boun- -- or if
` you're only talking about the pipeline that does the
` inverse discrete cosine, the DLD, and you call that
` the decoder. It's hard for me to answer without a
` precise boundary.
` Q. Let's take a look at Figure 2 of the '753
` patent. Are you familiar with Figure 2?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You agree that Figure 2 would be an
` embodiment of Claim 7 of the '753 patent. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In Figure 2 is a memory interface
` circuit --
` Well, first let me start by asking you,
` what is the memory interface circuit of the decoder
` in Figure 2?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` A. 76.
` Q. Where is the decoder in Figure 2?
` A. I want to check and see what 80 is defined
` as.
` (Reviewing document.)
` So 80 is the decoder/encoder as per
` Column 8, Line 41. So in that case the memory
` interface is inside the box of 80.
` Q. So as a person of ordinary skill in the
` art reading the '753 patent, would you interpret the
` phrase "the decoder having a memory interface
` circuit" to mean that the memory interface circuit
` must be physically inside the decoder?
` A. So you inserted the word "physically"
` there, and that's where I'm having an issue. There
` is a box drawn around this collection of components,
` if that's physically...
` I would interpret that to mean the memory
` interface the decoder uses that's dedicated to it.
` Q. So if an accused product included a
` decoder and a memory interface circuit that was on a
` different chip, for example, would that be covered by
` the claim?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Objection; scope. Objection; relevance.
` A. It would depend on what's defined as the
` decoder in that hypothetical. If --
` Q. Let me ask you this. Taking a look at
` Figure 2, would it be appropriate to define the
` decoder as Box 44, which is labeled "decoder"?
` A. Box 44 is labeled as decoder. But then in
` the spec of the patent, Box 80 is labeled as the
` decoder/encoder. So even here it's a little gray.
` Q. Well, looking at Claim 7, would Block 44
` satisfy the limitation in Claim 7 that reads "a
` decoder coupled to the bus"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in Claim 7, Block 44 would satisfy the
` decoder limitation. Correct?
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` It could. But so could 80, I guess.
` Q. And you would agree that Memory Interface
` 76 is not physically inside Decoder 44. Correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. I need to know what "physically inside"
` means.
` Q. It's not depicted as being inside 44 in
` Figure 2. True?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` A. So Figure 2 is a conceptual block diagram,
` and there is a box drawn around other boxes to
` indicate some sort of hierarchy. I don't think that
` necessarily would -- would re- -- that doesn't
` necessarily dictate the physical structure. That
` indicates more of a functional block structure.
` Q. So Block 76 may or may not be inside Block
` 80?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. So, in terms of blocks, it is inside 80.
` It's depicted there. But that's a conceptual
` diagram. That's -- I don't think this limits one of
` skill in the art as to whether you must put something
` in the same chip or on the same board or in the same
` box. Those are all design decisions.
` Q. In your opinion, that would be true as
` well with Claim 7. Correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. That Claim 7 is the --
` Q. Well, that the memory interface of the
` decoder in Claim 7 doesn't have to be part of the
` same chip as the decoder.
` A. I don't think Claim 7 even requires a
` decoder to be in a chip.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Q. So you could have one chip that's a
` decoder, another chip that's a memory interface
` connected together by wires, and if that decoder uses
` that memory interface, in your opinion, that would
` satisfy the memory interface circuit of the decoder
` in Claim 7. True?
` A. No, that's not what I said. I said I
` don't think the decoder is -- this Claim 7 says a
` decoder has to be in a chip, a single chip like
` you're restricting it to.
` Q. I'm not trying to restrict it. I'm just
` saying, if you had a system where you have a decoder
` on a chip connected to a memory interface on a
` separate chip, you're not saying that that system
` would not be covered by Claim 7. Correct?
` A. Claim 7 talks about the memory
` interface -- talks about two memory interfaces, I
` believe. At least two: one that the CPU uses and
` one that the decoder uses.
` Q. And you’re not contending that, in order
` to meet this claim, the decoder and the memory
` interface circuit of the decoder have to be on a
` single chip. Correct?
` A. I never opined as to what goes on a chip.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` I don't think that any of this -- '753, I don't
` recall it talking about what should be on a chip and
` what shouldn't be on a chip.
` Q. So then, in your opinion, they don't have
` to be on the same chip, the decoder and the memory
` interface circuit of the decoder. Correct?
` A. So I'm just going to go back to the claim
` construction. The decoder is "hardware or software
` that translates data streams into a video or audio
` information," and that's the construction that I
` adopted, and it does not state that the decoder must
` be on a single chip. It just says "hardware and/or
` software."
` Q. So your opinion, it could be one chip, two
` chips, three chips, or no chips. True?
` A. Yeah. It's not specified as to -- the
` decoder is just known to one skilled in the art to be
` that, hardware and/or software that translates data
` streams into video or audio information.
` Q. And in your opinion, a memory interface
` circuit of the decoder could be physically separate
` hardware to the hardware of the decoder. Correct?
` A. No. It would have to have some coupling.
` It couldn't be physically separate.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Q. There would be at least signal lines
` connecting the memory interface circuit of the
` decoder and the decoder. True?
` A. So it would -- the memory interface
` circuit would be that hardware, including signaling
` paths to or from a competing device or arbiter, to
` coordinate communication via bus that was used by the
` decoder, which is similarly construed. And nowhere
` in here does it talk about what's on a chip.
` Q. Sure. So it would be perfectly fine, in
` your opinion, that you would have a decoder
` potentially on one or more chips connected via signal
` lines to a memory interface on one or more separate
` chips, and that's okay under Claim 7. True?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. As long as -- as long as the terms
` "decoder" and "memory interface circuit" obey these
` constructions, and then the further -- the further
` clause we're considering where it says "having" means
` that that particular memory interface circuit is used
` by the decoder. Other than that, there is not a
` restriction on what goes on a chip or what doesn't go
` on a chip.
` Q. Okay. So looking back at Figure 2, can
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` you explain to me, when the decoder wants to access
` memory, how does it request that access?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. So, by "decoder," are you considering that
` to be Box 44?
` Q. That's fine. Let's use 44 in this
` example. How would Block 44, the decoder in
` Figure 2, signal that it wants to access memory?
` A. It would -- it would send a signal to DMA
` Engine 52.
` Q. Where would that signal go?
` A. To -- you mean -- it would go to DMA
` Engine 52 -- I'm sorry. What --
` Q. Oh. After -- the signal stops at DMA
` Engine 52, or does it --
` A. No.
` Q. -- propagate?
` A. I'm with you.
` So then the DMA engines are all connected
` to the arbiter, the first device DMA engine and the
` second device DMA engine. The arbiter receives those
` memory requests and arbits which one will actually go
` out to the memory.
` So, in the case of the decoder, it would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` choose the decoder read or write and issue the
` appropriate signals to the memory controller.
` Q. In Figure 2, then, the arbiter would be in
` the path to memory because it would have to receive
` the request from the decoder before it was allowed to
` grant the decoder access to memory. Correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. I don't know I'd characterize it that way.
` The arbitration happens before the memory access
` happens. So by "in the path" -- I guess it depends
` on what you mean by "in the path."
` Q. Well, what do you mean by -- if you're to
` say "the arbiter is either in the path to memory or
` not in the path to memory" what do you mean by that?
` A. Well, it could mean several different
` things, and I was questioning what you meant by it in
` your question. But I can tell you what it might
` mean. It might mean that it's in series and that all
` memory reads and writes have to flow through arbiter
` circuitry. I don't think that's the case here. But
` if you -- "in the path" means something different to
` you, that's why I wasn't sure how to answer.
` Q. So you would agree that in the context of
` the '753 patent, being in the path to memory doesn't
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` mean that every single access to memory, that data
` actually goes through the arbiter. Correct?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. So data doesn't flow through the arbiter
` circuitry. The arbiter circuitry grants -- acts --
` the arbiter circuitry allows accesses to occur or
` not.
` Q. But the actual data, you're not contending
` that that flows through the arbiter. Correct?
` A. Probably not, no.
` Q. So then how would the arbiter, in your
` opinion, be in the path to memory, setting aside the
` fact that data doesn't flow through it?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. I think I just said I didn't think it was
` in the path earlier.
` I defined an example of "in the path," and
` then I said, if that's what you mean by "in the
` path," then the arbiter is not in it.
` Q. So the fact that the arbiter has to permit
` access to memory for the decoder or the first device,
` in your opinion, that doesn't qualify as being in the
` path to memory. Is that correct?
` A. That's incorrect. I didn't know what you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` meant by "in the path," so I had to come up with my
` own definition, and I gave you one that the arbiter
` was not in the path, and now you are giving me a
` different definition of "in the path" and asking
` me --
` Q. And I'm not -- I'm just trying to
` understand what you understand to be sort of "in the
` path." If it could mean different things, then maybe
` that's your testimony. So let me try to rephrase it.
` In the context of access to memory, what
` do you consider "being in the path" to mean? Does it
` mean more than just actually having data and address
` flows through it? Would it also include things like
` bus grant signals?
` A. So if I was talking to another technical
` person and they used the words "in the path," I would
` probably say "What do you mean by 'in the path'?"
` before I answered because that's kind of general.
` Temporal path? Spatial path? Circuit path? What
` path are you --
` Q. Well, how do you use the term?
` A. It depends on the context. If I'm talking
` about a data path, then I'm talking about flows of
` signals through a data path circuit.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` Q. Could you say that the arbiter is in the
` path to memory since, in Figure 2, before any device
` accesses memory, it has to communicate with that
` arbiter?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. I mean, I think you're asking me, is it
` permissible to define "in the path" in some
` alternative way? And if you are, then I would say
` sure, you can define it however you want.
` Q. As one of ordinary skill in the art, would
` you think it would be inappropriate to define it in
` that way?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
` A. I don't -- I just think that -- I would
` personally ask for clarification to make sure I
` understood what someone meant when they said "in the
` path" to me.
` Q. But you wouldn't say, for example, to
` another engineer that they were incorrect for stating
` that in, for example, Figure 2, that the arbiter is
` in the path to memory because in order to get access
` to memory, the decoder of the first device have to
` communicate with the arbiter to get access?
` MR. ANJOM: Objection; form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01114
`Apple v. PUMA
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` M. THORNTON - 5/22/17
` A. I might. It would depend on how they
` were -- it would depend on the context of our
` conversation.
` Q. Well, let me ask you. If I say it right
` now, if I tell you, "Dr. Thornton, I believe the
` arbiter here is in the path to memory of the decoder
` because
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
