`
` 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
`
`Apple v. Parthenon
`Ex. 1022 / Page 1 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 2 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 3 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 4 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 5 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 6 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 7 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 8 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 9 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 10 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 11 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 12 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 13 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 14 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 15 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 16 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 17 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 18 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 19 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 20 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 21 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 22 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 23 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 24 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 25 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1022 / Page 26 of 90
`
`
`
`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 the decoder has to request access to it," are
` you going to tell me I'm wrong?
` A. I would say so -- I would first clarify
` what you meant to make sure I understand it. I would
` say, "So you're telling me by 'in the path,' you're
` talking about a series of events and not the way
` circuitry's connected? You're talking about just a
` time cons