throbber
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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01602 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01603 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01606 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01607 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`____________________________________________________
`
` VIDEO-RECORDED DEPOSITION OF HOUMAN HOMAYOUN, Ph.D.
`
`THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`
`Anrae Wimberley
`
`CSR No. 7778
`
`Job No. 3619092A
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 1
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01602 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01603 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01606 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`IPR2018-01607 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`Transcript of video-recorded deposition of
`
`HOUMAN HOMAYOUN, Ph.D., taken at Hilton - San
`
`Francisco, Union Square, 333 O'Farrell Street,
`
`Conference Center, San Francisco, California 94102,
`
`beginning at 9:15 a.m. and ending at 11:12 a.m. on
`
`Thursday, November 14, 2019, before Anrae Wimberley,
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 7778.
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 2
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 2
`
`

`

`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
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`On behalf of Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation:
`
`SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
`
`BY: JOSEPH MICALLEF, Esq.
`
`BY: SCOTT M. BORDER, Esq.
`
`1501 K Street Northwest
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`(202) 736-8492
`
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`On behalf of Patent Owner, DirectStream:
`
`JANIK VINNAKOTA, LLP
`
`BY: SEAN HSU, Esq.
`
`BY: DONALD PUCKETT, Esq.
`
`8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 790
`
`Dallas, Texas 75251
`
`(214) 390-9999
`
`shsu@jvllp.com
`
`dpuckett@jvllp.com
`
`Also Present:
`
`VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS
`
`CYRIL SUSZCHIEWICS, VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`(415) 274-9977
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 3
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 3
`
`

`

`I N D E X
`
`EXAMINATION BY:
`
`MR. MICALLEF
`
`MR. HSU
`
`PAGE
`
`6
`
`76
`
`--oOo--
`
`E X H I B I T S
`
`(None marked.)
`
`QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
`
`--oOo--
`
`(None.)
`
`--oOo--
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 4
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2019;
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA;
`
`9:15 A.M.
`
`- - -
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
`
`We're on video record on November 14th,
`
`2019, and the time is 9:15 a.m.
`
`This is the beginning of Disk 1 for the
`
`deposition of Dr. Houman Homayoun --
`
`THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: -- in the matter of
`
`Microsoft Corporation versus DirectStream.
`
`It's filed in the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board.
`
`We are located today at the Hilton Union
`
`Square in San Francisco, California.
`
`My name is Cyril Suszchiewics and I'm the
`
`videographer. And the court reporter is Anrae
`
`Wimberley. We're here both representing Veritext
`
`Legal Solutions.
`
`Counsel, would you please identify
`
`yourself for the record.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Joe Micallef with Sidley Austin
`
`for Petitioner Microsoft.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 5
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`MR. BORDER: Scott Border, Sidley Austin,
`
`Petitioner Microsoft.
`
`MR. HSU: This is Sean Hsu with Janik Vinnakota
`
`for the patent owner, DirectStream.
`
`MR. PUCKETT: Donald Puckett with Janik
`
`Vinnakota for the patent owner.
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And the court reporter may
`
`swear in the witness.
`
`(Witness sworn.)
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm sorry. There's a
`
`microphone there, and you'll want to clip that on
`
`you.
`
`THE WITNESS: Here is good?
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yes.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: For the record, this testimony
`
`relates to the following proceedings in the PTO:
`
`IPR2018-1601, 1602, 1603, 1605, 1606 and 1607.
`
`HOUMAN HOMAYOUN, Ph.D.,
`
`sworn as a witness by the Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter, testified as follows:
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`EXAMINATION
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Good morning.
`
`I'm going to hand you a copy of a document
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 6
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`that has previously been marked as Exhibit 1007.
`
`This is the Splash 2 book, and I'm going to ask you
`
`just to confirm that you have seen that again -- or
`
`before.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, I've seen this.
`
`And have you read that whole book?
`
`The whole book is very long. I skimmed
`
`through the entire book as well as focused on the
`
`majority part of the architecture as well as the
`
`application.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Did you read Chapter 8 of that book?
`
`I need to look at the Chapter 8 to just
`
`refresh my mind what is Chapter 8.
`
`Q.
`
`Go ahead.
`
`(Witness reviews document.)
`
`Yes, I did.
`
`Okay. And you agree that Chapter 8 was
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`the basic disclosure relied on by the petitions in
`
`these proceedings? Would you agree with that?
`
`MR. HSU: Object to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: Can you repeat your question.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Do you agree that Chapter 8 of Splash 2
`
`was the basic disclosure relied on in the petitions
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 7
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`in these proceedings?
`
`MR. HSU: Same objections.
`
`THE WITNESS: I'm not sure -- don't understand.
`
`What do you mean by "the basic"? Can you clarify.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`You understand that the focus of the
`
`petitions was on the genetic sequence comparison
`
`application that's described here in Chapter 8.
`
`A.
`
`In the document that I was provided
`
`including the various declaration, yes, I saw
`
`references to Chapter 8 as well as search algorithm.
`
`Q.
`
`What search algorithm are you referring
`
`to?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`The DNA search algorithm.
`
`That's described in Chapter 8.
`
`Yes.
`
`And so on page 98 of Exhibit 1007 -- if
`
`you would like to unclip it, you can do that. It
`
`might be easier.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, I think that might be easier.
`
`Just let me know when you get to page 98.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. At the top of page 98, there is a
`
`subsection entitled, "Edit Distance."
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I see that.
`
`And what is your understanding of the edit
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`distance calculation described there?
`
`A.
`
`I have some memory of what this algorithm
`
`was about, but I definitely need to read this whole
`
`section to refresh my mind and give you then an
`
`answer. But holistically what I remember, this was
`
`to compare two DNA sequences, the distance between
`
`the two.
`
`Q.
`
`And what do you mean by "distance between
`
`the two"?
`
`A.
`
`For those questions -- because they are
`
`not in my field, they're more in biology field -- I
`
`need to read this document and then refresh my mind
`
`and give you the answer.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you do anything to prepare for
`
`testifying today?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, I did.
`
`What did you do?
`
`I looked at my deposition -- my
`
`declaration. I look at several related and prior
`
`works. I look at document Exhibit B, Exhibit C,
`
`some document that the attorney provided to me,
`
`including the deposition, various declaration and as
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 9
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`well as my own.
`
`Q.
`
`But you didn't read Chapter 8 of
`
`Exhibit 1007?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: This is a very lengthy book,
`
`about few hundred pages. I definitely read several
`
`part of it and -- just to prepare, but I definitely
`
`need to -- for a specific question about a specific
`
`part of this book, because I haven't written that
`
`book, I need to refresh my mind and read this --
`
`each part that you're asking me question.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`So you're saying you need to read the two
`
`paragraphs at the top of page 98 to give me your
`
`understanding of what the edit distance calculation
`
`is?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form; mischaracterizes.
`
`THE WITNESS: If I find the answer in those two
`
`paragraph, then I'll be definitely happy to give you
`
`an answer, but it might require reading more.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. About the -- on page 98 of
`
`Exhibit 1007, there's a sentence -- about the sixth
`
`sentence down in that first paragraph, it says, "The
`
`edit distance between two sequences is defined as
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`the minimum cost of transforming one sequence to the
`
`other with a sequence of the following operations
`
`deletion of a character, insertion of a character
`
`and substitution of one character for another."
`
` Do you see that sentence I just read?
`
` A. I do, yes.
`
` Q. Does that refresh your recollection at all
`
`about what edit distance is?
`
` A. It does, yes.
`
` Q. Can you in your own words tell me what you
`
`think the edit distance calculation does?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think it's clear just to find
`
`the distance between two DNA sequencing when we want
`
`to transform one of them to the other.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. On the next page, page 99, of
`
`Exhibit 1007 --
`
` A. 99. It's marked 92, but I think --
`
` Q. On the bottom right-hand corner.
`
` A. 98 and then 92.
`
` Q. Bottom right-hand corner.
`
` A. 92.
`
` Q. Is it different?
`
` A. Yes, this is 98 and then 92.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 11
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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. May I see the exhibit?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. HSU: It's correct on this one. Do you
`
`want me to swap it out?
`
` MR. MICALLEF: Yes. The pages are all out of
`
`whack.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, this is 99.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. So you have another copy of Exhibit 1007
`
`before you.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Legal assistants strike again.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. So now do you have page 99 of
`
`Exhibit 1007?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And at the bottom there, there is a
`
`Figure 8.2.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes, I see that.
`
` Q. Can you tell me what your understanding is
`
`of what is depicted in Figure 8.2?
`
` A. This is dynamic programming, as the figure
`
`caption explain, to compute a distance algorithm
`
`between two DNA sequences.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 12
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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. And would the two DNA sequences be on the
`
`horizontal and vertical axes, respectively?
`
` A. One of them is TCTAGACC, on the vertical;
`
`and on the horizontal axis is GCATAAGC.
`
` Q. And what is your understanding of what the
`
`numbers are that are in that -- sort of the inside
`
`of the box?
`
` A. This is just perform the dynamic
`
`programming to compute the distance between the two.
`
` Q. Okay. And so just as an example, the top
`
`T on the vertical axis and the leftmost G on the
`
`horizontal axis, if you intersect them in the middle
`
`of the box there, there's a 2.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Top T and then leftmost G; right?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Yes, I see that.
`
` Q. So would that 2 there represent the
`
`distance between those two characters, T and G?
`
` A. To answer that question, I need to look at
`
`the algorithm -- refresh my mind on what the
`
`algorithm is doing. This is really complicated
`
`algorithm. And it require me to go through the
`
`algorithm in detail.
`
` Q. Okay. If you could turn to page 100 of
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 13
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So at the bottom there, there is a
`
`Figure 8.4.
`
` A. Um-hum.
`
` Q. Can you tell me your understanding of what
`
`is depicted there.
`
` A. This is -- as the figure explain, it's a
`
`parallel computation. It start from the top right
`
`on the vertical axis -- the top on the vertical axis
`
`and then left on the horizontal axis. And it
`
`continue and it essentially converge on the
`
`horizontal on the rightmost, on the vertical on the
`
`bottom.
`
` Q. And would you agree that in this figure,
`
`the anti-diagonals are the lines that go from top
`
`right to bottom left?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. Now, this particular section of Chapter 8
`
`is 8.2.1 entitled, "Bidirectional Array"; correct?
`
` A. Umbrella.
`
` Q. And that describes a bidirectional
`
`systolic array for processing edit distances;
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 14
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`Q.
`
`And on page 101, there's a Figure 8.5.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I see that.
`
`And that's a depiction of the data flow of
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`the bidirectional systolic array?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And it's bidirectional because, in the
`
`data flow, the source sequences flow through the
`
`array in one direction while the target sequences
`
`flow through the array in the other; is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`That is fair.
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`And as that flow is occurring, the
`
`sequences are -- strike that.
`
`During that flow, a comparison is
`
`performed between a particular source character and
`
`a target character within each processing element of
`
`the array; is that right?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: So just one thing about the
`
`definition of the word "flow," I'm not sure how
`
`you're using it in this context, but what I
`
`understand is that the two DNA sequence are coming
`
`from two different direction, and then we're being
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 15
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`compared with individual elements and that will
`
`continue.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. But in each processing element in
`
`each step, there will be a comparison of a source
`
`character to a target character; is that fair?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: In each processing element, there
`
`is a comparison of the source and the target. I
`
`think so, yeah, that's --
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`And that would be in one step, and then
`
`another step occurs and the sequences go one further
`
`step in the flow and another comparison occurs; am I
`
`getting this right?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: Holistically right, but, again,
`
`we need to look at the algorithm in detail.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`And so can we just focus on one of those
`
`comparisons.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`It's a comparison not of an entire
`
`sequence, but of one character in the source
`
`sequence against one character in the target
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 16
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`sequence; is that correct?
`
` A. I believe that is correct, yes.
`
` Q. And so would you agree that the figure --
`
`the code depicted in Figure 8.7 on page 101 on
`
`Exhibit 1007 reflects the comparison that occurs?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The comparison of the source and
`
`the destination, you mean; right?
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. I believe it's source and target, is --
`
` A. The source and target.
`
` As I'm looking at this pseudocode, it does
`
`some sort of a comparison, yes, but, again, the
`
`comparison is not just simple as comparing it using
`
`an algorithm for the comparison.
`
` Q. And that algorithm is reflected in the
`
`code in Figure 8.7?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, the pseudocode of that
`
`comparison -- I can see some code here.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Okay. And then in the next time step in
`
`that particular processing element, this pseudocode,
`
`as you call it -- there would be another comparison
`
`consistent with this code, but it would be a
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 17
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`comparison of two different characters; is that
`
`fair?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Based on what I see in this loop,
`
`no.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. No?
`
` A. Because I don't see any next step here.
`
`It's just one single step, one single shot, as
`
`described in the pseudocode.
`
` Q. And so in the bidirectional systolic
`
`array, after the first source and target characters
`
`meet in a processing element and are compared, what
`
`do you think happens next?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: What I think or what this one is
`
`reflecting, what the Splash 2 is teaching? Because
`
`there are --
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. What do you think Splash 2 is teaching?
`
` A. Looking at this code, Splash 2 is not
`
`really teaching what is happening in the next step.
`
`It's just based on looking at this pseudocode,
`
`Splash work architecture as shown in Figure 8.5.
`
` Q. So you're interpreting this to mean only
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 18
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`one comparison occurs of one character against one
`
`character and then that's it?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Based on what I see in
`
`Figure 8.7, this is just one essentially run.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Don't you think it's a more reasonable
`
`interpretation of this disclosure to say, since
`
`they're streaming these source and target sequences
`
`through in different directions, that at each time a
`
`source character and a target character meet in a
`
`processing element, the code in Figure 8.7 is
`
`executed?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: When you say "they," can you
`
`clarify what you mean by "they are streaming," what
`
`do you mean by "they"?
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. When the source sequence and the target
`
`sequence are streaming through the processing
`
`elements of the array, don't you think it's a more
`
`reasonable interpretation of this disclosure that
`
`when a source character and a target character meet
`
`in a processing element, the code in Figure 8.7 is
`
`executed?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 19
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
` MR. HSU: Same objection.
`
` (Reporter interruption.)
`
` THE WITNESS: So when we phrase it this way,
`
`it's easy to say, but I don't really see it in how
`
`Splash 2 is really doing it. And when we say the
`
`data are streaming -- are being streamed, something
`
`has to stream those data.
`
` And there has to be some information in
`
`Figure 8.7 that provide who's streaming that data,
`
`for how long, when is it stopped. I really don't
`
`see those information.
`
` What I'm trying to say is that when we
`
`phrase it, it's easy to say, but a lot of these
`
`things, when we program it, when we design hardware,
`
`they're not easy to implement and the detail has to
`
`be there.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Why do you think the detail to implement
`
`this has to be in this book?
`
` A. Again, I'm a computer engineering person.
`
`I need to see the detail if I want to reproduce
`
`something. Without the detail, I won't be able to
`
`reproduce or even, in many case, understand how
`
`things are really done in real hardware.
`
` Q. But this book isn't a design
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 20
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`specification; isn't that right?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: This is -- I believe it's
`
`educational book, and it has a lot of information
`
`about the Splash 2 design. That's my understanding.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`So it's not telling you everything you
`
`need to know to build the Splash 2 system; isn't
`
`that right?
`
`A.
`
`Actually, I don't know how to answer that
`
`question. When I read this book, I see a lot of
`
`details, but the particular question you ask me
`
`about, I didn't find that detail about -- to answer
`
`your question.
`
`Q.
`
`I just want to understand where you're
`
`coming from here so the Board understands.
`
`You are saying that you expect this book
`
`to include every detail that would be required to
`
`implement a Splash 2 system; is that your point of
`
`view?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: I didn't use the word "every,"
`
`but as a computer engineer, we need enough
`
`information to be able to reproduce some design and
`
`implementation. And the particular question you ask
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 21
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`me I didn't find enough detail to answer your
`
`question to convince myself that, yes, the data is
`
`just streaming every cycle and Splash is taking care
`
`of everything.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. So do you have any doubt that the target
`
`and source sequences are being streamed through this
`
`array in two different directions?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Do I have any doubt -- can you
`
`repeat your question. I just want to understand.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Do you have any doubt that the target and
`
`source sequences are streamed through this array in
`
`two different directions?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, the question -- I'm not
`
`sure it's clear because when something is -- the
`
`data is coming from two different direction, the big
`
`question is who's really governing it, who is really
`
`managing it? So from the figure, I see that two
`
`data are coming from two different direction. From
`
`a teaching, I see the data are coming from two
`
`different direction.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 22
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
` Q. Okay. And you just don't know who's
`
`managing it?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: That's actually one detail that I
`
`didn't find here.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. So you don't know one way or the other
`
`who's managing it?
`
` A. I know actually from the -- from what book
`
`explain and also from other references, but that is
`
`being managed by a third party.
`
` Q. So you cannot -- so you think you do know
`
`who is managing it; is that what you're saying?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: From -- I haven't really build
`
`this Splash 2 chip. From everything I see in this
`
`book as well as other related literature, all of
`
`them are pointing to one essentially governing
`
`source.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. And can you -- have you ever seen another
`
`piece of literature that describes the genetic
`
`sequence comparison application that's in Chapter 8?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Not with all of this information,
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 23
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`but there's other related work that they cited
`
`Splash 2. And when they site it, they describe the
`
`DNA sequencing and how essentially the data is
`
`being -- move in and move out.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`So you're saying -- let me ask this: You
`
`don't know one way or the other how many times the
`
`loop instructions of Figure 8.7 would be executed in
`
`the context of the bidirectional systolic array; is
`
`that fair?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: Looking at Figure 8.7 as well as
`
`the text, there's -- to me there's no really limit
`
`of how this will continue and for how long.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Did you look for some kind of limit?
`
`I was hoping actually to find a limit, and
`
`that's why I looked at the text to see if Figure 8.7
`
`and other related references are -- explained this
`
`more clearly.
`
`Q.
`
`I just want to make sure.
`
`Did you specifically look in Chapter 8 of
`
`Exhibit 1007 for anything that told you how many
`
`times the loop code in Figure 8.7 would be executed?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 24
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
` THE WITNESS: I didn't look at this particular
`
`question, but I rather try to understand what
`
`Figure 8.7 is doing. And the first question that
`
`comes to my mind as a computer architect or computer
`
`engineering person is whether this is just one piece
`
`of -- a one-shot execution or what is the start,
`
`what is the end.
`
` Because, again, in computer system, a lot
`
`of thing that we express we take it as granted, but
`
`when we build a chip, we have to specify all of
`
`those and also implement all of those specificity.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. You know what an infinite loop is;
`
`correct?
`
` A. I know what an infinite loop is, yes.
`
` Q. Anybody who's begun learning about coding
`
`knows what an infinite loop is; correct?
`
` A. Of course.
`
` Q. And people know how to avoid infinite
`
`loops; correct?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Within what context?
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Any competent software coder would know
`
`how to avoid an infinite loop?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 25
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
` A. Software coder, I agree. But hardware
`
`programmer, I don't agree. And, actually, this is a
`
`common problem that we -- when we write code, we
`
`issue a verilog. In many cases, we don't specify a
`
`lot of entry. Because, again, in software
`
`everything is easily taken care of. But when it
`
`comes to hardware, we have to take care of all of
`
`these minor details.
`
` Q. You agree that the system that is
`
`described in Chapter 8 was actually built?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: From what I read in various
`
`article, yes, but I haven't seen the system.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. You agree that as of, let's say, 2002, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art could have built
`
`this system that's described in Chapter 8?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: You mean could reproduce the same
`
`with the same knowledge?
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Yes. Let me make sure you understand the
`
`question.
`
` You know what a hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is; right?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 26
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
` A. Within the context of the information that
`
`was provided, all the related work, yes, I
`
`understand.
`
` Q. You understand that that person is
`
`presumed to be aware of the content of the prior
`
`art?
`
` MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Prior relevant art. I would
`
`essentially correct it that way. Because "prior
`
`art" is open-ended, could be anything. But "prior
`
`relevant art" is what is relevant to essentially
`
`what all of these work are trying to describe.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
` Q. Well, I want you to assume that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is presumptively aware
`
`of the content of the prior art, okay, for my
`
`question.
`
` A. Can you repeat this.
`
` Q. Yeah.
`
` I want you to assume that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is presumptively aware of
`
`the prior art.
`
` A. I need more clarification. Because if you
`
`mean prior art, then, very similar to this loop,
`
`there is no beginning, there's no end. Do you mean
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 27
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1075, p. 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
`
`the universe of every knowledge in the world or
`
`related to the contents?
`
`Q.
`
`Do you have an understanding of what the
`
`prior art is?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: Of course, yes.
`
`BY MR. MICALLEF:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`What is it?
`
`Prior art is any work that has been
`
`published and -- prior to that particular date of
`
`that particular publication. But prior relevant art
`
`is anything that is relevant to that art as well.
`
`Q.
`
`Well, let's just start with prior art.
`
`Okay.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`You agree a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art by 2002 could build the system in Chapter 8,
`
`understanding that that person had all that
`
`knowledge?
`
`MR. HSU: Objection to form; foundation.
`
`THE WITNESS: So I need more clarification of
`
`what you define as a person of ordinary skills, in
`
`what context. In the context of chip design? In
`
`the context of just computer engineer? I need more
`
`clarification on that.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 28
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Directstream, LLC, IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket