`
`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.