UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`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)
`__________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HOUMAN HOMAYOUN
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 1
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`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)
`__________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HOUMAN HOMAYOUN
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 1
`
`
`
`I, Houman Homayoun, I declare that all statements made herein are true and
`
`that these statements were made with knowledge that willful false statements are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the
`
`United States Code.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`Houman Homayoun
`
`
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 2
`
`
`
`I. ENGAGEMENT
`1. I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner as an expert witness in the
`
`above-captioned proceedings. I have been asked to provide my opinions about the
`
`validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,324 (the 324 patent) and 7,620,800 (the 800
`
`patent) and my opinions about what certain references disclose.
`
`2. All of the opinions stated in this report are based on my personal knowledge
`
`and professional judgment. If called as a witness during the trial in this matter, I am
`
`prepared to testify competently about them. I am over the age of eighteen.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. A summary of my qualifications
`
`relevant to this case is provided below.
`
`4. I am an Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at George
`
`Mason University (GMU). I am the director of GMU’s Accelerated, Secure, and
`
`Energy-Efficient Computing Laboratory (ASEEC). Prior to joining GMU, I spent
`
`two years at the University of California, San Diego, as NSF Computing Innovation
`
`(CI) Fellow awarded by the CRA-CCC working with Professor Dean Tullsen.
`
`5. I am currently conducting research in big data computing, heterogeneous
`
`computing and hardware security and trust, which spans the areas of computer design
`
`and embedded systems, where I have published more than 80 technical papers in the
`
`prestigious conferences and journals on the subject.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 3
`
`
`
`6. I am also currently leading six research projects funded by DARPA, AFRL and
`
`NSF on the topics of hardware security and trust, big data computing, heterogeneous
`
`architectures, and biomedical computing.
`
`7. I have successfully completed four projects on “Hybrid Spin Transfer Torque-
`
`CMOS Technology to Prevent Design Reverse Engineering”, “Persistence and
`
`Extraction of Digital Artifacts from Embedded Systems”, “Inter-core Selective
`
`Resource Pooling in a 3D Chip Multiprocessor”, and “Enhancing the Security on
`
`Embedded Automotive Systems” funded by DARPA, NIST, NSF and General
`
`Motors.
`
`8. I received the 2016 Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI (GLSVLSI) conference
`
`best paper award for developing a manycore accelerator for wearable biomedical
`
`computing.
`
`9. I am currently serving as Member of Advisory Committee, Cybersecurity
`
`Research and Technology Commercialization (R&TC) working group in the
`
`Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`10. Since 2017 I have been serving as an Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions
`
`on VLSI. I served as TPC Co-Chair for GLSVLSI 2018.
`
`11. I am currently the general chair of GLSVLSI 2019.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 4
`
`
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND PRIOR TESTIMONY
`12. I am being compensated $445 per hour for my research and report preparation
`
`in this matter but my compensation does not depend on the opinions I render or the
`
`outcome of these proceedings. I do not have a personal interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`13. I have only previously testified in the co-pending district cases against
`
`Microsoft and Amazon and that was by deposition. Those cases are listed below:
`
`(a) SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00321-
`
`JLR (W.D. Wash.).
`
`(b) SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Amazon Web Services, Inc et al, No. 2:18-cv-
`
`00317-JLR (W.D. Wash.).
`
`IV. INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`14. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and experience, as
`
`well as my review of the IPR petitions, the materials cited by Microsoft in the IPR
`
`petitions, Dr. Stone’s declaration, and materials cited in Dr. Stone’s declaration. In
`
`forming my opinion, I have considered the materials I identify in this report.
`
`15. I may rely on these materials and additional materials to respond to arguments
`
`raised by the Petitioner. I may also consider additional documents and information as
`
`required to form any necessary opinions in this proceeding, including materials that I
`
`have not yet found or been provided.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 5
`
`
`
`16. My analysis of the materials is ongoing and I will continue to review any new
`
`material as it is provided. This declaration only represents the opinions I have formed
`
`as of the date I sign it. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, or amend my
`
`opinions as needed based on new material or a new understanding of materials
`
`already considered.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`17. I agree with Dr. Stone’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art for
`
`both the 324 patent and 800 patent. I also believe that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“PHOSITA”) must be experienced in developing with high-level
`
`languages (C and Fortran), hardware description languages, and the unique problems
`
`involved with programming FPGAs and FPGA based systems.
`
`18. I meet all the above criteria so I believe that I am a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art for both the 324 and 800 patents.
`
`19. I am also familiar with the subject matter of the 324 and 800 patents and I am
`
`also aware of the state of the art at the time the applications for both of these patents
`
`were filed.
`
`VI. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`20. I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims of the 324
`
`and 800 patents are anticipated or rendered obvious to a person of ordinary skill at
`
`the time of the invention in light of the references cited by Microsoft in its Petitions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 6
`
`
`
`21. I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions I have relied on
`
`certain legal principles that Patent Owner’s counsel has explained to me.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`22. I understand that claim construction is the first step in the validity analysis of a
`
`patent and that claims are construed the same for both validity and infringement.
`
`23. I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding of an unexpired patent
`
`the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. I understand that this standard is different than the standard applied by
`
`district courts when construing claims. I also understand that Patent Owner is asking
`
`the Board to apply the district court standard to the claims in these proceedings.
`
`24. I believe that the claim terms at issue in these proceedings should be construed
`
`the same way regardless of whether the Board applies the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard or the district court claim construction standard.
`
`25. I have been informed and understand that one of cannons of claim construction
`
`is that the district court must construe the claims as one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant field of the invention would, theoretically, construe the claims, and not as
`
`a layperson would construe them.
`
`26. I have also been informed that ascertaining the meaning of the claims requires
`
`that they be viewed in the context of those sources available to the public that show
`
`what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 7
`
`
`
`mean. The Federal Circuit has stated that different weights are to be placed on these
`
`sources. First, the words of the claims themselves provide the starting point for any
`
`claim-construction analysis. The second most relevant source is the patent's
`
`specification. Third in importance is the prosecution history, which is also part of the
`
`intrinsic evidence that directly reflects how the patentee has characterized the
`
`invention. Last, extrinsic evidence—testimony, dictionaries, learned treatises, or
`
`other material not part of the public record associated with the patent—also may be
`
`helpful but is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally
`
`operative meaning of claim language.
`
`27. I have also been informed that when determining the “ordinary meaning” a
`
`claim term the use of technical dictionaries or even a standard dictionary, such as
`
`Webster's, is often appropriate. Generally, however, technical dictionaries in the
`
`relevant field should take precedence over general dictionaries.
`
`28. I do believe that the claims at issue in these proceedings should be construed
`
`the same way regardless of whether the Board applies the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard ir the district court claim construction standard.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`29. I have been informed and understand that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent may
`
`be invalid for obviousness if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 8
`
`
`
`obvious, at the time the invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains. I understand that although it is well settled
`
`that the ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law, it is also well
`
`understood that there are factual issues underlying the ultimate obviousness decision.
`
`30. I understand that the obviousness analysis is based on four underlying factual
`
`inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4)
`
`secondary considerations, if any, of nonobviousness.
`
`31. I understand that to sustain an obviousness challenge against a claim, a
`
`petitioner must show that the combined references must teach or suggest all the
`
`limitations of the challenged claim(s).
`
`32. I understand that to qualify as prior art for an obviousness challenge, the
`
`asserted references must be of the same type of art or of an analogous art as the
`
`challenged patent. I understand that a reference may be “analogous” if it is either (1)
`
`in the same field of endeavor as the challenged patent, or (2) in a different field of
`
`endeavor but is still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that the challenged
`
`patent solves.
`
`33. I understand that because inventions often involve a combination of known
`
`elements that in hindsight seems preordained, to prevent hindsight invalidation of
`
`patent claims, the law requires some “teaching, suggestion or motivation” to combine
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 9
`
`
`
`cited references. I understand that motivation to combine references may be found in
`
`the cited references themselves, in the knowledge of a PHOSITA at the time of
`
`invention, and in the nature of the problem to be solved.
`
`34. I understand that the Supreme Court has recognized other rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these other rationales are: (a) combining prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of
`
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known
`
`technique to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; (d)
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (e) choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`35. I understand that obviousness does not require physical combination/bodily
`
`incorporation, but rather consideration of what the combined teachings would have
`
`suggested to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`36. I further understand that an asserted motivation to combine references can be
`
`overcome based on a showing that those references together “teach away” from their
`
`combination. I understand that if the references taken in combination would produce
`
`a “seemingly inoperable device,” such references teach away from the combination
`
`and thus cannot serve as a basis for obviousness.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 10
`
`
`
`37. I understand that within the framework of an obviousness analysis, it is
`
`impermissible to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will
`
`support a given position to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full
`
`appreciation of what such reference fairly would have suggested to a PHOSITA.
`
`Thus, a reference must be considered in its entirety, including those portions of the
`
`reference that argue against obviousness.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`38. I understand that the parties have proposed the following competing claim
`
`constructions for the 324 patent:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Functional unit
`
`Computational loop
`
`Instantiate
`
`systolic
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`a set of logic that
`performs a specific
`operation
`a sequence of
`computations that is
`repeated until a prescribed
`condition is satisfied
`configure
`
`An array of many
`interconnected functional
`units that operates in a
`data flow sense and
`allows different data to
`flow in different
`directions
`
`Microsoft’s Proposed
`Construction
`A computational unit
`configured to perform a
`specific task
`none
`
`Create, such as by
`configuring, a particular
`structure
`The characteristic of
`rhythmically computing
`and passing data directly
`between processing
`elements “without a
`program counter or
`clock that drives the
`movement of data” and
`operating in a manner
`that is “transport
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 11
`
`
`
`transforming an
`algorithm into a
`calculation that is
`systolically implemented
`by said reconfigurable
`computing system at the
`at least one
`reconfigurable processor
`pass computed data
`seamlessly between said
`computational loops
`
`stream communication
`
`Clusters of functional
`units
`Wherein systolically
`linked lines of code of
`said calculation are
`instantiated as clusters of
`functional units
`Data dimensions
`
`Manually or
`automatically converting
`a serial algorithm
`originally written in a
`high-level language into
`a systolic data flow
`bitstream loaded into a
`reconfigurable processor
`communicating the
`computed data over the
`reconfigurable routing
`resources between said
`computational loops
`a data path that acts like a
`queue between a
`producer and a consumer
`of data that operate
`concurrently
`None
`
`None
`
`None
`
`triggered, i.e., by the
`arrival of a data object”
`Compiling an algorithm
`into configuration code
`representing
`computations that
`process data in a systolic
`fashion
`
`to communicate
`computed data directly
`between functional units
`that are calculating
`computational loops
`Communication of a data
`sequence
`
`Groups of functional
`units
`Wherein groups of
`functional units are
`configured to execute
`lines of code in a systolic
`fashion
`Multiple vectors of a
`problem, multiple planes
`of a problem, multiple
`time steps in a problem
`and so forth
`
`39. I understand the parties have proposed the following competing claim
`
`
`
`constructions for the 800 patent:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`Microsoft’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 12
`
`
`
`Functional unit
`
`Computational loop
`
`Form
`
`Data driven
`
`transforming an
`algorithm into a data
`driven calculation that is
`implemented by said
`reconfigurable
`computing system at the
`at least one
`reconfigurable processor
`pass computed data
`seamlessly between said
`computational loops
`
`stream communication
`
`Clusters of functional
`units
`Wherein systolically
`linked lines of code of
`said calculation are
`instantiated as clusters of
`functional units
`
`a set of logic that
`performs a specific
`operation
`a sequence of
`computations that is
`repeated until a prescribed
`condition is satisfied
`configure
`
`Computation triggered by
`the availability of input
`data
`
`Manually or
`automatically converting
`a serial algorithm
`originally written in a
`high-level language into
`a data flow bitstream
`loaded into a
`reconfigurable processor
`communicating the
`computed data over the
`reconfigurable routing
`resources between said
`computational loops
`a data path that acts like a
`queue between a
`producer and a consumer
`of data that operate
`concurrently
`None
`
`None
`
`A computational unit
`configured to perform a
`specific task
`none
`
`Create, such as by
`configuring, a particular
`structure
`The scheduling of
`operations upon the
`availability of their
`operands
`Compiling an algorithm
`into configuration code
`representing
`computations that
`process data in a data
`driven fashion
`
`to communicate
`computed data directly
`between functional units
`that are calculating
`computational loops
`Communication of a data
`sequence
`
`Groups of functional
`units
`Wherein groups of
`functional units are
`configured to execute
`lines of code in a systolic
`fashion
`
`
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 13
`
`
`
`Data dimensions
`
`None
`
`Data mining
`
`None
`
`Multiple vectors of a
`problem, multiple planes
`of a problem, multiple
`time steps in a problem
`and so forth
`
`
`40. I agree with the construction proposed by Patent Owner as they reflect my
`
`
`
`understanding of those terms as they are generally used and in the context of the 324
`
`and 800 patents. My opinions herein are based on my application of the Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed claim constructions unless otherwise stated.
`
`VIII. MICROSOFT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT CLAIMS 8 AND 9 ARE
`OBVIOUS UNDER SPLASH2 IN VIEW OF RAPID, WITH OR
`WITHOUT GAUDIOT
`
`41. Microsoft has asserted identical arguments concerning the unpatentability of
`
`claims 8 and 9 of both the 324 and 800 patent under Splash2 in view of RaPiD, with
`
`or without Gaudiot in the Petitions in IPR2018-01601 and IPR2018-01605 so I will
`
`address these argument together here for efficiency.
`
`42. Microsoft identifies annotated Figure 10 from the RaPiD reference as
`
`disclosing both first and second “computational loop” elements in claims 8 and 9.
`
`IPR2018-01601, Petition at 63; IPR2018-01605, Petition at 64-65. The Petition does
`
`not explain why Microsoft believes Figure 10 depicts a “computational loop.”
`
`43. Dr. Stone’s declaration also includes the annotated Figure 10 (but does not
`
`indicate who annotated it), which is shown below. IPR2018-01601, EX. 1003 at 181;
`
`IPR2018-01605, EX. 1003 at 174.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`44. The yellow path in RaPid Figure 10 that Dr. Stone identifies as a
`
`“computational loop” is actually what is commonly called a bypass or forwarding
`
`path. EX. 2045 at 301.
`
`45. The purpose of a forwarding path is to support back to back execution of
`
`operations without stall, by forwarding (or bypassing) the output of an ALU to an
`
`input of the same or other ALU (in this instance it is the same ALU) for back to back
`
`operation without adding any stall. EX. 2045 at 301; EX. 2046 at 6 (“Data bypass
`
`logic is responsible for forwarding result values from completing instruction to
`
`dependent instruction, bypassing the register file.”). Register file is a memory
`
`component. A forwarding path is depicted in Figure 4.56 in blue below from page
`
`311 of EX. 2045:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`46. The concept of bypass path has been a concept well-known in computer
`
`architecture long before the 324 patents filing date of October 31, 2002. For example,
`
`the paper “Complexity-Effective Superscalar Processors” that was published in 1997
`
`describes bypass logic as one of the basic structures in computer microarchitecture.
`
`EX. 2046 at 2, 6-7.
`
`47. It is my opinion that the data path (in yellow) identified by Dr. Stone in Figure
`
`10 is clearly a forwarding (or alternatively bypass) path, not a “computational loop”
`
`as that term is used in the 324 and 800 patents.
`
`48. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Microsoft has not demonstrated that claims
`
`8 and 9 of the 324 and 800 patent are obvious under Splash2 in view of rapid, with or
`
`Without Gaudiot.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2029, p. 16
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
