Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 20
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`SRC LABS, LLC & SAINT REGIS
`MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
` CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-
`GHAZAWI
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-1
`
`1
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. I have been asked by counsel for Plaintiffs to provide opinions regarding how one of
`
`I.
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood certain claim terms at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`2. All of the opinions stated in this report are based on my current personal knowledge and
`
`professional judgment. If called as a witness during the trial in this matter, I am prepared to
`
`testify competently about them.
`
`3. I am being compensated for my work in this matter but my compensation does not
`
`depend on the opinions I render or the outcome of this litigation. I do not have a personal
`
`interest in the outcome of this litigation.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`4. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. A summary of my qualifications relevant to
`
`II.
`
`this case is provided below.
`
`5. I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at The George Washington
`
`University (GWU), I have created the NSF Industry/University Center for High-Performance
`
`Reconfigurable Computing at GWU and directed it for about ten years, I have led many
`
`industry and federally funded research projects in reconfigurable computing and published
`
`closed to three hundred research publications. I received many honors in my field, a few
`
`examples follow. I was elected an IEEE Fellow for my contributions to reconfigurable
`
`computing and parallel programming (only one in a thousand members get that honor) and
`
`was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt research award for the same reasons (100 scientists
`
`selected from around the world in any year by the Humboldt Foundation in Germany), I am a
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-2
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`distinguished speaker for the IEEE Computer Society and served as a distinguished visiting
`
`fellow for the UK Royal Academy of Engineering.
`
`III.
`
` BASIS OF OPINIONS
`
`6. My opinions are abased on my years of education, research, experience, as well as my
`
`reading of the patents and prosecution histories. In forming my opinions I have considered the
`
`materials identified in this declaration, the patents, and the file histories.
`
`7. I may rely on additional materials and provide additional opinions to respond to
`
`arguments raised by the Defendants.
`
`8. This declaration only represents the opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to
`
`revise, supplement, or amend my opinions based on new information and my continuing
`
`analysis of the patents.
`
`IV.
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Traditional Computers
`9. Conventional computers, also known as von Neumann machine or von Neumann
`
`Computers. In a traditional computer, hardware is fixed and cannot be changed after
`
`manufacturing while different software programs use the existing fixed hardware to perform
`
`the required application. The software program is simply a sequence of instructions. Both the
`
`software program and the data to operate on reside in the main memory and therefore the
`
`processor is connected to the main memory through bus lines that include data bus and address
`
`bus. The address bus specifies the address of the memory location where the instruction to be
`
`performed or the operand to be manipulated reside. The data bus is used to transfer the
`
`instruction and input data to the processor and take the results back from the processor to the
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-3
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`memory. The processor typically goes through a fixed routine of steps to execute the
`
`instructions of the software program one by one, this routine is called the instruction execution
`
`cycle. The typical steps for such an instruction execution are: Instruction Fetch; Instruction
`
`Decode; Execute; Data Memory Access; and Write back the result.
`
`10. Conventional computers suffer many inherent limitations: 1. Their architectural is fixed
`
`(rigid) and cannot be configured; 2. Their architectures is complex to satisfy all general
`
`computations; and 3. They operate in a sequential many. Applications needs and
`
`computations required can however change. Conventional processors will have to use the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`available chip resources to execute those computation. This is by contrast to FPGAs that are
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`malleable and allow customization to create just as needed simple compute architectures and
`
`create as many of those as needed to solve the problem at hand.
`
`B. FPGAs
`11. An FPGA, or a Field Programmable Gate Array, is an electronic chip that can be
`
`programmed and reprogrammed in the field of application, after manufacturing, to provide
`
`different functionalities as needed. To do so, FPGAs are largely comprising configurable
`
`logical blocks that can be configured to perform the desired logical functions and a set of
`
`connecting configurable interconnects. Configurations are established by a bit stream that is
`
`generated by application engineers using some form of programming interface.
`
`C. Relevant Advanced Computing Concepts History of Heterogeneous Computers
`12. Many architectural enhancements were developed and leveraged over the years
`
`sometimes as a concept utilized internally to enhance the conventional architectures or to be
`
`used externally to provide computing acceleration. Among these concepts that are relevant
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-4
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`here are array processing/spatial parallelism, pipelining, systolic arrays, data flow
`
`architectures, vector processors and heterogeneous (accelerated) computing.
`
`13. Array Processing/Spatial Parallelism- when the underlying has a great deal of data
`
`parallelism, in other words multiple data items that need to be processed in the same way at
`
`the same time, this parallelism can be exploited to speed up the computation. In conventional
`
`processors only if multiple independent processing units are available they can be used up to
`
`the available fixed number of such units. In the case of FPGAs, as many units as needed by the
`
`application are created and used thereby enabling better unitization of the chip and a much
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`more speed of processing.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`14. Dataflow Processing: This is a form of processing which is data driven, where rather
`
`than executing instructions one by one from the program as in traditional systems (control
`
`flow), activities are executed when their input data are received.
`
`15. Pipelining: Pipelining is a form of overlapped processing established by breaking the
`
`processor needed for a computation into physical modules, called stages that correspond to the
`
`subtasks that make up that overall computation. Computations that correspond to different
`
`data can be processed concurrently one by each different stage to gain speed. In conventional
`
`processors a pipeline can be used for instruction processing and a fixed number of pipelines can
`
`be available for arithmetic.
`
`16. Systolic Arrays: A systolic arrays is a homogeneous array of interconnected processing
`
`elements to perform synchronized processing of data as they proceed in a wave-front style
`
`through the array. An analogy between the data movement and the blood circulation in the
`
`body is the basis for the name.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-5
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`17. Vector Processors: a vector processor is a fixed processor that is optimized for
`
`processing vectors/arrays. It has multiple functional units that are built around pipelines that
`
`can even be chained connecting the inputs of some to the outputs of the others to form even
`
`longer pipelines for obtaining higher speedups. A vector processor also have internal registers
`
`that can hold vector operands. Vector processors are typically back end processors, i.e., are
`
`managed by a conventional processor. They are suitable for manipulating long arrays.
`
`18. Heterogeneous Accelerators: Heterogeneous processors or accelerators are specialized
`
`processors that are interconnected to a conventional processor to provide accelerated
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`processing for areas that specialize in. Examples include graphical processing units (GPUs),
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`FPGAs and gaming processors.
`
`D. SRC Computers
`19. In the early 2000 my team, which I direct at GWU, has undertaken in cooperation with
`
`the government research projects to evaluate the current state of the art in high-performance
`
`reconfigurable computing at the time and help advance this field. As part of the process we
`
`acquired the first SRC systems (SRC 6 serial #1) among other ones from other vendors to
`
`thoroughly evaluate. The state of the art at the time was that FPGA boards used as
`
`heterogeneous accelerators were connected to the main system processor through the PCI Bus.
`
`Our observation was that this has established a limitation on the performance of such systems.
`
`The SRC was the only product that used the RAM bus to connect the FPGA resources to the
`
`main processor, which did set SRC apart from the rest. SRC systems also had in addition a
`
`more matured software system and training structure.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-6
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`20. I have been informed and understand that one of cannons of claim construction is that
`
`V.
`
`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. I have also been informed that the Court’s claim constructions will be the basis
`
`for the jury instructions at trial so my understanding of the claim terms as one of skill in the art
`
`should be translated into plain English, to the extent that is possible, to aid the jury’s
`
`understanding.
`
`21. 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 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.
`
`22. 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
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-7
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`appropriate. Generally, however, technical dictionaries in the relevant field should take
`
`precedence over general dictionaries.
`
`23. I have also been informed that § 112, ¶6 does not does not apply to a claim term if the
`
`term is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning
`
`as the name for a structure.
`
`24. I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the meaning of the following claim
`
`terms using the legal principals I was instructed on above.
`
`B. Claim Terms from the 6,076,152 & 6,247,110 Patents
`1. “memory bank” – claims 1, 3, 11
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`A physical location viewed by the data
`processor as part of the memory subsystem
`having a range of memory addresses that
`may be accessed using only memory access
`methods
`
`Microsoft’s Proposed Construction
`a group of devices which are a part of the
`memory subsystem and connected together
`for use as a memory for a data processor
`
`
`
`
`25. Microsoft’s proposed construction is too narrow because it implies that only memory
`
`can be put into a memory bank. This is clearly inconsistent with the whole computer
`
`architecture field as it eliminates the well-established practice of memory-mapped I/O for
`
`example which places I/O devices at memory locations. This is particularly incorrect in the
`
`context of the ’152/’110 patents because the MAP processors are located in the memory banks.
`
`This is clearly illustrated by Fig. 3, which shows the MAP Assembly as part of the overall
`
`Memory Bank:
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-8
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 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
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`2. “Means connecting said plurality of memory algorithm processors to said data bus and
`to said address bus such that said plurality of memory algorithm processors are
`individually addressable by said at least one data processor as said at least one data
`processor executes said application program” – claim 1
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Not a means plus function claim element.
`Alternatively:
`
`Function: allow the plurality of memory
`algorithm processors to be accessible using
`normal memory access protocols by the data
`processor
`
`Structure: placing the plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory space
`
`Microsoft’s Proposed Construction
`Function: connecting said plurality of
`memory algorithm processors to said data
`bus and to said address bus such that said
`plurality of memory algorithm processors are
`individually addressable by said at least one
`data processor as said at least one data
`processor executes said application program
`
`Structure: No disclosed corresponding
`structure.
`
`
`
`
`26. I have been informed by counsel for Plaintiffs that there is a class of claim limitations
`
`called means plus function claim elements. If it qualifies as a means plus function claim
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-9
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`element, then the Court must construe the function stated in the claim element according to
`
`normal rules of claim construction. After the function is identified, the Court must then
`
`examine the patent specification to locate the structure corresponding to the claimed function.
`
`I have been informed that the corresponding structure may be disclosed anywhere in the patent
`
`specification and may be generically described if the structure was well known in the art at the
`
`time of invention. I have also been informed that if the patent specification fails to disclose
`
`adequate corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite.
`
`27. The parties disagree about whether this term is a means plus function claim element. I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`understand that here there is a rebuttable presumption that this claim term is a means plus
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`function limitation because this it uses the word “means.” But I understand that this
`
`presumption can be overcome if the claim itself connotes to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`28. There are several issues that need to be resolved regarding this claim term (i) whether
`
`this claim term is a means plus function limitation and (ii) if so, the proper construction of the
`
`function and the structure corresponding to that function.
`
`29. Based on my reading of the claim language, patent specification, and prosecution
`
`history it is my opinion that this claim limitation is not a means plus function element because
`
`it describes sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, which is to “allow the plurality
`
`of memory algorithm processors to be accessible using normal memory access protocols by the
`
`data processor.”
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-10
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`30. This construction comports with my understanding of the ordinary meaning of the
`
`claim term, which states: “such that said plurality of memory algorithm processors are
`
`individually addressable by said at least one data processor.”
`
`31. The prosecution history and specification confirm this construction by repeatedly
`
`stating that the processor can access the memory algorithm processors using normal memory
`
`access protocols:
`
`Wherein the data processor’s memory bank contains memory
`algorithm processors that are memory addressable by the data
`processor – that is, the data processor views the memory
`algorithm processors merely as part of the data processor’s
`memory.1
`
`By placing MAPS 112 in the MEMORY SPACE that is
`associated with the plurality of PROCESSORS 108, any given
`MAP 112 can be readily accessed by any given PROCESSORS
`108 merely through the use of memory read operation or
`memory write operation.2
`
`Each of the processors 108 “views” each individual one of the
`plurality of USER FPGAs 134 merely as an individual memory
`addressable locations within memory bank 120.3
`
`Still further provided is a computer system memory structure
`which includes one or more FPGAs for the purpose of using
`normal memory access protocol to access it as well as being
`capable of direct memory access ("DMA") operation.4
`
`The computer architecture 100 comprises a multiprocessor
`system employing uniform memory access across common
`
`
`1 SRC00002102
`2 SRC00002103.
`3 SRC00002106.
`4 ’152 patent, 2:16-20.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-11
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`shared memory with one or more MAPs 112 located in the
`memory subsystem, or memory space.5
`
`By placing the MAP 112 in the memory subsystem or memory
`space, it can be readily accessed through the use of memory
`read and write commands, which allows the use of a variety of
`standard operating systems.6
`
`32. I understand these statements to disclose physically locating the memory algorithm
`
`processors in the memory space of the processor. This structure enables the processor to access
`
`the memory algorithm processors using normal memory access protocols, such as memory
`
`read and write commands. Such functionality is implied from the structure and is obvious to
`
`anyone with average experience in the field. They are also addressed in some of the patents
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`themselves.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`33. The claim itself discloses the structure needed to enable this functionality by describing
`
`a “memory bank with a data bus and an address bus connected to said at least one data
`
`processor” with “a plurality of memory algorithm processors within individually addressable
`
`portions of said memory bank”:
`
`1. In a computer system having at least one data processor for executing an
`application program by operating on user data in accordance with
`application program instructions, said computer system having at least one
`memory bank with a data bus and an address bus connected to said at
`least one data processor, the improvement comprising:
`a plurality of memory algorithm processors within individually addressable
`portions of said memory bank;
`means connecting said plurality of memory algorithm processors to said data
`bus and to said address bus such that said plurality of memory algorithm
`processors are individually memory addressable by said at least one data
`processor as said at least one data processor executes said application
`program; and
`
`5 ’152 patent, 4:1-4.
`6 ’152 patent, 4:29-32.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-12
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`said plurality of memory algorithm processors being configured as individual
`data processing machines that can be memory addressed to perform data
`processing related to said application program in accordance with an
`identified algorithm, said data processing being performed on at least one
`operand that is received as a result of a write operation to said memory bank
`by said at least one data processor.
`
`34. This is confirmed by Dr. Trimberger’s declaration that was filed as Ex. 1003 to
`
`Microsoft’s Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the ’152 patent (“Trimberger
`
`Decl.”). In his declaration, Dr. Trimberger states that locating the memory algorithm
`
`processors in the processor’s memory would make them individually memory addressable by
`
`the processor. 7
`
`35. Dr. Trimberger agrees that “A Skilled Artisan would therefore understand that
`
`‘memory addressable’ in the context of the 152 Patent means accessible using normal memory
`
`access protocol.”8
`
`36. Alternatively, if the Court finds that this claim element is a means plus function claim
`
`then I believe that the function should must be construed as “allow the plurality of memory
`
`algorithm processors to be accessible using normal memory access protocols by the data
`
`processor.”
`
`37. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is “placing the plurality of
`
`memory algorithm processors in the memory space.” This is described in numerous places.
`
`38. The Abstract describes “A multiprocessor computer architecture incorpating a plurality
`
`of programmable hardware memory algorithm processors (‘MAP’) in the memory subsystem.”
`
`
`7 Trimberger Decl. at ¶¶ 156-174.
`8 Trimberger Decl. at ¶¶ 79-84.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-13
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 15 of 20
`
`39. Figures 2 and 3 shows MAPs located in the memory space (or memory bank):
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-14
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`40. The architectural structure of locating the plurality of memory algorithm processors in
`
`the memory space is what makes them accessible to the data processor using normal memory
`
`access protocols by the data processor:
`
`Still further provided is a computer system memory structure
`which includes one or more FPGAs for the purpose of using
`normal memory access protocol to access it as well as being
`capable of direct memory access ("DMA") operation.9
`
`The computer architecture 100 comprises a multiprocessor
`system employing uniform memory access across common
`shared memory with one or more MAPs 112 located in the
`memory subsystem, or memory space.10
`
`By placing the MAP 112 in the memory subsystem or memory
`space, it can be readily accessed through the use of memory
`read and write commands, which allows the use of a variety of
`standard operating systems.11
`
`41. The patented invention states the very purpose of locating the memory algorithm
`
`processors in the memory space (or memory bank) is so that they may be accessed using these
`
`the same “normal memory access protocol” that a CPU uses to store and retrieve data from
`
`memory.12 This would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`December 1997.
`
`42. Accordingly, if this claim element is a means plus function claim element it is not
`
`indefinite because the patent specification discloses adequate corresponding structure that
`
`clearly implies the function.
`
`
`9 ’152 patent, 2:16-20.
`10 ’152 patent, 4:1-4.
`11 ’152 patent, 4:29-32.
`12 ’152 patent, 2:16-20.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-15
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 17 of 20
`
`
`
`3. “means coupling said plurality of individual memory algorithm processors to said data
`bus and to said address bus” – claim 11
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Not a means plus function. In the
`alternative, if the court disagrees:
`
`Function: allows the memory algorithm
`processors to be individually memory
`addressable
`
`Structure: connecting the plurality of
`memory algorithm processors to the data bus
`and address bus
`
`Microsoft’s Proposed Construction
`Function: “coupling said plurality of
`individual memory algorithm processors to
`said data bus and to said address bus”
`
`Structure: No disclosed corresponding
`structure
`
`
`
`
`
`43. As with the prior term, the parties disagree about whether this term is a means plus
`
`function claim element. So again there are several issues that need to be resolved regarding this
`
`claim term (i) whether this claim term is a means plus function limitation and (ii) if so, the
`
`proper construction of the function and the structure corresponding to that function.
`
`44. Based on my reading of the claim language, patent specification, and prosecution
`
`history it is my opinion that this claim limitation is not a means plus function element because
`
`it is describing only a structure.
`
`45. The “means coupling” anything to a bus would always be a structure. This is because it
`
`is a description of which modules (in this case the memory algorithm processors, the data bus
`
`and the address bus) are attached to one another.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-16
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 18 of 20
`
`
`
`46. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.
`
`47. A processors memory bank or memory space is always connected to a data bus or
`
`address bus. So if the memory algorithm processors are in the memory bank then they will be
`
`connected to a data bus and address bus.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TAREK EL-GHAZAWI
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-321-JLR-17
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK. L.L.P.
`1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3053
`TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900
`FACSIMILE: (206) 623-3384
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2046, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 131-19 Filed 11/05/18 Page 19 of 20
`
`
`
`C. Claim Terms from the 7,421,524 Patent
`1. “memory module bus” – claims 1, 3, 11
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`a bus used to communicate with a range of
`locations where a memory module could be
`inserted and accessed by the data processor
`
`Microsoft’s Proposed Construction
`A bus used to communicate with a memory
`module
`
`
`
`48. In the context of this case, the SRC definition is correct because it does not restrict only
`
`memory to be mapped to