Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner
`
`Title:
`
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`Issued: November 17, 2009
`Filed: April 9, 2007
`Inventors: Jon M. Huppenthal, David E. Caliga
`MULTI-ADAPTIVE PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND
`TECHNIQUES FOR ENHANCING PARALLELISM AND
`PERFORMANCE OF COMPUTATIONAL FUNCTIONS
`____________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-01606
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HAROLD STONE REGARDING U.S. PATENT
`NO. 7,620,800
`________________________
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, Cover 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`I, Harold Stone, do hereby declare andstate, that all statements made herein of my
`
`own knowledgearetrue and that all statements made on information andbelief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were madewith the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements andthe like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed on:~y/4 ,2018
`
`Harold Stone
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, Cover 2
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, Cover 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`A.
`Engagement ...........................................................................................1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications.............................................................1
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony......................................................4
`D.
`Information Considered.........................................................................6
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY..........................................6
`A.
`Anticipation ...........................................................................................8
`B.
`Obviousness...........................................................................................9
`III. THE ’800 PATENT.......................................................................................16
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ...........................................................................16
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill .......................................................................16
`C.
`Overview of 800 Patent.......................................................................17
`D.
`Prosecution History of 800 Patent.......................................................20
`E.
`Challenged Claims of the 800 Patent ..................................................22
`F.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................25
`1.
`“functional unit”........................................................................26
`2.
`“data driven” .............................................................................27
`3.
`“transforming an algorithm into a data driven calculation” .....28
`4.
`“form” .......................................................................................30
`5.
`“clusters of functional units” ....................................................32
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. i
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`“data dimension”.......................................................................33
`6.
`“seamlessly”..............................................................................34
`7.
`“data mining” ............................................................................35
`8.
`“genetic pattern matching function” .........................................37
`9.
`“protein folding function”.........................................................38
`10.
`“organic structure interaction function” ...................................39
`11.
`“data driven” .............................................................................40
`12.
`“plane”.......................................................................................41
`13.
`IV. COMPARISON OF THE 800 PATENT TO THE PRIOR ART..................44
`A.
`Buell et al, Splash 2, FPGAs in a Custom Computing Machine (1996)
`(“Splash2”) (EX1007) .........................................................................44
`1.
`General Architecture of Splash 2..............................................44
`2.
`Systolic Algorithms For Searching Genetic Databases ............49
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable..........................................61
`1.
`Claim 1 is Unpatentable............................................................66
`2.
`Claim 2 is Unpatentable..........................................................123
`3.
`Claim 3 is Unpatentable..........................................................143
`4.
`Claim 4 is Unpatentable..........................................................144
`5.
`Claim 5 is Unpatentable..........................................................145
`6.
`Claims 8 and 9 Are Unpatentable ...........................................148
`7.
`Claim 15 is Unpatentable........................................................171
`8.
`Claim 17 is Unpatentable........................................................172
`ii
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. ii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`9.
`Claim 18 is Unpatentable........................................................194
`10. Claim 20 is Unpatentable........................................................196
`11. Claim 21 is Unpatentable........................................................219
`12. Claim 22 is Unpatentable........................................................221
`13. Claim 23 is Unpatentable........................................................251
`14. Claim 24 is Unpatentable........................................................252
`15. Claim 7 is Unpatentable..........................................................254
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. iii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Microsoft as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800 (“the
`
`800 Patent”) (EX1005) and on the patentability of certain claims of this patent.
`
`The following is my declaration on these topics.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I was awarded a Ph.D. and Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of California-Berkeley in 1963 and 1961, respectively. I
`
`received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Princeton
`
`University in 1960.
`
`3.
`
`After my graduation from Berkeley in 1963, I served as a Research
`
`Engineer at Boeing and SRI International. I then held faculty positions at Stanford
`
`University and at the University of Massachusetts, where I served as a professor of
`
`computer science and electrical engineering.
`
`4.
`
`In 1984, I started working for IBM as a Manager of Advanced
`
`Architecture Studies. In 1990, I became a Research Staff Member at IBM. During
`1
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`my time at IBM, I managed and conducted research in the area of memory systems
`
`and optical interconnections. I worked at IBM until 1994, when I became a Fellow
`
`at the NEC Research Institute, the highest technical position in the company. At
`
`NEC, I conducted research in image processing. I am an inventor of a patent to
`
`NEC regarding a technique for decompressing JPEG images in a novel way that
`
`permits images to be searched without fully decompressing them. The
`
`decompression technique is based on inverse discrete cosine transforms, which are
`
`one of the basic elements of MPEG decompression.
`
`5.
`
`I have authored, coauthored, or edited 9 books in various technical
`
`areas, the most recent of which appeared in 2011. My textbooks have sold over
`
`100,000 copies. My work on the use of the perfect shuffle interconnections for
`
`supercomputers is widely recognized, and many supercomputers based on these
`
`interconnections were developed and marketed. For this work and my textbook
`
`contributions to the field, I was elected an IEEE Fellow and ACM Fellow, and
`
`received the IEEE Piore Field Award, the IEEE Computer Society Taylor Booth
`
`Award, and the Charles Babbage Award. The work on the perfect shuffle was a
`
`forerunner of work in systolic arrays, insofar as it involved highly parallel
`
`processors and seamless dataflow. The perfect shuffle, in fact, created
`
`opportunities for seamless dataflow that had not been known before. The work
`2
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`also included research into fast parallel tri-diagonal solvers, which is subject matter
`
`mentioned by the patent in this IPR. EX1005, 6:51-56.
`
`6.
`
`I am the principal inventor or co-inventor of 27 patents, including
`
`seven in the area of computer architecture - U.S. Patent Nos. 4,989,131, 5,065,310,
`
`5,163,149, 5,611,070, 5,742,785, 5,790,823, and 6,311,260. US Patent 6,259,820 is
`
`in the area of progressive JPEG decompression. I note that JPEG image processing
`
`is a subject discussed by the patent in this IPR. EX1005, 9:43-49. Progressive
`
`JPEG decompression is used widely today on web pages to display images, most
`
`notably by the Washington Post.
`
`7.
`
`I have served as a consultant to industry while holding my academic
`
`positions and have extensive experience in computer design for embedded
`
`computers as a consequence, including low-power computers for use in satellites
`
`and ultra-reliable computers for use in nuclear submarine navigation systems. In
`
`recent years I have been a member of two Division Review Committees at Los
`
`Alamos National Laboratory in the area of Nuclear Nonproliferation and a
`
`consultant to NASA in the area of satellite image processing.
`
`8.
`
`In 1977, together with W. Kahan and J. Coonen, I authored the
`
`original proposal (“the KCS proposal”) to the working group charged for
`
`developing a floating-point standard, which is now known as the IEEE 754
`3
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`Floating Point Standard. The standard that emerged is that proposal with small
`
`changes and additions. It has been implemented in several billion processors.
`
`9.
`
`My Curriculum Vitae, including my publications and patents, is
`
`submitted herewith as EX1004.
`
`C.
`
`10.
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $500 per hour for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`11.
`
`Previously, I have testified either by deposition or at trial in the
`
`following litigation matters. The list below includes all deposition and trial
`
`testimony within the last five years:
`
`•
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. et al. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas), Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP;
`
`•
`
`Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. (U.S. District
`
`Court, Eastern District of North Carolina), Case No. 5:07-cv-00426-H;
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`•
`
`Microunity Systems Engineering Inc v. Acer Inc et al. (U.S. District
`
`Court, Eastern District of Texas), Case No. 2:10-cv-00091-LED-RSP;
`
`•
`
`Technology Service Corporation v. Mountcastle et al. (U.S. District
`
`Court, Eastern District of Virginia – Alexandria), Case No. 1:10-cv-00901-
`
`TSE-TCB;
`
`•
`
`BIAX Corporation v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. (U.S. District
`
`Court, District of Colorado – Denver), Case No. 1:10-cv-03013-PAB-KLM;
`
`•
`
`Certain Computing Devices with Associated Instructions Sets and
`
`Software (International Trade Commission), Inv. 337-TA-812;
`
`•
`
`Stragent, LLC et al. v. Intel Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern
`
`District of Texas – Tyler), Case No. 6:11-cv-00421-TBD-JDL;
`
`•
`
`Convolve Inc. et al. v. Compaq Computer Corporation et al., (U.S.
`
`District Court, Southern District of New York – Foley Square), Case No.
`
`1:00-cv-05141-GBD-JCF; and
`
`•
`
`PUMA v. Samsung et al., 2:14-cv-687-JRG-RSP; PUMA v. HTC et
`
`al., 2:14-cv-689-JRG-RSP; and PUMA v. HTC et al., 2:14-cv-690- RSP
`
`(U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas), and IPR2015-01500,
`
`IPR2015-01501, and IPR2015-01502.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`•
`
`Netlist v. SK hynix, IPR2015-01494, IPR2015-01500, IPR2015-
`
`01501, IPR2015-01502, IPR2015-01503, IPR2015-01944, IPR2015-01946,
`
`IPR2016-00924, and IPR2016-00925, IPR2017-00549, IPR2017-00577,
`
`IPR2017-00667, IPR2017-00668, IPR2018-00362, and IPR 2018-00363.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`12. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in the Petition’s Attachment B.
`
`13.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`14. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`6
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`15.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the 800 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`16.
`
`First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`17.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Microsoft has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the 800 Patent are anticipated by or obvious in view of
`
`the prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely true than it is not.
`
`19. As I discuss further in the claim construction section below, I
`
`understand that the 800 Patent is not expired, so its claims must be given the
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed are then to be compared to the information in the prior art.
`7
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the prior art references that may
`
`be evaluated as a basis for a finding of unpatentability are limited to patents and
`
`printed publications. My analysis below compares the claims to patents and
`
`printed publications that are prior art to the claims.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`22.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether the claims
`
`of the patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent may be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication may be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`8
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that if a reference incorporates other documents by
`
`reference, the incorporating reference and the incorporated reference(s) should be
`
`treated as a single prior art reference for purposes of analyzing anticipation.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B.
`
`28.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`30. A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention
`
`was made.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the asserted claims of the patent at issue here would have
`
`been considered obvious as of the relevant priority date. I have been asked to
`
`assume that the priority date for the claims at issue here is October 31, 2002.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`(cid:120)
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`10
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`and
`
`Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may be present in any particular case.
`
`33.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the time the invention was made.
`
`34.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`11
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`35.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`36.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`12
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where the Court rejected the previous
`
`requirement of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements
`
`of prior art for purposes of an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding
`
`obviousness. It is my understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that
`
`would have been known to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or
`
`derived from the nature of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why
`
`references would have been combined.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`40.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`as of the effective filing date and can provide a reason for combining the elements
`
`of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need
`
`to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent.
`
`Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed
`
`towards solving the same problem.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`14
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`42.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`43.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`III. THE ’800 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`44.
`
`Effective Filing Date
`
`I understand Patent Owner has claimed a priority date of October 31,
`
`2002 for the 800 Patent. EX1013, Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement
`
`Contentions, Case No. 1:17-cv-01172 (LO/JFA), Jan. 19, 2018, 3. I have been
`
`asked to assume that date in my analysis.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`45. Based on my experience in the field and the information I discuss
`
`herein, I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the 800 Patent
`
`(which I would describe as reconfigurable processor systems design) in the 2002
`
`time frame (“a Skilled Artisan”) would have been someone with an advanced
`
`degree in electrical or computer engineering, or computer science with substantial
`
`study in computer architecture, hardware design, and computer algorithms. In
`
`addition to the educational background, that person would also have had at least
`
`three years’ experience working in the field. Alternatively, that person would have
`
`had a bachelor’s degree covering those disciplines and at least four years working
`
`the field. Such a person would also have been knowledgeable about the
`
`programming, design and operation of computer systems based on reconfigurable
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`components such as FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays) and CPLDs
`
`(complex programmable logic devices), including computer systems for
`
`performing systolic and data driven calculations. That person would also have
`
`been familiar with hardware description languages such as VHDL that could be
`
`used to configure FPGAs and CPLDS that serve as components of reconfigurable
`
`computer systems. Finally, as demonstrated by many of the references discussed
`
`herein, such a person would also have been familiar with various other areas of
`
`technology that by 2002 had relied on high performance and parallel computing
`
`systems, such as genetic sequence comparisons, image processing, data mining,
`
`and processing related to proteins and organic structures.
`
`C.
`
`46.
`
`Overview of 800 Patent
`
`The 800 Patent is entitled “Multi-Adaptive Processing Systems And
`
`Techniques For Enhancing Parallelism And Performance Of Computational
`
`Functions.” EX1005, Face. It claims a method of using a reconfigurable
`
`computing system to process a “data driven” calculation during which different
`
`data dimensions of a calculation are simultaneously processed by lines of code
`
`formed as clusters of functional units. Id., 12:45-13:8.
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`47.
`
`The Background section of the 800 Patent states that multiprocessor
`
`systems using parallel processing were known in the prior art, id., 1:44-52, but that
`
`“as more and more performance is required, so is more parallelism, resulting in
`
`ever larger systems. Clusters exist today that have tens of thousands of processors
`
`and can occupy football fields of space. Systems of such a large physical size
`
`present many obvious downsides, including, among other factors, facility
`
`requirements, power, heat generation and reliability.” Id., 1:55-61.
`
`48.
`
`The patent states that the solution to this supposed problem is “a
`
`processor technology could be employed that offers orders of magnitude more
`
`parallelism per processor,” id., 1:65-67, and that such a technology exists in the
`
`form of “a reconfigurable processor.” Id., 2:1-2.
`
`49.
`
`The patent depicts such a technology in Figure 2 (below), showing an
`
`adaptive processor 200 that includes “an adaptive processor chip 202 [that]
`
`incorporates a large number of functional units ("FU") 204 interconnected by
`
`reconfigurable routing resources.” Id., 5:29-36.
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`50. Relevant to the claims at issue here, the 800 Patent states that the
`
`conventional approach to implementing nested loops in “a conventional sequential
`
`processing operation” is problematic because “all of the logic that has been
`
`instantiated is not being completely utilized.” Id., 5: