`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VENKAT KONDA
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent No. 8,369,523 B2
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF R. JACOB BAKER, PH.D., P.E.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FLEX LOGIX EXHIBIT 1052
`Flex Logix Technologies v. Venkat Konda
`IPR2020-00260
`
`Page 1 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 2
`II.
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ........................................................................... 5
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7
`V.
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................... 8
`A.
`Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) ......................................... 8
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’523 PATENT ......................................................... 17
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 29
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 29
`A. Wong ................................................................................................... 29
`IX. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES OR SUGGESTS ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 49, 63-66, 68-70, 80, AND
`95 .................................................................................................................. 34
`A. Wong Discloses the Features of Substitute Claims 49 and 68-70 ...... 34
`1.
`Claim 49 ................................................................................... 37
`2.
`Claim 68 ................................................................................. 125
`3.
`Claim 69 ................................................................................. 127
`4.
`Claim 70 ................................................................................. 130
`B. Wong Discloses or Suggests the Features of Substitute Claims
`63-66, 80, and 95 .............................................................................. 132
`1.
`Claim 63 ................................................................................. 132
`2.
`Claim 64 ................................................................................. 135
`3.
`Claim 65 ................................................................................. 140
`4.
`Claim 66 ................................................................................. 144
`5.
`Claim 80 ................................................................................. 147
`6.
`Claim 95 ................................................................................. 147
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 156
`
`

`

`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 153
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`I, R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by Flex Logix, Inc. (“Petitioner”) as an
`1.
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523 (“the ’523 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001).1 I previously submitted a declaration (which I understand was submitted
`
`as Ex. 1002) in this proceeding. I now submit the present declaration in support of
`
`what I understand is Petitioner’s opposition to a Venkat Konda’s (“Patent Owner’s”)
`
`motion to amend claims of the ’523 patent.2 I have been asked to consider whether
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,940,308 (“Wong”) (Ex. 1008) discloses or suggests the features
`
`recited certain substitute claims (claims 49, 63-66, 68-70, 80, and 95) proposed and
`
`
`1 Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits that I understand are to be attached to the
`
`petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’523 patent.
`
`2 As I discuss below in Sections III and VI, I understand that Patent Owner filed
`
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 as Paper
`
`No. 34 in this proceeding, and that the appendix in that motion contains Patent
`
`Owner’s listing of substitute claims, which I have summarized in tabular format in
`
`Section VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`submitted by Patent Owner in the motion to amend—namely, substitute claims 49-
`
`96, which are listed below in Sections VI and IX. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`As I discuss below in Section VI, I understand that the proposed substitute claims
`
`are identical (apart from claim dependency) to the issued claims (which are claims
`
`1-48) of the ’523 patent in many respects, and differ in a few respects.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $615/hour for my work in this
`
`proceeding. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings,
`
`the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I presently serve as a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`3.
`
`at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). All of my opinions stated in this
`
`declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional judgment. In
`
`forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and experience in designing,
`
`developing, researching, and teaching regarding circuit design, networks and
`
`switches used to implement field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs).
`
`4.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of
`
`my current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`academic experience, is being submitted by Petitioner. The following provides an
`
`overview of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I have been teaching electrical engineering at UNLV since 2012. Prior
`
`to this position, I was a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boise
`
`State University from 2000. Prior to my position at Boise State University, I was an
`
`Associate Professor Electrical Engineering between 1998 and 2000 and Assistant
`
`Professor of Electrical Engineering between 1993 and 1998 at the University of
`
`Idaho. I have been teaching electrical engineering since 1991.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`Nevada, Reno in 1993. I also received a MS and BS in Electrical Engineering from
`
`UNLV in 1988 and 1986, respectively.
`
`7.
`
`As described in my curriculum vitae, which I understand is being
`
`provided as Exhibit 1003, I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of Idaho
`
`and have more than 30 years of experience, including extensive experience in circuit
`
`designs for networks and communications including the design of modems, driver
`
`circuits, phase- and delay-locked loops for PCI, USB, and DDR standard
`
`specifications.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`I have taught courses in integrated circuit design (analog, digital,
`
`8.
`
`mixed-signal, memory circuit design, etc.), linear circuits, microelectronics,
`
`communication systems, and fiber optics. As a professor, I have been the main
`
`advisor to over 90 Master’s and Doctoral students.
`
`9.
`
`I am the author of several books covering the area of integrated circuit
`
`design including: DRAM Circuit Design: Fundamental and High-Speed Topics (two
`
`editions), CMOS Circuit Design, Layout, and Simulation (four editions), and CMOS
`
`Mixed-Signal Circuit Design (two editions). I have authored, and coauthored, more
`
`than 100 papers and presentations in the areas of solid-state circuit design, the design
`
`of field-programmable gate array (FPGA) data converters, and circuits used in
`
`standard specification implementations including double data rate (DDR) for
`
`communications. I am the named inventor on 151 granted U.S. patents. My
`
`textbook CMOS Circuit Design, Layout, and Simulation includes, among other
`
`things, sections covering digital logic gates as well as phase- and delay-locked loops
`
`for networking and communications.
`
`10.
`
`I have received numerous awards for my work, including the Frederick
`
`Emmons Terman (the “Father of Silicon Valley”) Award. The Terman Award is
`
`bestowed annually upon an outstanding young electrical/computer engineering
`
`educator in recognition of the educator’s contributions to the profession.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE for contributions to memory circuit design.
`
`11.
`
`I have also received the IEEE Circuits and Systems Education Award (2011).
`
`12.
`
`I have received the President’s Research and Scholarship Award
`
`(2005), Honored Faculty Member recognition (2003), and Outstanding Department
`
`of Electrical Engineering Faculty recognition (2001), all from Boise State
`
`University. I have also received the Tau Beta Pi Outstanding Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering Professor award four of the years I have been at UNLV.
`
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of
`
`my work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`14. The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and
`
`knowledge regarding integrated circuits, including networks and switches used to
`
`implement field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs).
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed the
`
`’523 patent (Ex. 1001); my previously submitted declaration in this proceeding (Ex.
`
`1002); File History of the ’523 patent (Ex. 1004); PCT Publication No.
`
`WO2008/147928 (Ex. 1005); U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553 (Ex. 1006); Body of PCT
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`Application No. PCT/US08/64605 As Filed (“the ’605 PCT”) (Ex. 1007); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,940,308 (“Wong”) (Ex. 1008); File History of U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/940,394 (Ex. 1026); U.S. Patent No. 3,358,269 (“Benes”) (Ex.
`
`1040); U.S. Patent No. 5,847,577 (“Trimberger”) (Ex. 1043); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,558,967 (“Wong-967”) (Ex. 1044); U.S. Patent No. 4,874,971 (“Fletcher”) (Ex.
`
`1045); U.S. Patent No. 10,050,904 (Ex. 1054); Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion
`
`to Amend Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (which I understand is Paper No. 34 in this
`
`proceeding); and any other materials I refer to in this Declaration in support of my
`
`opinions.
`
`16. All of the opinions contained in this declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. My opinions
`
`have also been guided by my appreciation of how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the claims and the specification of the ’523 patent at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, which I have been asked to initially consider was the
`
`mid-to-late-2000s timeframe (including May 25, 2007, the filing date of U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/940,394, which I understand is the earliest
`
`possible priority date for the ’523 patent.). My opinions reflect how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood the ’523 patent, the prior art to the patent, and
`
`the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`17. Based on my experience and expertise, it is my opinion that Wong
`
`discloses the features of substitute claims 49 and 68-70, and Wong discloses or
`
`suggests the features of substitute claims 63-66, 80, and 95.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I am familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`18.
`
`the alleged inventions of the ’523 patent as of what I understand is the earliest
`
`possible priority date of May 25, 2007, which is the filing date of U.S. Provisional
`
`Patent Application No. 60/940,394 to which the ’523 patent claims priority.
`
`Specifically, based on my review of the ’523 patent, the technology, the educational
`
`level and experience of active workers in the field, the types of problems faced by
`
`workers in the field, the solutions found to those problems, the sophistication of the
`
`technology in the field, and drawing on my own experience, I believe a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had would have had a master’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or a similar field, and at least two to three years of experience
`
`with integrated circuits and networks. More education can supplement practical
`
`experience and vice versa. Depending on the engineering background and level of
`
`education of a person, it would have taken a few years for the person to become
`
`familiar with the problems encountered in the art and to become familiar with the
`
`prior and current solutions to those problems.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`19. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, as I have defined it here, during the relevant timeframe,
`
`i.e., mid-to-late 2000s.
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`In this section, I present a brief overview of certain aspects of switching
`20.
`
`networks and FPGAs at the time of the alleged invention that will assist in better
`
`understanding the ’523 patent and the prior art that I discuss in this declaration. For
`
`example, the prior art I discuss in this declaration and the ’523 patent generally
`
`relates to switching networks that can be used to route signals between logic blocks
`
`included on an integrated circuit device. Below, I begin with a description of some
`
`fundamental aspects of FPGAs such as those described in the ’523 patent and/or
`
`prior art references cited in this declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs)
`21. Wong (Ex. 1008), which was filed on January 23, 2004 and claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed on August 4, 2000 (i.e., long before the
`
`alleged invention in the ’523 patent), and which issued on September 6, 2005,
`
`provides a good overview of FPGAs and example networks used in FPGAs. FPGAs
`
`are integrated circuits that are designed to allow a user to configure the circuitry of
`
`the FPGA to perform a desired function after the FPGA integrated circuit has already
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`been manufactured. (Ex. 1008 at 1:18-21.) As the name implies, FPGAs include an
`
`array or arrays of programmable logic blocks (e.g., gates), where the connections
`
`between the logic blocks can be set up after manufacturing and therefore are
`
`considered to be “field-programmable.” In other words, once manufacturing is
`
`complete, the FPGA integrated circuit device includes logic and a network
`
`interconnecting the logic, where the user can configure the logic and interconnection
`
`network such that the FPGA performs a desired processing function. The
`
`interconnection network on the FPGA is used to provide the configurable
`
`connections between the programmable logic blocks. (Id. at 1:22-25.)
`
`22.
`
`In FPGAs such as those discussed in Wong, the interconnection
`
`network that connects the logic blocks includes links between programmable
`
`switches, where the links provide connections between the switches and also provide
`
`connections from the switches to the logic blocks in the FPGA. As such, the links
`
`are the inputs to, and outputs from, the switches. Within each switch, the inputs to
`
`the switch are programmably routed to particular outputs of the switch. (Id. at 1:61-
`
`2:6.) For example, figure 3D of Wong (below) illustrates an interconnection network
`
`that includes a plurality of switches 20 (shown as square boxes) that can be used to
`
`route any of the inputs to the network on the left to any of the outputs of the network
`
`on the right. (Id. at 4:18-26, FIG. 3D.) The arrows between the switches correspond
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`to the “links” in the network. According to Wong, the particular network illustrated
`
`in figure 3D is an 8x8 Benes network that has eight inputs and eight outputs. (Id. at
`
`2:36-37.)
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 3D.)
`
`23. Each of the switches 20 shown in the network of figure 3D above is a
`
`2x2 switch that has two inputs and two outputs. (Id. at 2:31-37, 5:4-6, FIG. 3D.) As
`
`shown in figures 2A and 2B of Wong below, each switch can be set up in either a
`
`“pass” configuration where the inputs are passed straight through to the outputs (with
`
`the upper input passed to the upper output, and the lower input passed to the lower
`
`output) or set up in a “cross” configuration where the upper input is routed to the
`
`lower output and vice-versa. (Id. at 2:27-29, 5:6-13.) As further disclosed by Wong,
`
`“[t]he building block of the described Benes network is the 2x2 (2 input, 2 output)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`switch 20, having operations illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B” (id. at 5:4-6) where
`
`“[t]hese 2x2 switches are connected in a specific topology to build a Benes network”
`
`(id. at 5:26-27).
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIGs. 2A, 2B.)
`
`24. A controlling configuration bit is used to determine how the inputs to
`
`the switch are routed to the outputs of the switch (e.g., whether the switch is in a
`
`“pass” or “cross” configuration). (Id. at 3:48-50.) For example, figure 2C of Wong,
`
`replicated below, shows how multiplexers are used to implement a 2x2 switch with
`
`the functionality of the switches shown in figures 2A and 2B. The multiplexers are
`
`controlled by a configuration bit or control bit that is used to determine which
`
`outputs are connected to which inputs of the switch.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1008 at FIG. 2C (annotated).)
`
`25. By controlling the individual switches in the network, the routing of the
`
`inputs to the network to selected outputs can be controlled. In the example
`
`configuration shown below in figure 3E of Wong, by placing some of the switches
`
`in the “pass” configuration and others in the “cross” configuration, the network of
`
`switches can be used to route any of the eight inputs to any of the eight outputs. (Id.
`
`at 5:65-67.) For example, as shown in figure 3E of Wong below, a particular
`
`configuration of the switches reverses the ordering of input signals at the output
`
`terminals of the network. (Id. at 2:38-40, 5:67-6:5.) For example, by setting each
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`of the switches to be either “pass” or “cross” as shown below in figure 3E, the top-
`
`most input on the left (“000”) is routed such that it comes out at the bottom-most
`
`output on the right, whereas the bottom-most input on the left (“111”) is routed to
`
`the top-most output on the right. In traversing the network, each of the inputs to the
`
`network passes through five switches in the network.
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 3E.)
`
`26. As demonstrated by Wong, it was well known long before the time of
`
`the alleged invention in the ’523 patent to use networks, such as, for example, the
`
`one depicted above in figure 3E of Wong, in FPGA devices. Moreover, it was also
`
`well known to modify such networks in order to make them more efficient as the
`
`interconnection network for an FPGA. For example, because the logic cells used in
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`the FPGA include both inputs and outputs, the network can be folded in half in order
`
`to put both the inputs to the network and the outputs from the network adjacent to
`
`each other for easy connection to the inputs and outputs of the logic cells. (Id. at
`
`6:52-61.) Such folding is illustrated by figure 4A of Wong, where the folding is done
`
`along the dotted line 31. (Id. at 6:65-67.)
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 4A.)
`
`27. The resulting folded network is shown in figures 4B and 4C of Wong
`
`below, where figure 4C has rearranged the connections between the switches in the
`
`network so that the shorter connections are closer to the logic cells, which are placed
`
`on the left hand side of the network. (Id. at 7:6-21.) As can be seen in figures 4B
`
`and 4C, folding the network puts switches 1.1 and 5.1 together (both of these
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`switches are two stages away from switch 3.1 of figure 4A) and switches 2.1 and 4.1
`
`together (both of these switches are one stage away from switch 3.1).
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIGs. 4B, 4C.)
`
`28. A physical layout of the network shown in figure 4C with the
`
`accompanying logic cells for an FPGA is shown below in figure 13A of Wong. The
`
`physical layout shown in Figure 13A includes the network of switches 82 and
`
`associated logic cells 81. (Id. at 13:12-26.)
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 13A.)
`
`29. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`
`physical layout corresponds to how the circuitry is physically arranged on the
`
`integrated circuit device. In other words, in the integrated circuit FPGA that includes
`
`the network shown in figure 13A above, the logic cells 81 would be arranged
`
`vertically in a column, and the switches 82 would be arrayed in rows and columns
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`with appropriate connections corresponding to the illustrated links provided on the
`
`integrated circuit. The arrows on the right-hand side of figure 13A correspond to
`
`the top level connections between the network and primary input/output (I/O) of the
`
`FPGA. (Id. at 13:42-43.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that the signals provided to the FPGA, which the logic cells 81 are used to process,
`
`are provided on the primary inputs of the FPGA, whereas the results generated by
`
`that processing are provided on the primary outputs of the FPGA.
`
`30. As depicted in figure 13A of Wong, logic cells 81 are included in the
`
`FPGA along with switch cells 82. (Id. at 13:22-23 (“There are two logic cells 81 per
`
`switch cell 82….”).) The logic cells in an FPGA are used to process the inputs
`
`provided to the FPGA. The processing functions performed by the logic cells are
`
`often configurable by the user. (Id. at 7:32-38, 8:51, 9:10, 14:44-48.) As such, not
`
`only the connections between the logic cells are configurable, but the actual
`
`processing functions performed by the logic cells are also configurable by the user
`
`after manufacturing is complete.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’523 PATENT
`31. The ’523 patent is entitled “VLSI Layouts of Fully Connected
`
`Generalized Networks.” (Ex. 1001 at Title.) The ’523 patent acknowledges that
`
`multi-stage hierarchical networks were known and used in many applications at the
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`time of the alleged invention. (Ex. 1001 at 2:25-27 (“Multi-stage interconnection
`
`networks such as Benes networks and butterfly fat tree networks are widely useful
`
`in
`
`telecommunications, parallel and distributed computing.”).)
`
` Practical
`
`applications where the multi-stage hierarchical networks can be used include
`
`FPGAs. (Id. at 2:62-67.)
`
`32. The ’523 patent recognizes that VLSI (very large scale integration)
`
`layouts for integrated circuits with such networks were known, but states that such
`
`layouts are “inefficient and complicated.” (Id. at 2:28-30.) For example, the ’523
`
`patent acknowledges that Wong (Ex. 1008) discloses a layout of a Benes network.3
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:56-61.) However, the ’523 patent contends that prior art network
`
`layouts “require large area to implement the switches on the chip, large number of
`
`wires, longer wires, with increased power consumption, increased latency of the
`
`signal which effect the maximum clock speed of operation.” (Id. at 3:1-6.)
`
`33. Evidently in an attempt to address these issues, the ’523 patent alleges
`
`to disclose “VLSI layouts of generalized multi-stage networks for broadcast, unicast
`
`and multicast connections [] using only horizontal and vertical links” where “[t]he
`
`
`3 Benes networks were originally developed by Vaclav E. Benes at Bell Labs in the
`
`mid-1960s. (See, e.g., Ex. 1040 at Cover.)
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`VLSI layouts employ shuffle exchange links where outlet links of cross links from
`
`switches in a stage in one sub-integrated circuit block are connected to inlet links of
`
`switches in the succeeding stage in another sub-integrated circuit block so that said
`
`cross links are either vertical links or horizontal and vice versa.” (Id. at 3:21-29.)
`
`The ’523 patent describes using such networks, which are made up of switches, “for
`
`satisfying communication requests, such as setting up a telephone call or a data call,
`
`or a connection between configurable logic blocks.” (Id. at 8:44-50.)
`
`34. For example, figure 1A of the ’523 patent shows an exemplary 32x32
`
`(32 inputs and 32 outputs) multi-stage network. (Id. at 8:44-50.) The multi-stage
`
`network includes a plurality of stages, where a stage corresponds to a column in the
`
`array of switches. The example network in figure 1A of the ’523 patent includes
`
`nine stages, including an input stage 110 (left-most column) and output stage 120
`
`(right-most column) with middle stages 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, and 190
`
`between the input stage 110 and the output stage 120. (Id. at 3:51-57, 8:44-52, FIG.
`
`1A.)
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at FIG. 1A (annotated.))
`
`35. The ’523 patent describes the connection topology of the network 100A
`
`in figure 1A as “having inverse Benes connection topology of nine stages.” (Id. at
`
`3:51-57.) Within the network 100A a number of “links” are provided that
`
`interconnect the switches. As highlighted in annotated figure 1A below, inlet links
`
`IL1-IL32 provide inputs to the network and outlet links OL1-OL32 provide outputs
`
`from the network. (Id. at 9:3-12, FIG. 1A.)
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1A (annotated.))
`
`36.
`
`In addition to the inlet and outlet links on the periphery of the network,
`
`the ’523 patent also includes middle links that provide connections between the
`
`switches in the different stages of the network. According to the ’523 patent, “[t]he
`
`middle links which connect switches in the same row in two successive middle
`
`stages are called hereinafter straight middle links; and the middle links which
`
`connect switches in different rows in two successive middle stages are called
`
`hereinafter cross middle links.” (Id. at 9:45-49 (emphasis added).) Examples of
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`such straight middle links and cross middle links are shown in the annotated
`
`excerpt of figure 1A below.
`
`For example, the middle links ML(1,1) and ML(1,2)
`connect input switch IS1 and middle switch MS(1,1), so
`middle links ML(1,1) and ML(1,2) are straight middle
`links; where as the middle links ML(1,3) and ML(1,4)
`connect input switch IS1 and middle switch (MS1,2),
`since input switch IS1 and middle switch MS(1,2) belong
`to two different rows in diagram 100A of FIG. 1A, middle
`links ML(1,3) and ML(1,4) are cross middle links.
`
`(Id. at 9:49-57; see also id. at 35:65-36:3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Page 25 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1A (excerpt, annotated).)
`
`37. The ’523 patent further describes folding the network 100A shown in
`
`figure 1A to form network 100B shown below in figure 1B. (Id. at 3:58-64, 12:6-
`
`8.) This is similar to the folding described above with respect to figures 4A-4C of
`
`Wong. (See my discussion in Section V.A above; Ex. 1008 at FIGs. 4A-4C, 6:51-
`
`7:22.) The network 100B in figure 1B has five stages, with the inputs and outputs
`
`of the network on the left-hand side of the figure. (Id. at 3:58-64, 12:6-53, FIG. 1B.)
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Page 26 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1B (annotated).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Page 27 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`38. As can be seen in the annotated excerpt of figure 1B below, the folded
`
`network includes straight middle links and cross middle links.
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1B (excerpt, annotated).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 28 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`39. As I discussed above in Section I, I understand that Patent Owner has
`
`filed a motion (Paper No. 34 in this proceeding) to amend the claims by substituting
`
`certain proposed claims (claims 49-96) in place of claims 1-48. I understand that
`
`the appendix at the end of that motion lists the substitute claims. (Paper No. 34 at
`
`Appx. (22-43).) I understand that the substitute claims, which are not currently a
`
`part of the ’523 patent, differ from the issued claims of the ’523 patent in the
`
`following ways. Namely, substitute claim 49 is identical to claim 1 except for
`
`reciting “y>1” instead of “y≥1”; substitute claims 55, 59, 72, 76, 87, and 91 are
`
`identical to claims 7, 11, 24, 28, 39, and 43 except for reciting “N > 3” instead of “N
`
`> 1” (and except for differences in claim dependency); and claims 50-54, 56-58, 60-
`
`71, 73-75, 77-86, 88-90, and 92-96 are identical to claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-23, 25-27,
`
`29-38, 40-42, and 44-48, respectively (except for differences in claim dependency).
`
`The table below reflects my understanding, which is based on Patent Owner’s
`
`motion to amend (Paper No. 34), and I have applied this understanding in my
`
`analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Page 29 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`Original Claim of ’523
`Patent
`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
`27
`28
`
`29
`30
`
`Declaration of R. Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`IPR2020-00260
`
`
`Substitute Claim
`
`Comment
`
`49
`
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`
`56
`57
`58
`59
`
`60
`61
`62
`63
`64
`65
`66
`67
`68
`69
`70
`71
`72
`
`73
`74
`75
`76
`
`77
`78
`
`“y>1” instead of
`“y≥1”
`Identical4
`Identical
`Identical
`Identical
`Identical
`“N > 3” instead of
`“N > 1”
`Identical
`Identical
`Identical
`“N > 3” instead of
`“N > 1”