UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FG SRC LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS (EX1047)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Pursuant to the Board’s Order Setting Oral Argument 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`(Paper 47), Patent Owner FG SRC submits its objections to Petitioner’s
`
`demonstrative exhibits filed as EX1047. A copy of the objected to portions are
`
`attached as Appendix A.
`
`9 – statement
`that Zhang
`refers to itself as
`“reconfigurable
`processor”
`
`OBJECTION
`SLIDE
`3 – priority date This slide is misleading because the priority date is the
`provisional filing date, while the slide lists only the non-
`provisional filing date.
`This slide is misleading because all the bullet points are
`presented as statements of uncontroverted fact that can be
`seen from the face of the document, but the term
`“reconfigurable processor” does not appear in the reference
`and the last bullet point characterizing Zhang as a
`“reconfigurable processor” is thus mere attorney argument.
`This slide includes irrelevant information because the
`proposed infringement claim constructions in district court are
`irrelevant to these proceedings and unduly prejudicial because
`only the court’s actual construction is relevant.
`
`35 – irrelevant
`proposed claim
`constructions
`from district
`court
`36 – irrelevant
`proposed claim
`constructions
`from district
`court
`37 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`This slide includes irrelevant information because the
`proposed infringement claim constructions in district court are
`irrelevant to these proceedings and unduly prejudicial because
`only the court’s actual construction is relevant.
`
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and is incomplete because the Expert was not asked about the
`particular construction that Petitioner is asserting. EX1044 at
`107:19‐108:7; see also id. at 28:18‐29:5, 32:10‐14.
`
`

`

`SLIDE
`45 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`48 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`53 – statements
`improperly
`attributed to
`Zhang when
`they actually
`come from the
`’867 Patent.
`54 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`60 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`OBJECTION
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and incomplete because the Expert did not “agree” that the
`portion of the diagram emphasized in the pink box is a
`Reconfigurable Processor at all. EX1044 at 84:3–19.
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and incomplete because the Expert did not opine that the
`reconfigurable component is not limited to the interface of the
`processing element, instead, the Expert testified specifically
`that “My recollection is that I didn't see any discussion of
`incorporating into the processing elements” (EX1044 at 80:7-
`9) and that the disclosure is not clear about exactly what is
`meant (id. at 80:2-82:25).
`The excerpt is a mischaracterization and incomplete because
`the citations are not to Zhang but to the ’867 Patent, and the
`Expert’s testimony regarding “carveout” code elements are
`not related specifically to the ’867 Patent but are only a
`general conceptual question about C and Fortran. EX1044 at
`53:4-59:12.
`
`The excerpt is a mischaracterization and incomplete because
`the citations are not to Zhang but to the ’867 Patent, and the
`Expert’s testimony regarding “carveout” code elements are
`not related specifically to the ’867 Patent but are only a
`general conceptual question about C and Fortran (EX1044 at
`53:4-59:12), which is not the same “remains in memory” as
`used in Zhang.
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and incomplete because the expert testified to the contrary
`that “it’s a question of whether one is focusing on the entire
`structure as understood by an algorithm or the subfields.”
`EX1044 at 101:22-24.
`
`

`

`SLIDE
`61 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`67 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`68 – incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`72 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`76 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`80 – irrelevant
`reference to old
`bankruptcy
`
`OBJECTION
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and incomplete because the expert clarified that “elaborating a
`little bit more, these two operate independently from a – from
`a number of perspectives, but on the other hand, the
`computational unit is intended to consume the data produced
`by the prefetch unit.” EX1044 at 67:4-8.
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and incomplete because the expert explicitly testified “I don't
`believe it teaches it at all.” EX1044 at 121:5-6.
`
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is an incomplete quote
`because Dr. Shanfield could not point to any specific
`disclosure whereby the reference discloses a perfect cache
`line size in every case, and instead admitted that not all cache
`line sizes could be accommodated (EX2029 at 161:3-10) and
`that there is no clear support that Zhang discloses anything
`other than 32- and 64- byte cache lines (id. at 164:10-165:11).
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`and incomplete because the expert explicitly testified that
`“My recollection is that I didn't see any discussion of
`incorporating into the processing elements. So this sentence,
`the sentence in 3 and the other one that you pointed to,
`certainly indicate that they anticipated doing that, but on their
`own, they don’t teach it.” EX1044 at 80:7-12.
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`because Gupta is an implementation of only a small aspect of
`Zhang, i.e., the cache memory system, so Gupta does not
`implement a processor at all.
`
`The slide is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because
`references to the DirectStream bankruptcy are irrelevant to
`secondary considerations at the time of invention, which was
`almost 20 years earlier.
`
`

`

`SLIDE
`84 – irrelevant
`reference to
`different forum
`
`95 – incomplete
`citation to file
`history
`
`96 – “proposed”
`constructions
`are irrelevant
`
`100 –
`mischaracterized
`and incomplete
`expert testimony
`
`OBJECTION
`This slide is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because
`references to infringement disputes in a different forum are
`irrelevant and misleading, particularly because motivation is
`not a factor is determining whether a proposed number of
`amended claims is reasonable.
`The slide is an incomplete citation to the file history and the
`complete excerpt is required because—in proper context—the
`cited portion does not support the attorney argument
`regarding disclaimer of sending configuration data to the
`reconfigurable hardware.
`The slide is irrelevant because the proposed infringement
`claim constructions in district court are irrelevant and unduly
`prejudicial because only the court’s actual construction is
`relevant.
`The excerpt of the expert deposition is a mischaracterization
`because the expert explicitly testified that “It’s not clear to me
`in that context” (EX1044 at 82:3) and speculated about
`various possibilities as to what the meaning of the disclosure
`“could be.” Id. at 82:4-83:16.
`
`
`Date: January 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jay P. Kesan
`Jay P. Kesan
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`Cecil E. Key (admission pro hac vice
`pending)
`DiMuroGinsberg, PC-
`DGKeyIP Group
`1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`Phone: 703-289-5118
`
`

`

`jkesan@dimuro.com
`ckey@dimuro.com
`
`Ari B. Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone: 214-593-9110
`Facsimile: 214-593-9111
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on January 4, 2022 a complete copy of this document was filed
`
`electronically through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s PTABE2E System
`
`and provided, via electronic service, to the Petitioner counsel of record.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jay P. Kesan
`Jay P. Kesan
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`Overview: The ’867 Patent
`
`Petition, Paper 1 at 13
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Overview: Zhang
`
` “Architectural Adaptation for Application‐
`Specific Locality Optimizations”
`• By Zhang, Dasdan, Schulz, Gupta, Chien
`• Presented at conference & published by IEEE in 1997
`• Available on IEEE Explore in 2002
`• MORPH project (MultiprocessOr with Reconfigurable 
`Parallel Hardware)
`• Reconfigurable processor with first and second 
`memories and data prefetch unit configured to 
`retrieve only data required for computations
`
`Petition, Paper 1 at 17–19
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO’s constructions are irrelevant and not supported
` Designed to fix a failed infringement theory
` Argued for same 
`constructions in district 
`court to expand what 
`data prefetch unit can 
`retrieve
`EX1038 8‐15
`• Court rejected those 
`arguments and confirmed 
`DPU cannot retrieve any 
`other data or instructions 
`
`EX1033‐2
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 3
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO’s constructions are irrelevant and not supported
` Designed to fix a failed infringement theory
` PO dismissed suit and 
`confirmed no infringement 
`unless constructions are 
`changed or claims are amended
`
`EX1036‐1; see also EX1035‐1
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 3
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO’s constructions are irrelevant and not supported
` Not used to overcome prior art
` PO recites same constructions for 
`“only” limitation
`Resp. 31–33
`• But PO’s analysis does not hinge on 
`construction
`Resp. 40–44
` PO’s expert does not even recite 
`(let alone rely) on PO’s construction
` Need only construe terms to extent 
`necessary to resolve controversy
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 
`
`EX1044 107:19‐108:7; see also id. 28:18‐29:5, 32:10‐14
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 2–3
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches a “reconfigurable processor”
` Zhang’s processor is reconfigurable, not “static” or “conventional”
` Zhang’s reconfigurable processor (pink) 
`includes reconfigurable components
`• And PO’s expert agrees: 
`
`EX1044 84:3–19
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 10–16; see, e.g., Petition, Paper 1 at 17–
`18, 25–26, 28–30
`
`EX. 1003 Fig. 2
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches a “reconfigurable processor”
` Zhang’s processor is reconfigurable, not “static” or “conventional”
` PO’s expert concedes: Zhang discloses 
`reconfigurable processing elements, not 
`merely interface to the processor
`
`EX1044 81:6‐19
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 10–16
`
`EX1044 82:2‐16
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches a “reconfigurable processor”
` Zhang does not teach away from instantiation
` Application remaining in software is 
`consistent with the ’867 patent 
`• As PO’s expert admits, application “carve‐
`outs” get compiled into DEL that is loaded 
`into reconfigurable processor . . . 
`
`EX1001 6:47‐57
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 8–9, 10–16
`
`EX1044 53:4‐9, 54:11‐22
`
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches a “reconfigurable processor”
` Zhang does not teach away from instantiation
` Application remaining in software is  
`consistent with the ’867 patent
`• “carve‐outs” get compiled into DEL that is 
`loaded into reconfigurable processor . . . 
`• But the software is not removed or deleted 
`after compilation
`• Software application remains in memory
`
`EX1044 57:24‐58:19
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 8–9, 10–16
`
`EX1044 60:25‐61:9
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches a “data prefetch unit”
` Combination’s prefetcher does prefetch before needed
` But even the 1st case study is prefetching 
`• Zhang & Gupta repeatedly refer to “prefetching,” 
`“prefetcher” and “prefetch unit
`EX1003 15–17; EX1004 9–11
`• Prefetching was known since 1960s
`EX1016 at 16; EX1044 63:23‐64:11
`• PO’s expert agreed that prefetching “all fields” or 
`“likely to be traversed” is before needed
`
`EX1044 101:3‐19; see also id. 96:12‐25, 98:17‐99:3
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 16–18
`
`60
`
`Inst. 53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches a “data prefetch unit”
` PO’s requirements ≠ claim scope or agreed construction
` Even the patent does not require always 
`before needed
`• Patent describes data prefetch unit that operates 
`after it is needed for computational logic (and PO’s 
`expert agrees)
`
`EX1001 7:36–41
`
`EX1044 64:12–67:3
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 16–18
`
`61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches the “only” limitations
` PO’s “last cache line” argument fails because Zhang teaches otherwise
` PO’s expert speculates that Zhang could retrieve 
`entire cache line that is likely filled with extra data
`EX2028 ¶ 74; EX1044 109:5‐110:23, 115:5‐14
`• PO’s expert admits that his opinion directly conflicts with 
`Zhang’s express statements 
`
`EX1044‐121
`
`EX1003‐16 C1:34‐44 & Fig. 5 
`
`See also EX1004‐9 C2:1‐9 (prefetch hardware “works well with 
`data structures that do not quite fit into a single cache line”)
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 18–21
`
`67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO’s constructions not used and not supported
` PO mischaracterizes Petitioner’s expert on “last cache line”
` Dr. Shanfield confirms Zhang’s 
`second case study uses adjustable 
`cache line sizes
`
`EX2029 219:6–11
`
`EX2029 210:11–15  
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 20–21
`
`EX2029 225:7–16
`
`68
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination teaches “configured to conform” limitations
` Zhang’s first memory (L1 cache) is reconfigurable, not “fixed”
` Zhang integrates programmable logic into 
`“memory components” (including L1 
`cache) to match an application
`• Prefetched data placed in split cache with 
`application‐specific management policy
`• PO’s expert concedes programmable logic is 
`integrated into memory components 
`themselves, not “separate from the conventional 
`memory” as PO contends. 
`PO’s Sur‐Reply at 9.
`
`EX1003‐14 C1:28‐30
`See also id.‐17 C2:48‐51, ‐18 C1:5‐8, Fig 2
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 21–24; Petition, Paper 1 at 30–31, 46–49
`
`EX1044 79:15‐20
`
`72
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Combination does not lack “enabling disclosures”
` References in combination disclose and enable the claimed invention 
` Under §103, reference need not be enabled; qualifies for whatever is 
`disclosed therein
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
` PO’s “enablement” argument ignores Gupta, which PO concedes is a 
`prototype of Zhang’s teaching
`PO’s Resp. 12, 18;  EX2028 ¶ 99
` Each reference was refereed and accepted for industry recognized 
`conferences 
`EX1039 12:18‐13:3; EX1030 48, 53; EX1031 69, 71‐72, 222‐23
` PO itself contends technology in each was well‐known
`PO’s Resp. 10–12
` Each reference’s level of disclosure at least commensurate with the 
`patent’s level of disclosure 
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 9; Petition, Paper 1 at 16–87
`
`76
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO fails to establish nexus to secondary considerations
` Failure of SRC Computers and its products weighs against these factors
` DirectStream assigned ’867 patent to PO 
`(with 41 other patents and applications)
`EX1041
`• Collective value of entire assets (personal 
`prop., financial accounts, and IP) only $22M
`• Grossed under $1.75M in 2019 
`EX1042‐5
`• Resulted in bankruptcy 
`• PO acquired portfolio through foreclosure sale
`
`EX1042‐7
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 40 at 24–26
`
`80
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO fails its burden to show reasonable number of claims
` Must show need and why to overcome one‐to‐one presumption
` Determination on a claim‐by‐claim 
`basis, not total claim number 
` PO’s “correction” is a hedge; seeks 
`to broaden to fix infringement 
`read
`
`Lectrosonics, IPR2018‐01129, Paper  15 at 5
`
`EX1033
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend, Paper 45 at 3–4
`
`EX1035
`
`84
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO fails its burden to show written description support
` New “data [required/necessary] for computations” lacks support
` Conflicts with prosecution history
`• Examiner rejected broader claims 
`based on art that retrieved 
`instantiation/configuration 
`information
`• PO amended in response to add 
`negative limitations designed to 
`exclude the instantiation information 
`in Paulraj’s configuration vector 
`• Examiner relied on those limitations in 
`allowance
`
`EX1002 197‐199
`
`EX1002‐185
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend, Paper 45 at 9–11
`
`95
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO fails its burden to show proposed claims do not enlarge
` PO vowed in district court to broaden claims through amendment 
` District court rejected PO’s 
`constructions that would allow 
`prefetch unit to retrieve other 
`data or instructions 
`• PO confirmed that court’s 
`constructions precluded infringement
`• PO vowed to amend in IPR as a result
`
`EX1033
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend, Paper 45 at 11–16
`
`EX1035
`
`96
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PO’s new negative limitation is obvious
` Zhang‐Gupta’s reconfigurable processor satisfies new negative limitation
`
` Zhang‐Gupta’s reconfigurable processor is 
`“neither integrated within nor comprises 
`a conventional microprocessor”
`• Processing elements themselves comprised of 
`programmable logic 
`• PO’s expert admits that can mean conventional 
`processing components are replaced with 
`programmable logic
`EX1044 80:14‐82:16
`• Also admits processor that is changeable is not 
`“conventional” 
`EX1044 43:18‐45:8, 45:17‐46:8
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend, Paper 45 at 17–19 
`
`EX1003‐13 C2:44‐49 & Fig. 2
`
`100
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`