`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`V.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D., IN
`SUPPORT OF FG SRC LLC'S REVISED MOTION TO AMEND
`
`I, Dr. William Mangione-Smith, under the penalty of perjury under the laws
`
`of the United States, declare that the following is true and correct based on the best
`
`of my ability.
`
`Date: September 29, 2021
`
`Signedy
`WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by DiMuro Ginsberg, P.C., as an independent
`
`technical expert in the Inter Partes Review dispute between FG SRC, and Intel
`
`Corporation, No. IPR2020-01449 which involves U.S. Patent No. 7,149,867 (“’867
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been paid for my work as a technical expert at my customary
`
`hourly rate. My compensation does not in any way depend on the outcome of this
`
`matter, and I have no personal interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`3. My technical background and experience cover most aspects of
`
`computer system design, including low level circuitry, computer architecture,
`
`computer networking, digital rights management, cryptography, digital media,
`
`communications, information technology, application software, client-server
`
`application, Web technology, and system software (e.g., operating systems and
`
`compilers). I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`and the Association for Computing Machinery, which are the two most significant
`
`professional organizations in my profession. I have been employed as a design
`
`engineer, research engineer, professor, and technical expert. Over my professional
`
`career, I have been an active inventor with 121 issued U.S. patents, 200 published
`
`and pending U.S. patent applications and many unpublished U.S. patent
`
`applications.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`From 1984 until 1991, I attended the University of Michigan in Ann
`
`Arbor, Michigan, where I was awarded the degrees of Bachelor of Science and
`
`Engineering, Master of Science and Engineering, and Doctor of Philosophy. My
`
`doctoral research focused on high performance computing systems including
`
`computer architecture, applications and operating system software, and compiler
`
`technology. One of my responsibilities during my graduate studies included
`
`teaching senior undergraduate students who were about to enter the profession.
`
`5.
`
`After graduating from the University of Michigan, I was employed by
`
`Motorola in Schaumburg, Illinois. While at Motorola, I was part of a team
`
`designing and manufacturing the first commercial battery-powered product capable
`
`of delivering Internet email over a wireless (i.e., radio frequency) link and one of
`
`the first personal digital assistants. I also served as the lead architect on the
`
`second-generation of this device with control over the entire system design
`
`including the memory subsystem architecture, embedded processor, ASIC, power
`
`system, and analog circuitry. Part of my responsibilities at Motorola involved the
`
`specification, design, and testing of system control Application-Specific Integrated
`
`Circuits (“ASICs”). I conducted the initial research and advanced design that
`
`resulted in the Motorola M*Core embedded microprocessor. M*Core was
`
`designed to provide the high performance of desktop microprocessors with the low
`
`power of contemporaneous embedded processors. The M*Core received
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`widespread use in many communications products including various cellular
`
`
`
`handsets, advanced pagers, and embedded infrastructure.
`
`6.
`
`From 1995 until 2005, I was employed by the University of California
`
`at Los Angeles (“UCLA”) as a professor of Electrical Engineering. I was the
`
`director of the laboratory for Compiler and Architecture Research in Embedded
`
`Systems (“CARES”) and served as the field chair for Embedded Computing
`
`Systems. The CARES research team focused on research, engineering, and design
`
`challenges in the context of battery-powered and multi-media mobile computing
`
`devices. One of the key developments of my lab was the Mediabench software
`
`tool, which is widely used to design and evaluate multi-media embedded devices.
`
`Key elements of Mediabench include software that is essential for modern digital
`
`wireless communications. My primary responsibility, in addition to classroom
`
`teaching, involved directing the research and training of graduate students. I was a
`
`tenured member of the faculty and had responsibilities for teaching as well as
`
`scholarly research. My colleagues at UCLA were some of the leading scientists
`
`and engineers in the world with a long list of innovations from computer network
`
`security devices to the nicotine patch. The graduate student researchers in my
`
`laboratory came from a diverse set of backgrounds, all with undergraduate degrees
`
`in computer engineering, electrical engineering, or computer science, many with
`
`multiple years of experience working as professional engineers in areas such as
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`digital rights management, cryptography, and some combination of digital media,
`
`
`
`communications, information technology, software development, computer system
`
`design, or computer science and ASIC circuit design.
`
`7.
`
`From 2005 until 2009, I was employed at Intellectual Ventures in
`
`Bellevue, Washington. My responsibilities at Intellectual Ventures included
`
`business development, technology assessment, market forecasting, university
`
`outreach, collaborative inventing, intellectual property licensing support, and
`
`intellectual property asset pricing. My colleagues and co-inventors at Intellectual
`
`Ventures included the former lead intellectual property strategist at Intel, Intel’s
`
`former lead IP counsel, Microsoft’s former chief software architect, the founder of
`
`Microsoft research, the designer of the Mach operating system, the architect of the
`
`U.S. Defense Department’s Strategic Defense Initiative, the founder of Thinking
`
`Machines (a seminal parallel processing computer system), and Bill Gates. I had
`
`responsibility for hiring and managing over 15 staff members including multiple
`
`Ph.Ds. with degrees in electrical engineering or computer science, and decades of
`
`experience in product design and engineering.
`
`8.
`
`A summary of some of my qualifications for forming the opinions in
`
`this declaration are as follows: I have more than 30 years of experience as a
`
`computer architect, computer system designer, communication system designer,
`
`educator, and as an executive in the PC and electronics business. I am also a
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`member of several professional associations, such as the ACM and IEEE, and have
`
`
`
`been intimately involved in professional research through the International
`
`Symposium on Microarchitecture (Program Chair for 26th and General Chair for
`
`36th), IEEE Transactions on Computers (Associate Editor), ACM Transactions on
`
`Embedded Computing Systems (Associate Editor), and IEEE Computer (Associate
`
`Editor). I also have been on the program committees for ISCA, MICRO, ISLPED,
`
`Network Processors Workshop, FPL, Complexity-Effective Design, RAW,
`
`Workshop on Mediaprocessors, and DSP, FPT, and INTERACT.
`
`9.
`
`I also have extensive experience and expertise with FPGA technology
`
`in general and reconfigurable computing in particular. My research was funded by
`
`the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), published in
`
`leading journals in my field, and appeared on the cover of Scientific American
`
`(June 1997). Specific research areas included cryptography, network security,
`
`fault-tolerance, and intellectual property protection.
`
`10. For further details regarding my employment and academic history,
`
`please refer to my curriculum vitae provided in Appendix A.
`
`II. Bases Of Opinions
`
`11. The basis and reasoning of my opinions include my education,
`
`training, and experience as an engineer, including my 35 years of experience
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`designing microprocessors. In the course of conducting my analysis and forming
`
`
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials listed below:
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 7,149,867 to Daniel Poznanovic, et al., filed June16,
`2004, and issued on December12, 2006 (“’867 patent”) and its file
`history;
`b. X. Zhang et al., Architectural Adaptation of Application-Specific
`Locality Optimizations, IEEE (1997) (“Zhang”);
`c. R. Gupta, Architectural Adaptation in AMRM Machines, IEEE (2000)
`(“Gupta”);
`d. A. Chien and R. Gupta, MORPH: A System Architecture for Robust
`Higher Performance Using Customization,” IEEE (1996) (“Chien”);
`e. Chien et al., Safe and Protected Execution for the Morph/AMRM
`Reconfigurable Processor, IEEE (1999);
`f. Declaration of Stanley Shanfield, Ph.D.;
`g. Declaration of Rajesh K. Gupta;
`h. Declaration of J. Munford;
`i. Provisional Application No. 60/479,339;
`j. U.S. Patent 8,713,518;
`k. Book: John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson, “Computer
`Architecture: A Quantitative Approach” (The Morgan Kaufmann Series
`in Computer Architecture and Design); and
`l. Book: David Culler, “Parallel Computer Architecture: A
`Hardware/Software Approach” (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in
`Computer Architecture and Design);
`m. Intel’s IPR petition in this matter and its exhibits;
`n. Declaration of Ryan Kastner, Ph.D. In Support Of FG SRC LLC’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief in FG SRC LLC v. Intel Corp., No.
`6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas), filed April 24, 2020;
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`o. FG’SRC’s Preliminary Response in this proceeding (Paper 9);
`p. Declaration of Vojin G. Oklobdzija, Ph.D., In Support of FG SRC
`LLC’s Preliminary Response (EX2001);
`q. Institution Decision in this proceeding (Paper 13);
`r. Intel Corporation’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 36);
`s. The Board’s Preliminary Guidance – Patent Owner’s Motion To Amend
`issued on Sep. 15, 2021 (Paper 38);
`t. U.S. Patent No. 5,737,631 to Trimberger, filed April 5, 1995, and issued
`on April 7, 1998 (“Trimberger”), and the materials cited therein;
`u. Any other materials referenced herein.
`12. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understanding of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the claims in the
`
`’867 Patent.
`
`13.
`
`In assessing the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art I
`
`have considered the type of problems encountered in the field, the prior solutions
`
`to those problems found in the prior art references, the pace with which
`
`innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of education
`
`of active workers in the field, and my own experience working with those of skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`14. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`filing of the ’867 patent would typically have at least an M.S. Degree in Computer
`
`Engineering, Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering, or equivalent work
`
`experience, along with at least three years of experience related specifically to
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computer architecture, hardware design, and reconfigurable processors. In
`
`
`
`addition, a POSITA would be familiar with hardware description languages and
`
`design tools and methodologies used to program a reconfigurable processor.
`
`15.
`
`I am very familiar with this level of skill. In the course of my 35
`
`years of processor design and research, I have supervised and worked with
`
`engineers in this field having the level of skill identified above.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the words of a claim are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, that is, the meaning that the term would have to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a claim term that does not use the word “means” is
`
`presumed not to be a means-plus-function term. I understand that a term that does
`
`not use the word “means” would be construed as a means-plus-function term if it
`
`does not describe structure to a POSITA. Conversely, I understand that if a term
`
`describes structure to a POSITA, it is not a means-plus-function term.
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CLAIM AMENDMENTS
`
`18.
`
`I have been asked to provide my expert opinion regarding proposed
`
`amended claims 20 (amending original claim 1), 21 (amending original claim 1),
`
`28 (replacing claim 9), and 32 (replacing claim 13), and specifically, whether the
`
`proposed amendments to the proposed amended claims are (1) responsive to a
`
`ground for unpatentability at issue in this IPR per the institution decision; (2)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`enlarging the claim scope; or (3) introducing new subject matter; and (4) whether
`
`
`
`the proposed amended claims, as a whole, are (a) supported by the patent
`
`specification; and (b) supported by the provisional application to which they claim
`
`priority.
`
`A.
`
`Proposed Amended Claim 20 (Amending Claim 1)
`
`19. Proposed Amended Claim 20 appears below. I have been provided
`
`these amended claims along with editing that uses underlining to indicate
`
`additions.
`
`Proposed Amended Claim 20. A reconfigurable processor that
`instantiates an algorithm as hardware comprising:
`a first memory having a first characteristic memory bandwidth and/or
`memory utilization; and
`a data prefetch unit coupled to the memory, wherein the data prefetch
`unit retrieves only computational data required by the algorithm
`from a second memory of second characteristic memory
`bandwidth and/or memory utilization and places the retrieved
`computational data in the first memory wherein the data prefetch
`unit operates independent of and in parallel with logic blocks
`using the computational data, and wherein at least the first
`memory and data prefetch unit are configured to conform to
`needs of the algorithm, and the data prefetch unit is configured to
`match format and location of data in the second memory,
`wherein the reconfigurable processor is neither integrated within nor
`comprises a conventional microprocessor, and
`wherein the reconfigurable processor operates independent of and in
`parallel with a conventional microprocessor.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the Board in its institution decision found that
`
`“Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Zhang in combination with Gupta would
`
`have rendered claims 1, 2, 4–8, 13–19 obvious.” Paper 13, at 71. Based on my
`
`understanding of the requirements of patentability and obviousness, the addition of
`
`substantive limitations supported by the patent specification that are not obvious is
`
`one approach for responding to such a ground for institution. The proposed
`
`amendments shown here thus directly address the grounds for institution.
`
`21.
`
`In my expert opinion, proposed amended claim 20 does not broaden
`
`claim scope. To the contrary, as a result of the addition of the limiting elements
`
`requiring that “wherein the reconfigurable processor is neither integrated within
`
`nor comprises a conventional microprocessor” and “wherein the reconfigurable
`
`processor operates independent of and in parallel with a conventional
`
`microprocessor,” the claim scope is narrowed. By requiring that the reconfigurable
`
`processor is neither integrated within nor comprises a conventional
`
`microprocessor, the amendment excludes from the claim scope the use of a
`
`conventional CPU together with only limited reprogrammable peripheral
`
`components as well as “reconfigurable system” which has a CPU integrated in it.
`
`In other words, the reconfigurable processor that instantiates an algorithm as
`
`hardware does not utilize a conventional microprocessor in any way for the
`
`purposes of said algorithm.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22. Further, the amendment explicitly excludes from the claim scope the
`
`use of a conventional CPU as the computational unit of the claimed reconfigurable
`
`processor together with only limited reprogrammable peripheral components. This
`
`narrowing of the claim is directly responsive to the Zhang, Gupta, and Chien prior
`
`art, which relies on the use of a CPU together with only “small pockets of
`
`reprogrammable logic.” Ex. 1003, at 13, col. 2:44-49. Therefore, this is a scope
`
`limiting amendment.
`
`23.
`
`In Zhang, the processor running the main application is a conventional
`
`CPU, not a reconfigurable processor. This is shown in Fig. 2 of Zhang.
`
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 2. Zhang uses programmable logic (FPGA) only as means to
`
`deliver data for use by that conventional CPU. Zhang specifically states that it
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`includes only “small blocks of programmable logic implemented into key elements
`
`
`
`of a baseline architecture” to enable “the customization of architectural
`
`mechanisms and policies to match an application.” Ex. 1003, at 13, col. 2:44-49.
`
`Zhang’s small blocks of programmable hardware facilitate movement of data
`
`between memory hierarchies to reduce latency at the point of data consumption.
`
`Id. Unlike the ’867 patent however, the final consumer is a conventional CPU, not
`
`a reconfigurable processor. Gupta builds on Zhang and thus also uses a
`
`conventional CPU, as I explained in more detail in my prior declaration.
`
`24. Similarly, the amendment that “the reconfigurable processor operates
`
`independent of and in parallel with a conventional microprocessor” limits claim
`
`scope by excluding the use of a reconfigurable processor that does not operate
`
`independent of and in parallel with a conventional microprocessor, as that
`
`purportedly disclosed by Trimberger.
`
`25. Regarding the newly cited Trimberger reference, a POSITA would
`
`understand that Trimberger teaches a tightly integrated conventional microprocessor
`
`that is augmented with a reconfigurable component for implementing special purpose
`
`instructions. Thus, Trimberger is intended to extend the instruction set of a
`
`conventional microprocessor.
`
`26. The figure below is labeled Figure 5.1 in the 1998 edition of Computer
`
`Organization & Design, the Hardware/Software Interface by Patterson and
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Hennessy. This textbook is considered the gold standard for computer architecture
`
`
`
`classes. The figure discloses a simple model for a processor that has an instruction
`
`memory, a set of registers that hold local data, and an arithmetic logic unit (ALU).
`
`
`
`27. This figure is structurally the same as Fig. 1 of Trimberger which
`
`discloses the Trimberger invention. In Trimberger, the FIXED E-UNIT 24 serves the
`
`role of the ALU above. Trimberger has added a second function unit, the PRGM E-
`
`UNIT 30, which is implemented as programmable hardware. The use of multiple
`
`execution units, for example the presence of multiple ALUs in the figure above, was
`
`well known in the art at the time of Trimberger’s filing. His novelty revolved around
`
`having a programmable execution unit where the hardware functions could be
`
`changed.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
` Trimberger discloses that the processor's register file and bus are
`
`directly accessible to the programmable hardware execution unit (Fig. 1, 4:11-28, Fig.
`
`2, 7:57-8:4).
`
`29.
`
`Trimberger does not talk about fetching data of any sort at all, let alone
`
`prefetching data. While the entire purpose of the ’867 patent is to improve the
`
`usefulness of memory access, Trimberger only ever refers to instruction fetching, and
`
`not even instruction prefetching. A POSITA would recognize that instructions and
`
`data are two separate and distinct things.
`
`30.
`
` Additionally, while the ’867 patent claims implementing entire
`
`algorithms in programmable logic, Trimberger discloses implementing instructions in
`
`programmable logic (Title, Abstract, 2:62-3:9). Examples of the types of instructions
`
`that Trimberger envisioned implementing include bit manipulation, bit counting,
`
`polynomial evaluation, arithmetic sequences, search, spell-check, procedure
`
`invocation, and context switching (3:10-27). None of these operations would be
`
`characterized as algorithms. Thus, a POSITA would understand that Trimberger
`
`neither disclosed nor taught implementing an algorithm in a reconfigurable processor,
`
`as required by the claims of the ’867 Patent.
`
`31.
`
`In contrast, the ’867 Patent discloses a reconfigurable processor with no
`
`linkages to a conventional microprocessor. Figures 1 and 3 of the ’867 Patent
`
`disclose an embodiment of the ’867 patented invention and no general-purpose
`
`processor or microprocessor is present. Nowhere in the written description of the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`’867 Patent is a linkage between the reconfigurable processor and a conventional
`
`
`
`processor disclosed or taught. Rather, all the teaching in the ’867 Patent is directed to
`
`a reconfigurable processor that executes algorithms in the absence of any
`
`conventional processor, and certainly without any tight linkages or coordination.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Amended Claim 28 (Replacing Claim 9)
`
`32. Proposed Amended Claim 28 is set forth below. Underlining is used
`
`to indicate additions.
`
`Proposed Amended Claim 28. A reconfigurable hardware system,
`comprising:
`a common memory; and
`one or more reconfigurable processors that can instantiate an algorithm
`as hardware coupled to the common memory, wherein at least
`one of the reconfigurable processors includes a data prefetch unit
`to read and write only data required for computations by the
`algorithm between the data prefetch unit and the common
`memory wherein the data prefetch unit operates independent of
`and in parallel with logic blocks using the computational data,
`and wherein the data prefetch unit is configured to conform to
`needs of the algorithm and match format and location of data in
`the common memory,
`wherein data required for computations by the algorithm comprises
`only data required for the instantiation and execution of the
`algorithm,
`wherein the at least one of the reconfigurable processors is neither
`integrated within nor comprises a conventional microprocessor,
`and
`wherein the at least one of the reconfigurable processors operates
`independent of and in parallel with a conventional
`microprocessor.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the Board in its institution decision found that
`
`“Petitioner has adequately shown that Zhang, Gupta, and Chien teach the
`
`limitations in claim 9 for purposes of institution.” Paper 13, at 73. Based on my
`
`understanding of the requirements of patentability and obviousness, the addition of
`
`substantive limitations supported by the patent specification that are not obvious is
`
`responsive to a ground for institution. The proposed amendments shown here
`
`directly address the grounds for institution.
`
`34.
`
`In my expert opinion, proposed amended claim 28 does not broaden
`
`claim scope. To the contrary, the addition of the limiting elements narrows claim
`
`scope. First, by requiring that “the at least one of the reconfigurable processors is
`
`neither integrated within nor comprises a conventional microprocessor,” the claim
`
`scope is narrowed for the reasons explained above in reference to proposed
`
`amended claim 20. The amendment explicitly excludes the use of a conventional
`
`CPU as the computational unit of the claimed reconfigurable processor, which is
`
`directly responsive to the Zhang, Gupta, and Chien prior art, which relies on the
`
`use of a CPU together with only “small pockets of reprogrammable logic.” Ex.
`
`1003, at 13, col. 2:44-49; see also id. at Fig. 2.
`
`35. Second, the addition of the claim element “the at least one of the
`
`reconfigurable processors operates independent of and in parallel with a
`
`conventional microprocessor” limits claim scope for the reasons explained above
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`in reference to proposed amended claim 20. This amendment explicitly excludes
`
`
`
`the use of a reconfigurable processor that does not operate independent of and in
`
`parallel with a conventional microprocessor, as that purportedly disclosed by
`
`Trimberger.
`
`36. Third, the claim element “wherein data required for computations by
`
`the algorithm comprises only data required for the instantiation and execution of
`
`the algorithm” further limits claim scope by excluding all information from the
`
`term “data required for computations” that is not used for either instantiation or
`
`execution of the algorithm. This amendment excludes any other kind of
`
`information being read or written that is not directly required for computing the
`
`algorithm.
`
`C.
`
`Proposed Amended Claim 32 (Replacing Claim 13)
`
`37. Proposed Amended Claim 32 is set forth below. Underlining is used
`
`to indicate additions.
`
`Proposed Amended Claim 32. A method of transferring data
`comprising:
`transferring data between a memory and a data prefetch unit in a
`reconfigurable processor, and
`transferring the data between a computational unit and the data access
`unit, wherein the computational unit and the data access unit, and
`the data prefetch unit are configured to conform to needs of an
`algorithm implemented on the computational unit and transfer
`only data necessary for computations by the computational unit,
`and wherein the prefetch unit operates independent of and in
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parallel with the computational unit,
`wherein data necessary for computations by the computational unit
`comprises only data necessary for the configuration and
`execution of computations by the computational unit, and
`wherein the computational unit is neither integrated within nor
`comprises a conventional microprocessor, and
`wherein the reconfigurable processor operates independent of and in
`parallel with a conventional microprocessor.
`I understand that the Board in its institution decision found that
`
`38.
`
`“Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Zhang in combination with Gupta would
`
`have rendered claims 1, 2, 4–8, 13–19 obvious.” Based on my understanding of
`
`the requirements of patentability and obviousness, by adding substantive
`
`limitations supported by the patent specification that are not obvious a patent
`
`owner is responding to a ground for institution. The proposed amendments shown
`
`here directly address the grounds for institution.
`
`39.
`
`In my expert opinion, proposed amended claim 32 does not broaden
`
`claim scope. To the contrary, the addition of the limiting elements narrows claim
`
`scope. By requiring that “wherein the computational unit is neither integrated
`
`within nor comprises a conventional microprocessor,” the claim scope is narrowed
`
`for the reasons explained above in reference to proposed amended claim 20. The
`
`amendment explicitly excludes the use of a conventional CPU as the computational
`
`unit of the claimed reconfigurable processor, which is directly responsive to the
`
`Zhang, Gupta, and Chien prior art, which relies on the use of a CPU together with
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`only “small pockets of reprogrammable logic.” Ex. 1003, at 13, col. 2:44-49; see
`
`
`
`also id. at Fig. 2.
`
`40. Second, the addition of the claim element “wherein the reconfigurable
`
`processor operates independent of and in parallel with a conventional
`
`microprocessor” limits claim scope for the reasons explained above in reference to
`
`proposed amended claim 20. This amendment explicitly excludes the use of a
`
`reconfigurable processor that does not operate independent of and in parallel with a
`
`conventional microprocessor, as that purportedly disclosed by Trimberger.
`
`IV. REVISION OR SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`41. My opinions are subject to change or revision. I may acquire
`
`additional opinions that Petitioner or its expert may present or information I may
`
`receive in the future or additional work I may perform. With this in mind, based
`
`on the analysis I have conducted and for the reasons set forth, I have preliminarily
`
`reached the conclusions and opinions in this Report.
`
`V. EXHIBITS
`
`42.
`
`In the event of a hearing or trial in this matter, I may create and/or use
`
`various exhibits relevant to this case for the purposes of demonstrating my
`
`testimony as discussed in this Report. I have not yet selected the particular
`
`exhibits or created or assisted in the creation of demonstrative exhibits to assist me
`
`in testifying.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`43. For at least the reasons stated above, and others, it is my expert
`
`opinion that Petitioner’s references do not disclose all elements of any of the
`
`amended claims of the ’867 Patent.
`
`
`
`21
`
`