UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`Case No.: IPR2023-00922
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454
`Issue Date: June 24, 2014
`Title: Graphics Processing Architecture Employing a Unified Shader
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF HANSPETER PFISTER, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,760,454
`
`1
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINION ............................................................................ 8
`I.
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND PRIOR TESTIMONY ........................ 8
`II.
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ......................................................................... 13
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ........................................................... 15
`A.
`Legal Standards Relating to Claim Construction ............................... 15
`B.
`Legal Standards Relating to Anticipation .......................................... 16
`C.
`Legal Standards Relating to Obviousness .......................................... 18
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 22
`A. Graphics Processing ........................................................................... 22
`B.
`Parallel Processing ............................................................................. 25
`VI. THE ’454 PATENT ...................................................................................... 28
`VII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’454 PATENT ................................. 31
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 34
`IX. GROUND 1: LINDHOLM ’685 PATENT AND LINDHOLM ‘913
`PATENT (CLAIMS 1-11) ............................................................................ 34
`A.
`The Lindholm ’685 Patent .................................................................. 35
`B.
`The Lindholm ’913 Patent .................................................................. 40
`1.
`Combining the Lindholm Patents ............................................ 45
`2.
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................ 46
`a.
`Claim 2 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 46
`b.
`Claim 2[a] – General Purpose Register Block .............. 50
`c.
`Claim 2[b] and [d] – Processor Unit .............................. 51
`d.
`Claim 2[c] - Sequencer .................................................. 54
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................ 55
`a.
`Claim 3 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 56
`b.
`Claim 3[a] and [c] – Processor Unit .............................. 56
`c.
`Claim 3[b] – Shared Resources ..................................... 62
`
`3.
`
`2
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`10.
`
`Independent Claim 4 ................................................................ 63
`[a] a processor unit operative to perform vertex
`calculation operations and pixel calculation
`operations; and ............................................................... 63
`Claim 4 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 63
`a.
`Claim 4[a] and [c] – Processor Unit .............................. 64
`b.
`Claim 4[b] – Shared Resources ..................................... 64
`c.
`Independent Claim 5 ................................................................ 64
`a.
`Claim 5 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 64
`b.
`Claim 5[a] – Processor Unit .......................................... 64
`c.
`Claim 5[b] – Sequencer ................................................. 64
`Dependent Claim 6................................................................... 64
`Dependent Claims 7 and 10 ..................................................... 65
`Dependent Claim 8................................................................... 66
`Dependent Claim 9................................................................... 66
`Independent Claim 11 .............................................................. 66
`a.
`Claim 11 [preamble] – Unified Shader ......................... 67
`b.
`Claim 11[a] and [c] – Processor Unit ............................ 67
`c.
`Claim 11[b] – Instruction Store ..................................... 67
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 67
`11.
`X. GROUND #2: CLAIMS 1-11 BASED ON THE COMBINATION OF
`AMANATIDES AND KOHN ...................................................................... 69
`A. Amanatides ......................................................................................... 70
`B.
`The ’454 Patent Does Not Claim a Multithreaded Graphics
`Processor ............................................................................................ 78
`1.
`Combining Amanatides and Kohn ........................................... 80
`2.
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................ 81
`a.
`Claim 2 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 81
`3
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 2[a] – General Purpose Register Block .............. 82
`b.
`Claim 2[b] and [d] – Processor Unit .............................. 84
`c.
`Claim 2[c] - Sequencer .................................................. 88
`d.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................ 89
`a.
`Claim 3 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 89
`b.
`Claim 3[a] and [c] – Processor Unit .............................. 89
`c.
`Claim 3[b] – Shared Resources ..................................... 93
`Independent Claim 4 ................................................................ 94
`a.
`Claim 4 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 94
`b.
`Claim 4[a] and [c] – Processor Unit .............................. 94
`c.
`Claim 4[b] – Shared Resources ..................................... 94
`Independent Claim 5 ................................................................ 94
`a.
`Claim 5 [preamble] – Unified Shader ........................... 94
`b.
`Claim 5[a] – Processor Unit .......................................... 94
`c.
`Claim 5[b] – Sequencer ................................................. 95
`Dependent Claim 6................................................................... 95
`Dependent Claims 7 and 10 ..................................................... 95
`Dependent Claim 8................................................................... 97
`Dependent Claim 9................................................................... 97
`Independent Claim 11 .............................................................. 97
`a.
`Claim 11 [preamble] – Unified Shader ......................... 97
`b.
`Claim 11[a] and [c] – Processor Unit ............................ 98
`c.
`Claim 11[b] – Instruction Store ..................................... 98
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 98
`11.
`XI. GROUND #3: CLAIMS 1-11 BASED ON THE COMBINATION OF
`SELZER AND FISKE ................................................................................ 100
`A.
`Selzer ................................................................................................ 100
`
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`10.
`
`4
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Fiske ................................................................................................. 105
`Combining Selzer and Fiske ............................................................ 109
`1.
`Independent Claim 2 .............................................................. 112
`a.
`Claim 2 [preamble] – Unified Shader ......................... 112
`b.
`Claim 2[a] – General Purpose Register Block ............ 114
`c.
`Claim 2[b] and [d] – Processor Unit ............................ 116
`d.
`Claim 2[c] - Sequencer ................................................ 118
`Independent Claim 3 .............................................................. 120
`a.
`Claim 3 [preamble] – Unified Shader ......................... 120
`b.
`Claim 3[a] and [c] – Processor Unit ............................ 120
`c.
`Claim 3[b] – Shared Resources ................................... 121
`Independent Claim 4 .............................................................. 121
`a.
`Claim 4 [preamble] – Unified Shader ......................... 121
`b.
`Claim 4[a] and [c] – Processor Unit ............................ 121
`c.
`Claim 4[b] – Shared Resources ................................... 121
`Independent Claim 5 .............................................................. 121
`a.
`Claim 5 [preamble] – Unified Shader ......................... 121
`b.
`Claim 5[a] – Processor Unit ........................................ 121
`c.
`Claim 5[b] – Sequencer ............................................... 122
`Dependent Claim 6................................................................. 122
`Dependent Claims 7 and 10 ................................................... 122
`Dependent Claim 8................................................................. 124
`Dependent Claim 9................................................................. 124
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................ 124
`a.
`Claim 11 [preamble] – Unified Shader ....................... 124
`b.
`Claim 11[a] and [c] – Processor Unit .......................... 124
`c.
`Claim 11[b] – Instruction Store ................................... 125
`5
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................. 125
`10.
`XII. DECLARATION ........................................................................................ 127
`
`6
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I, Dr. Hanspeter Pfister, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner, Realtek Semiconductor
`
`Corp., as an expert in this inter partes review to examine whether claims 1-11 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 (the ’454 patent or Patent in Suit) are patentable over
`
`certain prior art.
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of all the facts set forth herein, and if
`
`called to testify at any hearing in this inter partes review, I would competently
`
`testify and verify that testimony contained herein.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my hourly rate of $650 per hour. I am also
`
`being reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses. My compensation does not depend in
`
`any way on the outcome of this Investigation or the particular opinions I express,
`
`or the testimony I give.
`
`4.
`
`I expect to be available for deposition and to testify at the evidentiary
`
`hearing in this inter partes review to the extent required.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration contains my conclusions and a summary of my
`
`analysis including a summary of my conclusions; an overview of my qualifications
`
`as an expert; an overview of the scope and terms of my engagement for this
`
`declaration; an overview of the materials I have considered in arriving at my
`
`conclusions; an overview of the terminology and legal principles that I applied in
`
`my analysis; an overview of the technical background of the subject matter; an
`
`7
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`overview of the Patent in Suit; an analysis of the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`related to the Patent in Suit; an analysis of the asserted references; and a
`
`patentability analysis of the challenged claims.
`
`6.
`
`This declaration is based on information currently available to me. I
`
`intend to continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information that may yet be produced, as well as deposition
`
`testimony from depositions for which transcripts are not yet available or that may
`
`yet be taken in this review. Therefore, I expressly reserve the right to expand or
`
`modify my opinions as my investigation and study continue, and to supplement my
`
`opinions in response to any additional information that becomes available to me,
`
`any matters raised by Petitioner and/or other opinions provided by Petitioner’
`
`expert(s), or in light of any relevant orders from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`or other authoritative body.
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINION
`7.
`It is my opinion that claims 1-11 of the ’454 Patent are at least
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art references discussed below. I will explain below
`
`my analysis and basis for my opinion in detail.
`
`II.
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND PRIOR TESTIMONY
`8.
`My curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Ex. 1004, which provides an
`
`accurate identification of my relevant background and experience in multi-threaded
`
`8
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`graphics processors. For the past 25 years, I have focused on computer graphics
`
`processing in both industrial and academic settings. I have designed cutting-edge
`
`graphics processing systems, including the world’s first real-time volume
`
`rendering graphics card. I have pioneered research into various aspects of
`
`computer graphics and received academic awards and industry recognition for my
`
`work in computer graphics. I am a Fellow of the ACM (Association of Computing
`
`Machinery), the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), and a
`
`member of the ACM SIGGRAPH and the IEEE Visualization Academy.
`
`9.
`
`In 1991, I received my M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the Swiss
`
`Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Switzerland. I then studied
`
`computer science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony
`
`Brook, NY, where I earned my M.S. in Computer Science in 1994 and my Ph. D.
`
`in Computer Science in 1996.
`
`10.
`
`I am the Academic Dean of Computational Science and Engineering
`
`and An Wang Professor of Computer Science at the Harvard John A. Paulson
`
`School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University. I am also an
`
`affiliate faculty member of the Harvard Center for Brain Science. My research in
`
`visual computing lies at the intersection of visualization, computer graphics, and
`
`computer vision. It spans a wide range of topics, including bio-medical
`
`visualization, image and video analysis, augmented and virtual reality, and data
`
`9
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`science. From 2013 to 2017, I was director of the Institute for Applied
`
`Computational Science. For most of this work, I am leveraging the power of
`
`graphics processing units (“GPUs”) for computer graphics, high-throughput
`
`computing, and visualization. I am currently advising and co-advising six Ph. D.
`
`students, five post-doctoral fellows, and one post-doctoral research scientist. I also
`
`supervised numerous research and thesis projects and student interns.
`
`11. Before joining Harvard, I worked for over a decade at Mitsubishi
`
`Electric Research Laboratories as Associate Director and Senior Research
`
`Scientist. I was the chief architect of Mitsubishi Electric's VolumePro, the world’s
`
`first PC graphics card for real-time visualization of volume data. The technology
`
`was subsequently acquired by TeraRecon and is still in wide commercial use in
`
`medicine, biology, engineering, and oil and gas exploration. VolumePro received
`
`several technical awards, including Mitsubishi Electric President's Award in 2000.
`
`Since then, I have developed several new methods for high-quality and interactive
`
`volume visualization on GPUs. I received the 2010 IEEE Visualization Technical
`
`Achievement award in recognition of my “seminal technical achievements in real-
`
`time volume rendering.”
`
`12.
`
`I am a pioneer in point-based computer graphics, a subfield of
`
`computer graphics that deals with modeling and rendering of point-sampled (e.g.,
`
`laser-scanned) objects. I am among the first to introduce data-driven approaches
`
`10
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`for complex real-world objects to computer graphics, including human faces. And
`
`I developed new camera and display technologies, including the world’s first end-
`
`to-end real-time 3D TV system with auto-stereoscopic display. Currently, I am
`
`collaborating with Harvard scientists on novel analysis and visualization
`
`approaches in computational science, including neuroscience, genomics, systems
`
`biology, astronomy, and medicine. I am co-inventor of over 50 US patents and co-
`
`author on more than 200 peer-reviewed publications, including over 25 ACM
`
`SIGGRAPH papers, the premier forum in Computer Graphics. According to
`
`Google Scholar, my publications have been cited about 34,000 times, with about
`
`half of these citations since 2015, and I have an h-index of 89.
`
`13.
`
`From 1999 to 2007, I built a rich academic program in computer
`
`graphics at the Harvard Extension School through the development of several new
`
`courses, including CSCI E-234 "Introduction to Computer Graphics" (1999-2007),
`
`CSCI E-235 "Advanced Computer Graphics" (2002), CSCI E-236 "Advanced
`
`Topics in Computer Graphics" (2004-2006), and INDR E-399 "Independent Study
`
`in Advanced Computer Graphics" (2003). After joining Harvard in 2007, I
`
`introduced several new undergraduate and graduate courses that are also offered to
`
`the public through the Harvard Extension School, including CS171 "Visualization"
`
`(2007-present), CS175 "Introduction to Computer Graphics" (2010), CS264
`
`"Massively Parallel Computing" (2009-2011), CS205 "Introduction to
`
`11
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Computational Science" (2010-2012), and CS109 "Data Science" (2013-2018), and
`
`CS10 “Elements of Data Science” (2020-2022).
`
`14. Between 2009 and 2016, in collaboration with Prof. Alan Aspuru-
`
`Guzik of the Chemistry and Chemical Biology faculty at Harvard, I was the co-PI
`
`(Principal Investigator) of Harvard's CUDA Center of Excellence (CCOE). The
`
`CCOE supported “outstanding research taking place in Massively Parallel
`
`Programming and Computing” using GPUs.
`
`15.
`
`I have served on the papers committees of all major visualization and
`
`graphics conferences, including ACM SIGGRAPH, IEEE Visualization, EuroVis,
`
`Eurographics, Pacific Graphics, and many others. I have co-organized various
`
`international workshops, symposia, and conferences in computer graphics and
`
`visualization, including general conference chair of IEEE Visualization 2002 and
`
`technical papers chair of ACM SIGGRAPH 2012. I previously chaired and am
`
`currently a director of the IEEE Visualization and Graphics Technical Committee.
`
`In 2020, I was elected to the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee as a
`
`director-at-large. I served on the editorial board of the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Visualization and Computer Graphics and the ACM Transaction on Graphics, the
`
`top two journals in the field. I am co-editor of the first textbook on Point-Based
`
`Computer Graphics, published by Elsevier in 2007, and the 2006 NIH/NSF
`
`Visualization Research Challenges Report. In addition to being a Fellow of the
`
`12
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ACM and the IEEE, I am a member of ACM SIGGRAPH and the Eurographics
`
`Association. I received the IEEE Golden Core Award, the IEEE Meritorious
`
`Service Award, and the Petra T. Shattuck Excellence in Teaching Award. I was
`
`elected to the IEEE Visualization Academy and the ACM SIGGRAPH Academy.
`
`The academies are an honorary group of individuals who have made substantial
`
`contributions to the fields of visualization and computer graphics, respectively.
`
`16.
`
`I have been working as an independent consultant since 2007,
`
`specializing in computer graphics, visualization, data science, technical due
`
`diligence reviews, and in the provision of expert witness services, particularly
`
`patent infringement. My clients range from domestic start-ups to international
`
`Fortune 500 companies, and include Adobe, Disney Research, Novartis, as well as
`
`NVIDIA.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`17.
`I have reviewed the following materials in forming my opinions:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 (the “’454 Patent”)
`
` Prosecution history of the ’454 Patent and related patents
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,038,685 (“Lindholm ’685 patent”) was filed
`
`on June 30, 2003 and issued on May 2, 2006. Ex. 1005. It is
`
`therefore, prior art to the ’454 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`13
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,015,913 (“Lindholm ’913 patent”) was filed
`
`on June 27, 2003 and issued on March 21, 2006. Ex. 1006. It
`
`is therefore, prior art to the ’454 patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
` John Amanatides and Edward Szurkowski, A Simple, Flexible,
`
`Parallel Graphics Architecture, In Proceedings of Graphics
`
`Interface at 155-160 (Canadian Information Processing Society
`
`1993) (“Amanatides”) was published in Proc. Graphics
`
`Interface ’93 in May 1993. Ex. 1007. It is therefore prior art to
`
`the ’454 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
` Les Kohn and Neal Margulis, Introducing the Intel i860 64-bit
`
`Microprocessor, IEEE, Volume 9, Issue 4, pages 15-30, August
`
`1989. Ex. 1008. It is therefore prior art to the ’454 patent under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
` Harald Selzer, Dynamic Load Balancing within a High
`
`Performance Graphics System, In Proceedings of Rendering,
`
`Visualization and Rasterization Hardware (Eurographics' 91
`
`Workshop) at 37-53 (Springer-Verlag 1993) (“Selzer”) was
`
`published in 1993. Ex. 1009. It is therefore prior art to
`
`the ’454 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`14
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Stuart Fiske and William J. Dally, Thread Prioritization: A
`
`Thread Scheduling Mechanism for Multiple-Context Parallel
`
`Processors, In Proceedings of First Symposium on High-
`
`Performance Computer Architecture, 1995 at 210-221 (IEEE
`
`1995) (“Fiske”) was published in 1995. Ex. 1010. It is
`
`therefore prior art to the ’454 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) and (b).
`
`18.
`
`I have tried my best to list all the materials I considered and reviewed.
`
`I may have accidentally left some materials off the above list that I cited in my
`
`analysis below. Such materials, if any, should be included in the above list of
`
`materials I considered and reviewed. I reserve the right to revise this list.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`19.
`I am not a legal expert. In forming my opinions, I have been informed
`
`of and applied the legal standards as follows. I understand that the legal standards
`
`relating to anticipation and obviousness apply to the ’454 Patent based on its
`
`effective filing date of November 20, 2003.
`
`A.
`20.
`
`Legal Standards Relating to Claim Construction
`I understand that, during an inter partes review proceeding, patent
`
`claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
`
`of the patent.” It is my further understanding that the prosecution history is relevant
`
`15
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`to determining the correct construction of claim terms and that extrinsic evidence
`
`also may be relevant to establish the meaning of terms to the extent it is consistent
`
`with the specification and prosecution history.
`
`B.
`21.
`
`Legal Standards Relating to Anticipation
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated” and therefore invalid
`
`when a single prior art document describes, or a prior art product includes, every
`
`element recited, either expressly or inherently, in the claim. I further understand that,
`
`to be considered anticipatory, a written prior art reference must be enabling and
`
`describe the invention of the claim sufficiently to have placed it in possession of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may anticipate a claim without
`
`disclosing an element of the claim if that missing element is necessarily present, or
`
`inherent, in the single anticipating reference as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I understand that inherency cannot be established by
`
`probabilities or possibilities; the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given
`
`set of circumstances is not sufficient.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention “was
`
`known or used by others in this country … before the invention thereof by the
`
`[patent] applicant.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). I understand that, to be invalidating,
`
`knowledge or use must be accessible to the public. I understand that whether use or
`
`16
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`knowledge is “public” is a fact-intensive question, the answer to which depends on
`
`such factors as whether some or all of the prior use or knowledge was maintained in
`
`confidence or as a trade secret, the existence of non-disclosure agreements or other
`
`confidentiality obligations imposed on members of the public who observed the use,
`
`the number of people involved, and the extent to which the use of the product
`
`informs an observer about the features of the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention was
`
`“patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the
`
`invention thereof by the applicant for patent” (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)) or the claimed
`
`invention was described in “a patent granted on an application for patent by another
`
`filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent” (35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e)). I understand that the date of “the invention . . . by the applicant” in both §
`
`102(a) and § 102(e) refers to the conception date of the claimed invention by the
`
`patent applicant.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a reference does not qualify as prior art under § 102(a)
`
`or § 102(e) if (1) the inventor conceived of the invention prior to the effective date of
`
`the reference and showed reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice
`
`from a time just prior to the effective date of the reference or (2) the inventor reduced
`
`the invention to practice prior to the effective date of the reference. I understand that
`
`conception requires an inventor to form in his or her mind a definite and particular
`
`17
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`idea of a complete and operative invention, including every feature of the claim at
`
`issue. I have further been informed that there are two types of reduction to practice:
`
`actual reduction to practice (i.e., when all limitations of the claimed invention are
`
`embodied in a physical or tangible form that has been sufficiently tested to
`
`demonstrate it works for its intended purpose) and constructive reduction to practice
`
`(i.e., by the filing of a patent application).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed “invention was
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country . . . more
`
`than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States” (35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b)). I understand that, to qualify as prior art, a printed publication must
`
`be shown to be accessible to the public (i.e., disseminated or otherwise made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject
`
`matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it).
`
`C.
`27.
`
`Legal Standards Relating to Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim is “obvious” and therefore invalid
`
`when the differences between the claimed subject matter 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 the subject
`
`matter pertains.
`
`18
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`28.
`
`In making an obviousness determination, I understand that there are
`
`several factors to consider: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made; (3) the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art, if any, and (4) objective
`
`considerations, if any exist, such as any commercial success, copying, prior failure
`
`by others, licenses, longstanding need, and unexpected results.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that prior art used to show that a claimed invention is
`
`obvious must be “analogous art.” Prior art is analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention if (1) it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even
`
`if it addresses a different problem) or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to
`
`the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not from the same field of endeavor
`
`as the claimed invention).
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art, whether those references were set forth in a
`
`single reference or in a combination of references. Instead, it must have been
`
`obvious to arrange those elements in the same way as the elements in the claim.
`
`31.
`
`I understand a single reference may be the basis for finding that a
`
`claim is obvious. When the obviousness determination relies on the combination
`
`of two or more references, however, the patent challenger must show that there is a
`
`19
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`reason, suggestion, or motivation that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine prior art references.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that there is no single way to define the line between true
`
`inventiveness on the one hand (which is patentable) and the application of common
`
`sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand (which may not be
`
`patentable). For example, market forces or other design incentives may be what
`
`produced a change in the technology of the prior art, rather than true inventiveness.
`
`I further understand that explicit teachings or suggestions in the prior art to make
`
`the modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent may be evidence
`
`of obviousness. Further, an innovation may be obvious if it applies a known
`
`technique that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar
`
`way. I understand that a claimed invention may be found to be obvious to try if the
`
`claimed innovation was one of a relatively small number of possible approaches to
`
`the problem with a reasonable expectation of success by those skilled in the art.
`
`33. However, I also understand that it is improper to engage in hindsight
`
`when trying to determine the obviousness of a patent claim. Many true inventions
`
`might seem obvious with the benefit of hindsight. I understand that the
`
`obviousness inquiry must be conducted from the standpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field at the time the claimed invention was made. What is known
`
`today, and what is learned from the teachings and disclosures of the patent itself
`
`20
`
`TCL 1003
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,760,454
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`containing the claim under analysis, should not be considered. Nor should one use
`
`the patent claim as a guide to picking out elements of the prior art for combination.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that various “secondary considerations”
`
`(sometimes referred to as objective indicia of non-obviousness) may support a
`
`determination of non-obviousness and that such secondary considerations must be
`
`considered as part of an obviousness analysis. I have been informed that secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness may include:
`
` commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention;
`
` a long felt need for the solution provided by the claimed invention;
`
` unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution provided by the
`claimed invention;
`
` copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
` unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention; and
`
` acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by praise f