` Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 59
`Date: December 27, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`____________
`
`Held: November 14, 2013
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
`JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`WILLIAM H. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE
`
`
`TRAVIS M. JENSEN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`
`
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025-1015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK E. MILLER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`O’Melveny & Myers, LLP
`
`
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`
`
`
`
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`CHRISTOPHER L. McKEE, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL S. CUVIELLO, ESQUIRE
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`1100 13th Street, N.W.
`Suite 1200
`Washington, D.C. 20005-4051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 14, 2013, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. Please be seated.
`
`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
`
`This is the hearing for IPR2012 -0042 between Petitioner
`
`29
`
`Synopsys and Patent Owner Mentor Graphics.
`
`30
`
`At this time we'd like the parties to introduce
`
`31
`
`themselves, starting with Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Your Honor. William
`
`Wright of Orrick, Herrington & Sut cliffe on behalf of Petitioner
`
`Synopsys. With me today is my colleague Travis Jensen and also
`
`with me is David Pursley, Associate General Counsel for
`
`Synopsys.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And for Pat ent
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. McKEE: Good morning, Your Honors, or good
`
`afternoon, Your Honors, Christopher McKee, lead counsel for
`
`10
`
`Mentor Graphics, and with me is backup counsel, Mark Miller
`
`11
`
`with O'Melveny & Myers who will be presenting the argument
`
`12
`
`today for Mentor Graphics, and also backup counsel, Michael
`
`13
`
`Cuviello with Banner & Witcoff, and we also have with us Tom
`
`14
`
`Evans, corporate counsel for Mentor Graphics.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Great. Thank you very much.
`
`16
`
`Okay. Per the order we sent out October 31st, you know that
`
`17
`
`each side has 60 minutes total time to present your arguments,
`
`18
`
`and we'd like the Petitioner to begin with its case with regard to
`
`19
`
`the challenge claims on which the Board instituted trial, and then
`
`20
`
`the Patent Owner can respond to the Petitioner's case and then at
`
`21
`
`that point we'd also l ike the Patent Owner to discuss their motion
`
`22
`
`to amend claims.
`
`23
`
`Then, Petitioner, you can take the rest of your time to
`
`24
`
`respond to all issues, and then, lastly, the Patent Owner, you can
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`respond, but only address the issues in connection with your
`
`motion to amend.
`
`So is that clear on how we're going to proceed?
`
`MR. MILLER: Yes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And also one other administrative
`
`matter, when you're discussing your demonstratives so that we
`
`can follow through the transcript, when we look back on the
`
`transcript, if you could just refer to the slide number you're
`
`discussing when you're up there, so then it will make sense in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`context of the transcript. That would be great, a big help for us.
`
`11
`
`Okay. So we'll begin with the Petitioner, and if you
`
`12
`
`could let us know how much time, rebuttal time, you'd like to
`
`13
`
`have.
`
`14
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like
`
`15
`
`to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal time. It may be 20 minutes,
`
`16
`
`but certainly reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`17
`
`Your Honor, if I could, we have copies of the
`
`18
`
`materials that we'll be discussing. Could Mr. Jensen approach
`
`19
`
`and provide you those copies?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, please. Thank you.
`
`MR. WRIGHT: We have provided a copy of the
`
`22
`
`materials to the court report er and we'll provide copies to
`
`23
`
`counsel as well.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And we did receive both parties'
`
`25
`
`demonstratives in the record, so we appreciate that.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. If it
`
`may please the Court, we'd like to discuss the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent Number 6,240,376. Trial was
`
`granted on Claims 1 through 9, 11, 28 and 29 over U.S. Patent
`
`Number 6,132,109 to Gregory, et al. Gregory, et al. is a
`
`Synopsys patent that predates the 376 Patent by -- at least by --
`
`for filing date by several years.
`
`The technology at issue here is related to what's
`
`called EDA, design of integrated circuits using programming
`
`10
`
`language called HDL or RTL. It looks a great deal like a
`
`11
`
`computer language, but it is, instead, translated int o integrated
`
`12
`
`circuit designs.
`
`13
`
`The specific patents, the 376 Patent and the 109
`
`14
`
`Patent, are both directed to our debugging integrated circuits
`
`15
`
`relating the initial high -level design language or registered
`
`16
`
`transfer level design language to the circuitry wi thin a
`
`17
`
`simulation or emulation environment.
`
`18
`
`The Gregory Patent is directed to -- also towards
`
`19
`
`debugging. You can see debugging in its title. Debugging is
`
`20
`
`discussed throughout the background of the invention. And the
`
`21
`
`specific challenge that Gregory was addressing was the fact that
`
`22
`
`in optimizing HDL code to form an integrated circuit, you lose a
`
`23
`
`great deal of information, and it be confusing or difficult to track
`
`24
`
`circuitry back to the original text of the HDL language.
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The Gregory 109 Patent introduces something it calls
`
`probes to retain information about that original HDL textual
`
`description of the design so that it's easier to understand the
`
`debugging results that you get from simulation of the end
`
`product, integrated circuit.
`
`The 376 Patent comes s everal years later and has two
`
`primary embodiments, one in which the designer inserts
`
`additional language into the textual RTL description of the code,
`
`specifically for tracking the relationship between the HDL and
`
`10
`
`the end circuit.
`
`11
`
`There's a second embod iment, which is important to
`
`12
`
`our discussion today, whereas the designer highlights a particular
`
`13
`
`RTL statement to be associated with an instrumentation signal, a
`
`14
`
`database keeps track of the association between the HDL text and
`
`15
`
`the instrumentation signal so that you have a database that tracks
`
`16
`
`everything, all the signals in the circuit so that that forms the
`
`17
`
`resource for being able to work backward and understand how a
`
`18
`
`debugging result relates to the original HDL textual description.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Mentor's --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Can I stop you there and ask a little
`
`21
`
`bit more about the second embodiment?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Certainly.
`
`JUDGE BISK: So how do they differ than in the next
`
`24
`
`phase of the -- I guess the next level down?
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. WRIGHT: After the HDL is written, you go
`
`through a synthesis process to produce what's called a netlist. A
`
`netlist is a list of components and connections, relationships
`
`between the components. The what we'll call a primary
`
`embodiment of the 376 Patent, the added lines of RTL code are
`
`synthesized, translated into a netlist description, along with the
`
`rest of the circuit.
`
`For the -- if we would, the pure database embodiment,
`
`the database keeps track of what signals are created by the
`
`10
`
`synthesis from HDL code into the netlist. The database keeps
`
`11
`
`track of those instrumentation signals rather than having those
`
`12
`
`signals be newly created within the code in the circuit.
`
`13
`
`JUDGE BISK: So I'm a little -- so where is the
`
`14
`
`instrumentation signal, in the database?
`
`15
`
`MR. WRIGHT: The instrumentation signal is
`
`16
`
`something that's created in -- or it is part of the netlist. It's part
`
`17
`
`of the circuit design.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE BISK: Right.
`
`MR. WRIGHT: It's a signal that you can track and
`
`20
`
`understand what is happening, and the instrumentation signal is
`
`21
`
`represented in the databas e and associated with the original HDL
`
`22
`
`text.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. So what is the exact -- do we
`
`24
`
`know the exact differences in the actual circuit than between
`
`25
`
`primary embodiment and secondary embodiment?
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. WRIGHT: There may be no differences in the
`
`circuit. There may be additional logic in the primary
`
`embodiment. There may be different logic. Because you go
`
`through an optimization process, you may optimize to a different
`
`circuit when you have the additional lines of code.
`
`So I'll show you an examp le where an aspect of the
`
`circuit is completely the same and where it is changed as
`
`opposed to the synthesis.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Thank you.
`
`10
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Referring now to Slide 2, the petition
`
`11
`
`characterized the two embodiments and generally stating that the
`
`12
`
`instrumentation logic is added to or tracked within the RTL
`
`13
`
`source code description of a circuit, and that logic is synthesized
`
`14
`
`with a circuit description to provide a gate -level design
`
`15
`
`incorporating the instrumentation logic, so -- and I'll discuss in
`
`16
`
`some detail.
`
`17
`
`The embodiments either track within the database or
`
`18
`
`add information to the HDL code. So from the broadest
`
`19
`
`perspective, the concept of instrumentation signal is either
`
`20
`
`something that is added to the original HDL code or it's some
`
`21
`
`part of the HDL c ode that is kept intact and tracked through the
`
`22
`
`database.
`
`23
`
`The Board granted review as shown on page 3 and
`
`24
`
`construed four claim terms. Only one is relevant to our
`
`25
`
`discussion this afternoon and that's instrumentation signal. And
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`the Board stated, "we con clude that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claimed instrumentation signal at least
`
`encompasses an output signal created during synthesis of RTL
`
`source code by inserting additional logic, preserved from the
`
`source code that indicates whether t he corresponding RTL source
`
`code statement is active."
`
`We'll discuss here that there's ample support for the
`
`Board's construction of instrumentation signal. There's support
`
`for an even broader interpretation where rather than speaking in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`terms of inserting additional logic, the Board could have stated
`
`11
`
`inserting or tracking logic from the source code.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE BISK: Can I ask you a question? The Patent
`
`13
`
`Owner seems to be saying that there's an inconsistency internally
`
`14
`
`in this statement between inserting ad ditional logic and
`
`15
`
`preserved from the source code. So do you think that's
`
`16
`
`consistent or if tracking is missing from this statement, does
`
`17
`
`preserved from the source code not make sense?
`
`18
`
`MR. WRIGHT: There is certainly information
`
`19
`
`inserted into the source code regardless of the embodiment. You
`
`20
`
`are identifying a statement and associating that with an
`
`21
`
`instrumentation signal. In some cases that results in additional
`
`22
`
`logic and in some cases it doesn't.
`
`23
`
`The -- to some extent it depends on how broadly you
`
`24
`
`define logic, and we understand logic to have its broad
`
`25
`
`definition. I believe when Patent Owner is arguing that that's an
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`inconsistency, they're expecting that the term logic implies the
`
`addition of logic gates where we'll show embodiments within the
`
`376 Patent where the logic is the attachment of a wire so that you
`
`can track a signal at a particular node.
`
`So from a broad definition of logic, we view it as
`
`consistent, and I believe Patent Owner's finding of inconsistency
`
`is based on their particular definition of logic.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Patent Owner's position I would say
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`reads out not only the alternate embodiment, but quite a bit of
`
`11
`
`the primary embodiment. You need to have a compass to figure
`
`12
`
`out what it is in the primary em bodiment that the Patent Owner
`
`13
`
`considers to be an instrumentation signal.
`
`14
`
`But if you take a look solely at the 376 Patent,
`
`15
`
`particularly we'll discuss Figure 10 and the SIG_TRACE1,
`
`16
`
`SIG_TRACE2, SIG_TRACE3 and SIG_TRACE4 instrumentation
`
`17
`
`signals. We'll see that you could have part of the patent defines
`
`18
`
`instrumentation signals as sometimes being associated with
`
`19
`
`additional logic gates and sometimes associated with preserving
`
`20
`
`a signal or allowing that signal to be observed from outside of
`
`21
`
`the circuit design.
`
`22
`
`On Slide 4 I've quoted a section of the 376 Patent that
`
`23
`
`discusses the alternate embodiment. This is in column 5, lines
`
`24
`
`31 to 45. I will not read it here, but, in part, it states that the
`
`25
`
`cross-reference database contains a cross -reference between
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`these instrumentation logic output signals, the instrumentation
`
`signals, and the position of the corresponding statement in the
`
`source code. So the database is doing a fairly simple job for a
`
`database of keeping track of the signal name and its relationship
`
`to other names within a source code.
`
`Perhaps if the Board has some familiarity with
`
`programming, in simple programming I know I was taught to
`
`sometimes insert a statement that could easily be observed as
`
`having been executed to make sure that my program or m y draft
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`program had proceeded through that part of the execution.
`
`11
`
`And so the 376 Patent is in many ways applying a
`
`12
`
`very basic programming technique to the creation of -- or the
`
`13
`
`design of integrated circuits.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE BISK: Is that -- the Patent Owner in those
`
`15
`
`claims have a couple other terms that they construe. I'm not sure
`
`16
`
`if they're construed as part of instrumentation signal or separate,
`
`17
`
`but they have active and I think one other one.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. WRIGHT: I believe it may be --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Execution statu s.
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Do you have any position on those? I
`
`22
`
`think your reply really talked about those. It seems kind of like
`
`23
`
`what you're talking about here.
`
`24
`
`MR. WRIGHT: I do believe that -- I don't honestly
`
`25
`
`recall their definition of act ive. I believe that their definition of
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`execution status specifically ignores the alternate embodiment
`
`where the database is what is identifying a signal as being active.
`
`So I don't recall the wording of their defi nition, but I
`
`believe that their definition of execution status specifically
`
`requires that you ignore the alternate embodiment, and I will
`
`illustrate I believe whether you adopt Patent Owner's position of
`
`the Board's stated interpretation or an even broader interpretation
`
`as we believe is suppo rted by the plain language of the 376
`
`specification, the Gregory Patent anticipates under any of those
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`constructions.
`
`11
`
`In the course of the trial, we had the opportunity to
`
`12
`
`depose Dr. Sarrafzadeh, Patent Owner's expert, and I think the
`
`13
`
`deposition is a strong indication of the extent that Patent O wner
`
`14
`
`has to reach for to obtain their construction.
`
`15
`
`On Slide 5 is an excerpt from Dr. Sarrafzadeh's
`
`16
`
`deposition discussing the alternate embodiment as it's included
`
`17
`
`in the summary of the invention of the 376 Paten t at column 2,
`
`18
`
`starting at line 66 and continuing into column 3. It talks about --
`
`19
`
`or the 376 Patent states, "With respect to source code analysis,
`
`20
`
`cross-reference instrumentation data, including the
`
`21
`
`instrumentation signals, can be used to count the numbe r of
`
`22
`
`times a corresponding statement is executed in the source code."
`
`23
`
`I think that that statement indicates how execution
`
`24
`
`status relates to the alternate embodiment. When questioned
`
`25
`
`about that, Dr. Sarrafzadeh dismissed the disclosure of the 376
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`Patent, saying it was just inadequate for him to understand what
`
`was going on. His answer was, "You see, they don't show a
`
`method for doing this, they just draw certain conclusions, and
`
`without showing and describing these designs, I would not have
`
`-- it would not be clear what they mean here."
`
`That dismissal of the disclosure of the 376 Patent is
`
`reflected again on Slide 6, where in discussing the alternate
`
`embodiment Dr. Sarrafzadeh -- I referred Dr. Sarrafzadeh to a
`
`particular paragraph within column 9 and, again, asked his
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`understanding, and he said, "I do understand what this paragraph
`
`11
`
`is saying. I'm saying it doesn't provide enough details for
`
`12
`
`somebody to build a system of this type."
`
`13
`
`On the right-hand side is the paragraph that I had
`
`14
`
`directed his atten tion to that is apparently the alternate
`
`15
`
`embodiment. It states in part, "In one embodiment, the
`
`16
`
`cross-reference file contains a mapping between original source
`
`17
`
`code line numbers and instrumentation signals. Each time an
`
`18
`
`instrumentation variable (and its associated signal) is added to
`
`19
`
`the source code, all the line numbers of the statements in the list
`
`20
`
`associated with the instrumentation variable are added to the file.
`
`21
`
`This cross-reference file (i.e., instrumentation data 238) can be
`
`22
`
`used by the gate-level simulation environment to convert the
`
`23
`
`designer's break-points into actual conditions on instrumentation
`
`24
`
`signals."
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`This is a paragraph that Dr. Sarrafzadeh said that he
`
`found to have too little detail to understand or to build a system.
`
`If you would continue with me to Slide 7, we see that
`
`the concept of cross -reference instrumentation data mapping is
`
`explicitly stated in Claim 9. I think this language tracks very
`
`closely the paragraph of Claim 9 that I discuss with Dr.
`
`Sarrafzadeh in his deposition. And Claim 9 clearly covers this
`
`alternate embodiment, clearly is referring to a database with a
`
`cross-reference mapping. Claim 9 depends from Claim 5.
`
`10
`
`And so by the principles of claim differentiation or
`
`11
`
`common sense, Claim 5 has to be considered broad enough to
`
`12
`
`encompass the alternate embodiment.
`
`13
`
`I asked Dr. Sarrafzadeh if there was anything about
`
`14
`
`the specification or the claims that allowed him to dismiss parts
`
`15
`
`of it, and with respect to Claim 1, as shown on Slide 8, he didn't
`
`16
`
`refer to the claim lang uage, instead he said you have to look at
`
`17
`
`all of the patent and come to a conclusion that Claim 1 is
`
`18
`
`limited, not only to the primary embodiment rejecting the
`
`19
`
`alternate embodiment. Claim 1 is limited to only certain aspects
`
`20
`
`for the primary embodiment, and that's because according to Dr.
`
`21
`
`Sarrafzadeh and the Patent Owner, the term instrumentation
`
`22
`
`signal has to do with adding logic.
`
`23
`
`And following up on that concept, I asked Dr.
`
`24
`
`Sarrafzadeh about the specific statement in the background of the
`
`25
`
`invention that talks about the gate-level netlist not being
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`modified for the alternate embodiment, and his answer, again, is
`
`on Slide 10. I'm not clear what they are trying to do with this.
`
`It's not described in detail.
`
`Slide 11 shows a portion of the decision of th is Board
`
`granting Inter Partes Review of certain claims of the 376 Patent.
`
`This is a reference to Figure 9 of the 376 Patent and it illustrates
`
`the methodology.
`
`For the 376 Patent, the designer goes into the HDL
`
`code and adds signals, TRACE1, TRACE2, TR ACE3, TRACE4,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and assigns those signal values within that HDL code to
`
`11
`
`SIG_TRACE1, SIG_TRACE2, SIG_TRACE3, SIG_TRACE4.
`
`12
`
`The Board correctly identified SIG_TRACE1,
`
`13
`
`SIG_TRACE2, SIG_TRACE3 and SIG_TRACE4 as
`
`14
`
`instrumentation signals. However -- and this is confirmed by the
`
`15
`
`text of the 376 Patent at Column 9, Lines 10 to 14, which states,
`
`16
`
`the instrumentation signals, SIG_TRACE1, SIG_TRACE2,
`
`17
`
`SIG_TRACE3 and SIG_TRACE4 are the result of combinatorial
`
`18
`
`logic only.
`
`19
`
`So the patent in plain English says the instrumenta tion
`
`20
`
`signals, this group of four instrumentation signals, are generated
`
`21
`
`in a particular way. Dr. Sarrafzadeh dismisses two of these
`
`22
`
`signals as not being instrumentation signals. He only finds
`
`23
`
`SIG_TRACE3 and SIG_TRACE4 to be instrumentation signals
`
`24
`
`and dismisses SIG_TRACE1 and SIG_TRACE2, and that is
`
`25
`
`because SIG_TRACE -- as you will see in Figure 10 and we'll
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`discuss this in the context of the infringement case, SIG
`
`TRACE1 and SIG_TRACE2 do not add any logic. They simply
`
`report what's going on inside of t he circuit. They're a tap from a
`
`node, a wire going out somewhere that can be detected, and so
`
`according to Patent Owner that is not an instrumentation signal
`
`and according to the patent, column 9, lines 10 to 14, that is
`
`indeed an instrumentation signal.
`
`So it's our view that instrumentation signal is a
`
`broader term than the Patent Owner has argued, and there is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`ample support for the interpretation stated by the Board in its
`
`11
`
`decision to institute review.
`
`12
`
`As we've discussed today, we think there's even
`
`13
`
`broader support, but we don't need to reach that under any of
`
`14
`
`these constructions. The Gregory Patent anticipates the claims at
`
`15
`
`issue of the 109 Patent -- I'm sorry, of the 376 Patent.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE BISK: Now, what about under the Patent
`
`17
`
`Owner's construction, would Gregory anticipate?
`
`18
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Yes, we believe so and we'll
`
`19
`
`demonstrate that with specific reference to Figures 16 and 18 of
`
`20
`
`the Gregory 109 Patent.
`
`21
`
`Slide 15 shows directly from the petition a claim chart
`
`22
`
`with the first part of Claim 1, the pr eamble, and Step A of
`
`23
`
`identifying at least one statement within a registered transfer
`
`24
`
`level (RTL) synthesizable source code, and this is easily
`
`25
`
`illustrated in Figure 8 of the Gregory 109 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The Gregory 109 Patent uses figures of -- a design
`
`stated in Figure 6 and represented in Figures 6 through 9. Also,
`
`I believe 20 through 23 are about the same circuit, and it's a
`
`basic example. It's elaborated on in other figures.
`
`In fact, it's a particularly simple example, and I'll
`
`explain why it was used and the pitfalls of that example in just a
`
`bit. So Figure 8 shows the addition of a particular comment into
`
`HDL source code. The Synopsys probe statement with the two
`
`dashes beforehand to identify it as a comment, and the compiler
`
`10
`
`understands this language a s being special to keep -- and causes
`
`11
`
`this portion to be synthesized in a different way to retain the
`
`12
`
`original text so that it's more easily debugged.
`
`13
`
`Continuing on, on Slide 17, the Mentor -- I'm sorry,
`
`14
`
`the Patent Owner spends a great deal of time attac king the
`
`15
`
`embodiment shown in Figures 6 to 9, but it doesn't address the
`
`16
`
`language that was specifically cited in the claim chart of
`
`17
`
`Gregory, which states in describing the probe statement, that it
`
`18
`
`adds additional information or components to the initial cir cuit
`
`19
`
`that indicate that certain components should not be replaced
`
`20
`
`during optimization.
`
`21
`
`That language alone shows that Gregory is teaching
`
`22
`
`the addition of logic as needed to the initial circuit, the HDL
`
`23
`
`description, and I think rebuts their position on Greg ory not
`
`24
`
`teaching the addition of logic gates.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Continuing on, Slide 18 quotes more of Gregory that
`
`is relevant to the infringement analysis. In the second paragraph
`
`on Slide 18, there's a statement that really captures what Gregory
`
`is about. "Any analytic result related to temporary input 203 or
`
`temporary output 221 can be identified with the probe statement
`
`401 in the HDL."
`
`So the Gregory 109 Patent is teaching us to put
`
`information or components into the HDL code so that we can
`
`track any analytic res ult relating to that position within the
`
`10
`
`circuit. This is illustrated on Slide 19, which shows, again,
`
`11
`
`Figure 8, which is the HDL text with the addition of the
`
`12
`
`Synopsys probe statement, and Figure 9, which shows the
`
`13
`
`tempout and tempin signals that are cre ated there so that you can
`
`14
`
`sense what is going on at that node. You can keep track of that,
`
`15
`
`the analytic results related to that point in the circuit.
`
`16
`
`For comparison purposes, on Slide 20 we have Figure
`
`17
`
`10 of the 376 Patent. Figure 10 is generated from the Figure 9
`
`18
`
`code that the Board quoted in its decision to institute this review,
`
`19
`
`and it shows for you the signals, SIG_TRACE1, SIG_TRACE2,
`
`20
`
`SIG_TRACE3 and SIG TRACE4.
`
`21
`
`On the left I've include a section from the Sarrafzadeh
`
`22
`
`deposition in which Dr. Sarraf zadeh identifies only
`
`23
`
`SIG_TRACE3 and SIG_TRACE4 as being instrumentation
`
`24
`
`signals contradicting the findings of this Board and contradicting
`
`25
`
`Figure 10 of the 376 Patent and column 9, lines 10 to 14 of the
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`376 Patent, which identifies SIG_TRACE1 and SIG_TRAC E2 as
`
`instrumentation signals.
`
`As I said, much of Patent Owner's argument is an
`
`attack on Figures 6 through 9 of the Gregory Patent, and the
`
`Gregory Patent uses Figures 6 through 9 for specific purposes.
`
`It's there to show you how much of a description can be
`
`optimized away.
`
`The HDL statement of Figure 6 is in Figure 8 we've
`
`discussed already, and that's a snippet of code with three logic
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`gates and a multiplexor, as shown in Figure 6 on Slide 21. But if
`
`11
`
`you optimize a circuit, you get exactly what's s hown in Figure 7,
`
`12
`
`which is an inverter inverting the signal on point B.
`
`13
`
`It is an incredibly simple circuit for the purpose of
`
`14
`
`showing you how much change can occur when a circuit, such as
`
`15
`
`what's shown in Figure 6, is optimized. Figure 6 optimizes to
`
`16
`
`what's shown in Figure 7. In the portion of Dr. Sarrafzadeh's
`
`17
`
`deposition on Slide 21 he agrees.
`
`18
`
`The Patent Owner will then argue that there's no real
`
`19
`
`difference in the Figure 9 representation of the Gregory 109
`
`20
`
`circuit, because the tempout and the tempin a re connected at
`
`21
`
`some different level and you don't add any logic to the circuit,
`
`22
`
`and they'll attack it as not showing an execution status, because,
`
`23
`
`in fact, that point in the circuit is never executed.
`
`24
`
`But this is because Gregory used this particular
`
`25
`
`degenerate result or degenerate circuit example to show you how
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`simple and how much information you can lose when going from
`
`the Figure 8/Figure 6 description of the circuit to the optimized
`
`Figure 7 description.
`
`Figure 9 and tempout accurately reports that that
`
`portion of the circuit is never exercised. It's a meaningless,
`
`perhaps a programming mistake, perhaps a young designer that
`
`didn't think through the design or simply the reflection that
`
`designs are complex and sometimes signals that you think are
`
`important simply aren't.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So we've illustrated that Claim 1 is anticipated by
`
`11
`
`Gregory and we pointed to language that says that Gregory
`
`12
`
`teaches us to add information or components to the original code
`
`13
`
`so that we can monitor analytic results to debug the cir cuit.
`
`14
`
`Claim 2 is on Slide 23, and it's simply giving the
`
`15
`
`specific analog of the information being available as if it were an
`
`16
`
`assignment statement, that is, as if some value were being
`
`17
`
`assigned to a signal or variable, and so it really is an analogy and
`
`18
`
`what we've discussed is fully operable.
`
`19
`
`Let me in the interest of using my time efficiently, let
`
`20
`
`me discuss Claim 5 briefly and then Claim 28 so that we cover
`
`21
`
`the independent claims. Claim 5 is very similar to Claim 1.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE BISK: Actually could I have you instead talk
`
`23
`
`about the Patent Owner's claim construction and how you think
`
`24
`
`Gregory would anticipate under those?
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. WRIGHT: Then let me proceed to Claim 28 and
`
`deal with execution status in the context of Figures 16 and 18.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Thank you.
`
`MR. WRIGHT: And the presentation materials
`
`discuss Claim 28 starting at Slide 38 and on Slide 39 references
`
`the Figure 16, VHDL source code of the Gregory 109 Patent that
`
`is synthesized to what is shown in Figure 18 using what Gregory
`
`calls the block pro be, and the block probe just sets an initial
`
`bound and ending bound and causes all of those signals within
`
`10
`
`them to be preserved by the Synopsys probe statement.
`
`11
`
`And this discussion is repeated elsewhere, but let me
`
`12
`
`proceed to the example at -- of Claim 29 on Slide 41, which
`
`13
`
`shows the excerpt from the Figure 16, the HDL description with
`
`14
`
`the Synopsys block probe capturing a process and all of the
`
`15
`
`different cases for a status check or for a controller, and that
`
`16
`
`produces the circuit that's shown on Slide 42, and it can either --
`
`17
`
`that particular statement produces the circuits shown on Slide 42
`
`18
`
`as Figure 18.
`
`19
`
`If you don't have the Synopsys block probe structure,
`
`20
`
`the circuit that's produced is in Figure 14, also on Slide 42. And
`
`21
`
`so you can compare the optimize d synthesized version of the
`
`22
`
`code in Figure 14 with the code that results in Figure 18, and you
`
`23
`
`can see counting up the gates you have at least two more gates in
`
`24
`
`Figure 18 than you do in Figure 14.
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So to preserve the signals that are demanded by the
`
`Synopsys block probe statement, you have to add a couple more
`
`gates so that you can keep track of and reproduce the signals in
`
`the finished circuit. So I've circled two of the NAND gates, both
`
`are indicated as ND2, so it's less useful because there's three
`
`ND2 NAND gates in Figure 18, but you can compare.
`
`There's at least one other gate that is different
`
`between Figure 14 and Figure 18, but clearly the two NAND
`
`gates that are circled on Slide 42 are additional logic, and so
`
`10
`
`under -- and this is showing instr umentation signal and execution
`
`11
`
`status as those terms are used in Claim 28 and illustrates that
`
`12
`
`Gregory, indeed, no
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
