throbber
DOCKET NO.: 0107131.00568US1
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By:
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com)
`Thomas E. Anderson, Reg. No. 37,063 (Tom.Anderson@wilmerhale.com)
`Joseph H. Haag, Reg. No. 42,612 (Joseph.Haag@wilmerhale.com)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2018-013341
`U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2018-01335 and IPR2018-01336 have been consolidated with the instant
`proceeding.
`
`

`

`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`STRATIVEEXHIBIT–NOTEV
`
`December 12, 2019
`
`Inter Partes Review w of U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`(Consolidated with IPR20188-8-01335, 5-, -01336)
`
`Case No: IPR20188-8-01334
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated, Patent Owner
`
`Intel Corporation, Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`

`

`
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(cid:131)Disputed Issues
`
`(cid:131)Summary of the Proceeding
`
`(cid:131)Obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`
`(cid:131)Overview of the Prior Art
`(cid:131)Overview of the ʼ949 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`

`

`
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(cid:131)Disputed Issues
`
`(cid:131)Summary of the Proceeding
`
`(cid:131)Obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`
`(cid:131)Overview of the Prior Art
`(cid:131)Overview of the ʼ949 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`

`

`
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’949 Patent); -01334 Pet. at 9-15; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 53-59.
`
`’949 Patent
`
`

`

`
`
`55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’949 Patent) at Claim 1 (highlighting and annotations added); -01334 Pet. at 25-52; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 107-155.
`
`& Secondary Processor
`Interface Between Primary
`
`with Memory
`Primary Processor
`
`Scatter Loader Controller
`
`segment received separately
`Image header and each data
`Hardware Buffer
`System Memory &
`Secondary Processor
`
`Claim 1
`’949 Patent:
`
`

`

`
`
`66
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 Pet. at 12; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 59-67; Ex. 1001 (’949 Patent) at Fig. 3 (highlighting and annotations added).
`
`Segment 3
`
`Data
`
`Segment 2
`
`Data
`
`Segment 1
`
`Data
`
`Header
`Image
`
`Segment
`Partial Data
`
`Segment 3
`
`Data
`
`Segment 2
`
`Data
`
`Segment 1
`
`Data
`Header
`Image
`
`Segment
`Partial Data
`
`Figure 3
`’949 Patent Alleged Invention:
`
`

`

`
`
`77
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 Pet.; -01335 Pet.; -01336 Pet.
`
`(cid:131)Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 17, 19, 21, 23
`
`configuration parameters, which are not in dispute
`system and a second non-volatile memory storing
`
`(cid:131)Claims 18 and 20 add well-known features such as a file
`(cid:131)Claim 16 uses “means for” terms
`
`system memory
`segment and scatter loading each received data segment into
`
`(cid:131)All recite separately receiving an image header and a data
`
`(cid:131)Independent claims include multi-processor system (claims 1,
`
`18, 20), method (claim 10, 22), and apparatus (claim 16)
`
`(cid:131)Independent claims 1, 10, 16, 18, 20, and 22
`
`Challenged Claims
`’949 Patent:
`
`

`

`
`
`88
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(cid:131)Disputed Issues
`
`(cid:131)Summary of the Proceeding
`
`(cid:131)Obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`
`(cid:131)Overview of the Prior Art
`(cid:131)Overview of the ʼ949 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`

`

`
`
`99
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson); -01334 Pet. at 17-19.
`
`U.S. 7,356,680 (“Svensson”)
`
`

`

`10
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 1 (highlighting and annotations added); -01334 Pet. at 17-19, 25-27, 50-52.
`
`System Memory
`
`Buffer
`Hardware
`
`Processor
`Secondary
`
`Interface
`
`Processor
`Primary
`
`Memory
`
`Hardware Buffer & System Memory
`Svensson: Primary & Secondary Processors,
`
`

`

`11
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 3 (highlighting added); -01334 Pet. at 19.
`
`Header with Destination Address
`Svensson:
`
`

`

`12
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer); -01334 Pet. at 19-21.
`
`U.S. 2006/0288019 (“Bauer”)
`
`

`

`13
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson); Ex. 1009 (Bauer); -01334 Pet. at 19-21, 23-24.
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Fig. 2.
`
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 1.
`
`Same Multi-Processor System as Svensson
`Bauer:
`
`

`

`14
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer); -01334 Pet. at 19-21; Ex. 1009 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 27-34, 88-90.
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Figs. 1A-1C (highlighting added).
`
`(highlighting added).
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 3
`
`that Used in Svensson
`Bauer: Improved Header and File Format Over
`
`

`

`15
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶31(highlighting added); -01334 Pet. at 20, 24, 32-33.
`
`Loader Using Bauer’s File Format
`Bauer: Cites to Svensson for Example of Program
`
`

`

`16
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011, 1012 (Kim); -01334 Pet. at 21-22; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 91-93.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`K.R. 10-2002-0036354 (“Kim”)
`
`

`

`17
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Block
`Request Program
`
`R
`
`P
`
`Ex. 1011, 1012 (Kim) at Fig. 3 (highlights and annotations added); -01334 Pet. at 21-22, 40-42.
`
`Receive Header
`
`Request Header
`
`Processor
`Secondary
`
`Block
`Transmit Program
`Proogggggggggggrraamm
`
`Transmit Header
`
`Processor
`Primary
`
`Separately from Program Block
`Kim: Secondary Processor Receives Header
`
`

`

`18
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(cid:131)Disputed Issues
`
`(cid:131)Summary of the Proceeding
`
`(cid:131)Obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`(cid:131)Overview of the Prior Art
`(cid:131)Overview of the ʼ949 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`

`

`19
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 Pet. at 23-52; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 101-155.
`01334Pt
`t2352E1002(LiDl)¶¶101155
`
`Svensson
`
`Bauer
`
`+
`
`Svensson
`
`Bauer
`
`+
`
`Svensson
`
`Bauer
`
`+
`
`(and alternatively Kim)
`(and
`
`Svensson
`
`Bauer
`
`+
`
`Svensson
`
`Bauer
`
`+
`
`secondary processor via the interface.
`secondary processor, the executable software image being received by the
`
`[1f] an interface communicatively coupling the primary processor and the
`
`[1e] a primary processor coupled with a memory, the memory storing the
`
`executable software image for the secondary processor; and
`
`system memory;
`on the loaded image header, directly from the hardware buffer to the
`and to scatter load each received data segment based at least in part
`
`[1d] a scatter loader controller configured: to load the image header;
`
`[1c] the image header and each data segment being received separately, and
`
`software image,
`for receiving an image header and at least one data segment of an executable
`
`[1b]a secondary processor comprising: system memory and a hardware buffer
`
`[1a].A multi-processor system comprising:
`
`Claim 1
`alternatively with Kim)
`Claim 1 is Obvious Over Bauer and Svensson (and
`
`Svensson
`
`+
`
`Bauer
`Discloses?
`
`

`

`20
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 Pet. at 25-52; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 151-155; see generally POR; Ex. 2007 (Rinard).
`
`via the interface.
`processor, the executable software image being received by the secondary processor
`
`[1f]an interface communicatively coupling the primary processor and the secondary
`
`[1e] a primary processor coupled with a memory, the memory storing the executable
`[1b] a secondary processor comprising: system memory …
`
`software image for the secondary processor; and
`
`Discloses?
`
`(highlighting and annotations added).
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 1
`
`System Memory
`
`[1a]. A multi-processor system comprising:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Processor
`Secondary
`
`Interface
`
`Processor
`Primary
`
`teach the below limitations
`that Bauer and Svensson
`Dr. Rinard do not dispute
`Patent Owner and its expert
`
`(cid:131)
`
`Memory
`
`alternatively with Kim)
`Claim 1 is Obvious Over Bauer and Svensson (and
`
`

`

`21
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(cid:131)Disputed Issues
`
`(cid:131)Summary of the Proceeding
`(cid:131)Obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`
`(cid:131)Overview of the Prior Art
`(cid:131)Overview of the ʼ949 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`

`

`22
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 DI; -01335 DI; -01336 DI; see generally POR.
`
`(cid:131)Whether Dependent Claims 2 and 12 Are Obvious
`(cid:131)Disclosure of “Scatter Loader Controller” in Combination of Bauer And Svensson
`
`(cid:131)Disclosure of Secondary Processor Receiving the Image Header and Each Data Segment
`(cid:131)Disclosure of “Scatter Loading” in Combination of Bauer And Svensson
`
`Separately in Combination of Bauer and Svensson (and alternatively with Kim)
`
`(cid:131)Disclosure of “System Memory” and “Hardware Buffer” in Combination of Bauer And
`
`Svensson
`
`Loader
`Bauer’s File Format to a System Memory of a Secondary Processor Using Svensson’s Program
`
`(cid:131)Motivation To Combine Bauer And Svensson --Obviousness of Transferring an Image in
`(cid:131)Claim Construction
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner contests the challenged claims based on the following:
`
`IPR2018-01334, -01335, -01336 into a single proceeding: IPR2018-01334
`(cid:131)The Board instituted trial on all grounds and all claims and consolidated
`
`Summary of the Proceeding
`
`

`

`23
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(cid:131)Disputed Issues
`(cid:131)Summary of the Proceeding
`
`(cid:131)Obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`
`(cid:131)Overview of the Prior Art
`(cid:131)Overview of the ʼ949 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`

`

`24
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6.Bauer And Svensson Alone or with Kim Teach Separate Receipt of the Image
`
`Header from Each Data Segment
`
`5.Bauer and Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`4.Bauer and Svensson Disclose a “System Memory” and a “Hardware Buffer”
`
`(cid:131)“Scatter Loader Controller”
`(cid:131)“Image Header”
`(cid:131)“Hardware Buffer”
`(cid:131)“System Memory”
`
`3.Claim Construction
`
`Svensson’sProgram Loader
`It Would Be Obvious to Transfer an Image in Bauer’s File Format Using
`
`2.
`
`1.Motivation to Combine Bauer and Svensson
`
`Issues Raised By Patent Owner
`Overview:
`
`

`

`25
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 Pet. at 23-25; Reply Br. at 19-21; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 101-106.
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Fig. 2.
`
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 1.
`
`(cid:131)Bauer and Svensson are closely interrelated:
`
`Motivated To Combine Bauer And Svensson
`A POSITA Would Have Been
`
`

`

`26
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 20-21; Ex. 1022 (Rinard Dep.) at 177:3-12 (emphasis added).
`
`A.Yes.
`
`Q.And you think that’s an accurate statement, correct?
`
`art, “would be motivated to combine Bauer and Svensson.”
`conceivable that the POSA,” a person of ordinary skill in the
`A.Okay. Here I’m on Paragraph 107 [of my report], and I say “it is
`
`would combine the teachings of Bauer and Svensson?
`
`Q.Do you agree with me that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`Dr. Martin Rinard
`
`been obvious to combine Bauer and Svensson:
`Patent Owner’s own expert Dr. Rinard admits it would have
`
`(cid:131)
`
`Motivated To Combine Bauer And Svensson
`A POSITA Would Have Been
`
`

`

`27
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶31(highlighting added); -01334 Pet. at 20, 24, 32-33; Reply Br. at 19-20; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 101-106, 120-122.
`
`(cid:131)Bauer explicitly states that its file format can be used with
`
`Svensson’s program loader:
`
`Motivated To Combine Bauer And Svensson
`A POSITA Would Have Been
`
`

`

`28
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01334 Pet. at 23-25, 31-36; Reply Br. at 19-21; Ex. 1002 (Lin Decl.) ¶¶ 101-106, 120-128.
`
`(highlighting added).
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Figs. 1A-1C
`
`(highlighting added).
`Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 3
`
`Svensson as expressly instructed by the references:
`
`(cid:131)Obvious to combine file format of Bauer with related system of
`
`Motivated To Combine Bauer And Svensson
`A POSITA Would Have Been
`
`

`

`29
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6.Bauer And Svensson Alone or with Kim Teach Separate Receipt of the Image
`
`Header from Each Data Segment
`
`5.Bauer and Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`4.Bauer and Svensson Disclose a “System Memory” and a “Hardware Buffer”
`
`(cid:131)“Scatter Loader Controller”
`(cid:131)“Image Header”
`(cid:131)“Hardware Buffer”
`(cid:131)“System Memory”
`
`3.Claim Construction
`
`2.It Would Be Obvious to Transfer an Image in Bauer’s File Format
`
`Using Svensson’sProgram Loader
`
`1.Motivation to Combine Bauer and Svensson
`
`Issues Raised By Patent Owner
`Overview:
`
`

`

`30
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶31(highlighting added); -01334 Pet. at 20, 24, 32-33; Reply Br. at 23-24.
`
`Bauer’s file format when loading an image for execution:
`
`(cid:131)Bauer explicitly instructs to use Svensson’s program loader with
`
`Svensson’s Program Loader
`Obvious to Use Bauer’s File Format with
`
`

`

`31
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 24-25; Ex. 1022 (Rinard Dep.) at 127:16-128:2; -01334 Pet. at 33, 45-46.
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Fig. 2 (highlighting added).
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶36(highlighting added).
`
`used in any one or more of the memories in Figure 2:
`
`(cid:131)Bauer sets forth that its file format from Figures 1A-1C can be
`
`Svensson’s Program Loader
`Obvious to Use Bauer’s File Format with
`
`

`

`32
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Fig. 2 (highlighting added).
`
`Reply Br. at 25-26.
`
`Ex. 1022 (Rinard Dep.) at 127:16-128:2 (emphasis added)
`
`format.
`these memories can store information in that
`can store information in memories. Any of
`disclose a method of storing information. You
`
`A.Yeah. I mean, this is a –Figures 1A to 1C
`
`format of Figures 1A to 1C of Bauer, correct?
`Figure 2 of Bauer can store an image in the file
`Q.Okay. So any of memories 206, 208 and 210 in
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`Dr. Martin Rinard
`
`format can be stored in any of memories 206, 208, 210:
`Patent Owner’s own expert Dr. Rinard admits Bauer’s file
`
`(cid:131)
`
`Svensson’s Program Loader
`Obvious to Use Bauer’s File Format with
`
`

`

`33
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶43 (highlights added), Figs. 1A-1C; Reply Br. at 19, 26; -01334 Pet. at 19-20, 32, 35, 44.
`
`(cid:131)Bauer teaches that its approach “simplifies optimization” and
`
`“makes memory loading efficient”:
`
`Svensson’s Program Loader
`Obvious to Use Bauer’s File Format with
`
`

`

`34
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶30 (highlights added), Figs. 1A-1C; Reply Br. at 27-29; -01334 Pet. at 46.
`
`reading any of the data segments:
`will “retrieve” header 102 and section information 104 before
`(cid:131)Bauer explains that its file format can be used so that a loader
`
`Svensson’s Program Loader
`Obvious to Use Bauer’s File Format with
`
`

`

`35
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6.Bauer And Svensson Alone or with Kim Teach Separate Receipt of the Image
`
`Header from Each Data Segment
`
`5.Bauer and Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`4.Bauer and Svensson Disclose a “System Memory” and a “Hardware Buffer”
`
`(cid:131)“Scatter Loader Controller”
`(cid:131)“Image Header”
`(cid:131)“Hardware Buffer”
`(cid:131)“System Memory”
`3.Claim Construction
`
`Svensson’s Program Loader
`It Would Be Obvious to Transfer an Image in Bauer’s File Format Using
`
`2.
`
`1.Motivation to Combine Bauer and Svensson
`
`Issues Raised By Patent Owner
`Overview:
`
`

`

`36
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR at 9-12; 1334 DI at 8; Reply Br. at 3, 6.
`
`executable software image can be loaded and executed”
`
`(cid:131)No construction necessary or “memory where an
`
`(cid:131)Petitioner (reply):
`
`“memory that is addressable by the secondary processor”
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected:
`
`(cid:131)Petitioner (in petitions) & Board’s Institution Decision:
`
`(cid:131)No construction necessary
`
`“System Memory”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`37
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(emphasis added).
`Reply Br. at 5; Ex. 1023 (Lin Reply Decl.) ¶12; Ex. 1022 (Rinard Dep.) at 61:9-14 (emphasis added); Ex. 2001 (Lin Dep.) at 25:6-12
`
`A.So a system memory would be a portion of the memory
`
`where programs could be loaded and executed. …
`
`…
`
`system for execution by a processor to be a system memory?
`
`Q.Would you consider a memory that stores an operating
`
`Petitioner’s expert
`Dr. Bill Lin
`
`p
`
`A.That’s one of the things that system memory does, that
`
`you can do with system memory. It’s not the only thing.
`
`Q.Do you agree with Dr. Lin that system memory is memory
`
`processor?
`where programs can be loaded and executed by a
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`Dr. Martin Rinard
`
`p
`
`executable software image can be “loaded and executed”:
`
`(cid:131)Both parties’ experts agree that a “system memory” is where an
`
`“System Memory”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`38
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 5-6; Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at 2:61-63, 8:18-21, 9:37-41 (highlighting added); Ex. 1023 (Lin Reply Decl.) ¶13.
`
`where programs are loaded and executed:
`’949 specification describes “system memory” as memory
`
`(cid:131)
`
`“System Memory”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`39
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 8-11; -1334 DI at 8.
`
`secondary processor”
`receives data sent from the primary processor to the
`“a buffer within a hardware transport mechanism that
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected:
`
`(cid:131)No construction necessary
`
`(cid:131)Petitioner and Board’s Institution Decision:
`
`“Hardware Buffer”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`40
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 9; Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at claim 1(highlighting added).
`
`mechanism”:
`and without even mentioning a “hardware transport
`requiring it to exist in any specific place within that processor,
`buffer” to be part of the “secondary processor”—without
`(cid:131)Claim 1 of the ‘949 patent merely requires the “hardware
`
`“Hardware Buffer”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`41
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 9-10; Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at 2:58-61, 9:37-41(highlighting added).
`
`“hardware transport mechanism”:
`of the “secondary processor”—without mentioning a
`twice, merely to require the “hardware buffer” to be part
`‘949 specification uses the term “hardware buffer” only
`
`(cid:131)
`
`“Hardware Buffer”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`42
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 10; Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at 7:60-63(highlighting added).
`
`that specific embodiment:
`merely “exemplary” and there is no reason to limit the claim to
`Patent Owner’s reliance on Figure 3 is improper, given that it is
`
`(cid:131)
`
`“Hardware Buffer”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`43
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 8; -1334 DI at 8; -1335 DI at 8; -1336 DI at 8.
`
`under Board’s initial construction, which is broader
`(cid:131)Claims invalid under agreed construction and also
`
`of the at least one data segment in the system memory”
`information that can be used to determine the placement
`“the image header is perhaps better described as having
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)Board’s initial construction:
`
`system memory”
`where the data segments are to be placed in the
`“header associated with the entire image that specifies
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)Parties’ agreed construction:
`
`“Image Header”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`44
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 11-13; -1334 DI at 8.
`
`processor”
`directly into the system memory of the secondary
`scatter loads data received from the primary processor
`“a component of a hardware transport mechanism that
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected:
`
`(cid:131)No construction necessary
`
`(cid:131)Petitioner and Board’s Institution Decision:
`
`“Scatter Loader Controller”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`45
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 11-13; Ex. 1023 (Lin Reply Decl.) ¶¶28-29; Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at claim 1.
`
`comprising … a scatter loader controller”)
`Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at claim 1 (“a secondary processor
`
`(cid:131)
`
`requiring it to exist in any specific place
`to be part of the “secondary processor”—without
`
`(cid:131)Claim 1 merely requires the “scatter loader controller”
`
`that it reside in a “hardware transport mechanism”
`plain meaning of a “scatter loader controller” requires
`
`(cid:131)No evidence a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected:
`
`“Scatter Loader Controller”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`46
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 10, 12; Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent) at 7:60-63(highlighting added).
`
`limit the claim to that specific embodiment:
`that it is merely “exemplary” and there is no reason to
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s reliance on Figure 3 is improper, given
`
`“Scatter Loader Controller”
`Claim Construction:
`
`

`

`47
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6.Bauer And Svensson Alone or with Kim Teach Separate Receipt of the Image
`
`Header from Each Data Segment
`
`5.Bauer and Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`4.Bauer and Svensson Disclose a “System Memory” and a
`
`“Hardware Buffer”
`
`(cid:131)“Scatter Loader Controller”
`(cid:131)“Image Header”
`(cid:131)“Hardware Buffer”
`(cid:131)“System Memory”
`
`3.Claim Construction
`
`Svensson’sProgram Loader
`It Would Be Obvious to Transfer an Image in Bauer’s File Format Using
`
`2.
`
`1.Motivation to Combine Bauer and Svensson
`
`Issues Raised By Patent Owner
`Overview:
`
`

`

`48
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 31-32; -1334 Pet. at 26-27, 46-48; Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at Fig. 2; Ex. 1010 (Svensson) at Fig. 1 (highlights and annotations added).
`
`System Memory
`
`Hardware Buffer
`
`from DSP XRAM 210 (“system memory”):
`intermediate storage area (“hardware buffer”) that is separate
`(cid:131)But Figure 1 of Svensson (and Figure 2 of Bauer) discloses an
`at 52-58.
`“hardware buffer” that is separate from “system memory.” POR
`Patent Owner argues that Bauer and Svensson do not disclose a
`
`(cid:131)
`
`“System Memory” & “Hardware Buffer”
`Combination of Bauer And Svensson discloses
`
`

`

`49
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 34-36; Ex. 1022 (Rinard Dep.) at 107:1-7, 108:21-109:4 (emphasis added).
`
`A.That's one of the places where it’s described as potentially being able to execute
`
`from, sure.
`
`Q.Do you agree with me that in Svensson the client processor 104 executes code
`
`from the XRAM 110?
`
`A.That, I believe, is the intention of the patent, yes. Although in theory, I suppose it
`
`could, but that's not the intention of the patent.
`
`Q.Am I right that in Svensson the client processor 104 does not execute code
`
`directly from the intermediate storage area?
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert p
`Dr. Martin Rinard
`
`not the intermediate storage area:
`Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Rinard agrees that code is executed from the XRAM 110,
`
`of Bauer/Svensson is not a “system memory” because code is not executed from it
`Under the correct, plain meaning of “system memory,” the intermediate storage area
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)
`
`“System Memory” & “Hardware Buffer”
`Combination of Bauer And Svensson discloses
`
`

`

`50
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 8-11, 47-49; -1334 Pet. at 26-27; POR at 14-15.
`
`(cid:131)Bauer’s and Svensson’sintermediate storage area meets
`
`Patent Owner’s construction
`
`(cid:131)The “hardware transport mechanism” requirement is
`a structure within a “hardware transport mechanism”
`construction of “hardware buffer” as being limited to
`“hardware buffer” also hinge on its proposed
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s arguments for alleging lack of a
`
`rejected for this reason
`incorrect, and Patent Owner’s argument should be
`
`“System Memory” & “Hardware Buffer”
`Combination of Bauer And Svensson discloses
`
`

`

`51
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6.Bauer And Svensson Alone or with Kim Teach Separate Receipt of the Image
`
`Header from Each Data Segment
`
`5.Bauer and Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`4.Bauer and Svensson Disclose a “System Memory” and a “Hardware Buffer”
`
`(cid:131)“Scatter Loader Controller”
`(cid:131)“Image Header”
`(cid:131)“Hardware Buffer”
`(cid:131)“System Memory”
`
`3.Claim Construction
`
`Svensson’sProgram Loader
`It Would Be Obvious to Transfer an Image in Bauer’s File Format Using
`
`2.
`
`1.Motivation to Combine Bauer and Svensson
`
`Issues Raised By Patent Owner
`Overview:
`
`

`

`52
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 37-41; -1334 Pet. at 47-48; POR at 60; Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶37 (highlights added).
`
`memory and (2) can be arranged in the image in any suitable order:
`(destination) address specifying where to place the data segment in system
`
`(cid:131)But Bauer teaches that each data segment (1) has its own load
`DSP device’s XRAM (the “system memory”)
`Patent Owner argues that Bauer does not disclose “scatter loading” into the
`
`(cid:131)
`
`Bauer And Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`

`

`53
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent), Fig 3 (highlights added).
`ddd)
`
`)Fi3(hihlih
`
`001(‘949
`
`Reply Br. at 40-41; -1334 Pet. at 47-48.
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent),9:12-15 (highlights added).
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent),4:36-37 (highlights added).
`
`contiguous or non-contiguous locations:
`segments are scattered when loaded into
`(cid:131)The ‘949 specification recognizes that data
`
`Bauer And Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`

`

`54
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘949 patent), Fig 3 (highlights added).
`E1001(‘949
`ddd)
`
`)Fi3(hihlih
`
`Reply Br. at 36-37; POR at 56-57.
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bauer), Fig 2 (highlights and annotations added)
`E1009(B
`ddd)
`
`)F2(hhlh
`
`d
`
`Memory
`Memory
`System
`System
`
`Hardware
`Hardware
`
`Buffer
`Buffer
`
`path to the system memory
`components—including controller 304—in the
`
`(cid:131)But Figure 3 of the ‘949 patent has numerous
`
`memory DSP XRAM 210/110
`processor ARM CPU 202/102 and system
`there are other components between primary
`not teach “direct” “scatter loading” because
`
`(cid:131)Patent Owner argues that Bauer/Svensson do
`
`Bauer And Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`

`

`55
`55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 41-42; Ex. 1022 (Rinard Dep.) at 36:20-37:5 (emphasis added); -1334 Pet. at 47-48.
`
`prior to the ’949 patent, yes.
`I think the general concept of scatter loading was known
`
`A.
`
`…
`
`Q.Scatter loading image data from one location to another location
`
`was known in the prior art to the ’949 patent, correct?
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`Dr. Martin Rinard
`
`loading was known in the prior art to the ‘949 patent:
`(cid:131)Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Rinard admits that scatter
`
`Bauer And Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`

`

`56
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6.Bauer And Svensson Alone or with Kim Teach Separate Receipt of
`
`the Image Header from Each Data Segment
`
`5.Bauer and Svensson Disclose “Scatter Loading”
`
`4.Bauer and Svensson Disclose a “System Memory” and a “Hardware Buffer”
`
`(cid:131)“Scatter Loader Controller”
`(cid:131)“Image Header”
`(cid:131)“Hardware Buffer”
`(cid:131)“System Memory”
`
`3.Claim Construction
`
`Svensson’sProgram Loader
`It Would Be Obvious to Transfer an Image in Bauer’s File Format Using
`
`2.
`
`1.Motivation to Combine Bauer and Svensson
`
`Issues Raised By Patent Owner
`Overview:
`
`

`

`57
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply Br. at 42-43; -01334 Pet. at 37-39; Ex. 1009 (Bauer) at ¶30, Abstract (highlights added).
`
`from—the data segments:
`“image header”) are “retrieved” before—and thus, separately
`
`(cid:131)But Bauer teaches that header 102 and section information 104 (the
`the separate receipt requirement. POR at 61.
`Patent Owner argues that Bauer provides “no details” with respect to
`
`(cid:131)
`
`Each Data Segment Separately
`Bauer Discloses Receiving the Image Header and
`
`

`

`58
`58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1012 (Kim) at Fig. 3 (highlights and annotations added)
`
`Reply Br. at 45-47; -01334 Pet. at 21-22, 40-42.
`
`Block
`Request Program
`
`tPP
`
`RR
`
`Receive Header
`
`iHd
`
`R
`
`Request Header
`
`Processor
`Secondary
`
`Ex. 1011, 1012 (Kim) at Fig. 3 (highlights and annotations added); -01334 Pet. at 21-22, 40-42.
`
`Block Block
`Transmit Program
`Proogrgrggggggggggamam
`
`Transmit Header
`
`Processor
`Primary
`
`Bauer and Svensson
`would combine it with
`prior art and a POSITA
`already known in the
`Kim teaches what was
`
`the teachings of Svensson. POR at 67-69.
`not be combined with Bauer and Svensson because it would be contrary to
`the image header from the data blocks, but instead argues that Kim would
`Patent Owner never contends that Kim does not teach separate receipt of
`
`(cid:131)
`
`(cid:131)
`
`Each Data Segment Separately
`Kim Discloses Receiving the Image Header and
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01334
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`0107131.00568US1
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Dated: December 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Thomas E. Anderson/
`Thomas E. Anderson
`Reg. No. 37,063
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`59
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01334
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`0107131.00568US1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 9, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing material:
`
`• PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following attorneys of record:
`
`
`David B. Cochran, Reg. No. 39,142 (dcochran@jonesday.com)
`
`Matthew W. Johnson, Reg. No. 59,108 (mwjohnson@jonesday.com)
`
`Joseph M. Sauer, Reg. No. 47,919 (jmsauer@jonesday.com)
`
`Joshua R. Nightingale, Reg. No. 67,865 (jrnightingale@jonesday.com)
`
`David M. Maiorana, Reg. No. 41,449 (dmaiorana@jonesday.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Thomas E. Anderson/
`Thomas E. Anderson
`Reg. No. 37,063
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`60
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket