UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ACQIS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2021-01111
`
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN D. KUBIATOWICZ
`
`Intel Corporation v. ACQIS LLC
`Intel Corp.'s Exhibit 1002
`Ex. 1002, Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 2
`
`II. Materials Reviewed ......................................................................................... 6
`
`III. Relevant Law ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 8
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 8
`
`C. Written Description, Incorporation By Reference, and Priority ........... 9
`
`D. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`Technology Background ................................................................................ 14
`
`VI. Overview of the ’750 Patent .......................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`The ’750 Patent Specification ............................................................. 19
`
`VII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 31
`
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 31
`
`A.
`
`Peripheral Bridge ................................................................................. 34
`
`IX. Priority Date and Prosecution History ........................................................... 40
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date of the ’750 Patent........................................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`“Peripheral Bridge” Encompassing Components Beyond
`a “South Bridge” Constitutes New Matter ................................ 57
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’750 patent ..................... 60
`
`X. Overview of the Prior Art References ........................................................... 61
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`Chu330 ................................................................................................ 61
`
`Peleg .................................................................................................... 88
`
`Helms ................................................................................................... 89
`
`Cupps ................................................................................................... 91
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`XI. Specific Grounds for Challenge .................................................................... 94
`
`A. Ground I: Chu330 in combination with Peleg, Helms, and
`Chu8415 Renders Obvious Claims 29-30 ........................................... 94
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 29 .................................................................................... 94
`
`Claim 30 .................................................................................. 128
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Chu330 in combination with Peleg and Helms
`Renders Obvious Claims 14-17 and 42-43 ....................................... 137
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................. 137
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................. 157
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................. 162
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................. 162
`
`Claim 42 .................................................................................. 164
`
`Claim 43 .................................................................................. 166
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Chu330 in combination with Cupps Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 5-9, 10-13, 18-21, 24-28, 31, 34-38, 44, and 46-50 ......... 169
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 169
`
`Claim 5 .................................................................................... 205
`
`Claim 6 .................................................................................... 225
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`Claim 7 .................................................................................... 235
`
`Claim 8 .................................................................................... 240
`
`Claim 9 .................................................................................... 241
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................. 241
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................. 244
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................. 244
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Claim 13 .................................................................................. 245
`
`11. Claim 18 .................................................................................. 247
`
`12. Claim 19 .................................................................................. 252
`
`13. Claim 20 .................................................................................. 252
`
`14. Claim 21 .................................................................................. 253
`
`15. Claim 24 .................................................................................. 260
`
`16. Claim 25 .................................................................................. 263
`
`17. Claim 26 .................................................................................. 270
`
`18. Claim 27 .................................................................................. 270
`
`19. Claim 28 .................................................................................. 273
`
`20. Claim 31 .................................................................................. 273
`
`21. Claim 34 .................................................................................. 274
`
`22. Claim 35 .................................................................................. 274
`
`23. Claim 36 .................................................................................. 276
`
`24. Claim 37 .................................................................................. 276
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`25. Claim 38 .................................................................................. 279
`
`26. Claim 44 .................................................................................. 279
`
`27. Claim 46 .................................................................................. 281
`
`28. Claim 47 .................................................................................. 285
`
`29. Claim 48 .................................................................................. 285
`
`30. Claim 49 .................................................................................. 291
`
`31. Claim 50 .................................................................................. 295
`
`D. Ground IV: Chu330 in combination with Cupps and Helms
`Renders Obvious Claims 2, 4, and 45 ............................................... 297
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2 .................................................................................... 297
`
`Claim 4 .................................................................................... 305
`
`Claim 45 .................................................................................. 305
`
`XII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 306
`
`XIII. Availability for Cross-Examination ............................................................ 306
`
`XIV. Right to Supplement .................................................................................... 306
`
`XV. Jurat .............................................................................................................. 307
`
`iv
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`I, John. D. Kubiatowicz, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is John Kubiatowicz.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by the Petitioner Intel Corporation (“Intel” or
`
`“Petitioner) as an expert in the field of computer systems, interfaces, and
`
`architecture.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to submit this declaration on behalf of Intel in
`
`connection with a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`
`(“the ’750 patent”), which I understand is being submitted to the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Intel.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Intel to study and provide
`
`my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability or unpatentability
`
`of claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50 of the ʼ750 patent.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my normal hourly consulting
`
`rate. My compensation does not depend on and in no way affects the substance of
`
`my statements in this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ʼ750 patent and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventors of the ʼ750 patent.
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`This declaration is directed to claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-
`
`7.
`
`50 of the ʼ750 patent and sets forth certain opinions I have formed, the conclusions
`
`I have reached, and the bases for each.
`
`8.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art at the relevant time,
`
`analysis of prior art references, and the understanding a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) would have of the claim terms, it is my opinion that claims 1-
`
`2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50 of the ʼ750 patent are unpatentable over the prior
`
`art references discussed below.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`9.
`
`1998, an M.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1993, and two
`
`B.S. degrees, one in Electrical Engineering and the other in Physics in 1987, all
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). While at MIT, I was the
`
`chief architect of the Alewife Multiprocessor, one of the first massively-parallel
`
`distributed multiprocessors to exploit both cache-coherent shared memory and
`
`message-passing in the same machine. As part of the Alewife research project, I
`
`helped to design the cache-coherence protocol and hardware for both the cache
`
`controller and Sparcle processor (a derivative of the Sparc processor). I also
`
`designed aspects of the Operating System that interacted directly with theU
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`hardware and shared cache. The design and implementation of Alewife became the
`
`focal point of my Ph.D. thesis.
`
`10. Since receiving my doctorate, I have devoted my professional career
`
`to the research, design, development, study, and teaching of numerous aspects of
`
`computer systems and architecture. I have studied, taught, practiced, and
`
`researched in the field of computer science for over thirty years.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently a Full Professor of Computer Science at the University
`
`of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), where I have taught and supervised
`
`graduate students since 1998.
`
`12.
`
`I teach and have taught a number of courses at UC Berkeley,
`
`including advanced courses in computer architecture and operating systems for
`
`upper-level undergraduates and graduate students. I have also taught graduate
`
`seminars about various computer science topics.
`
`13. My research specialties include Internet-scale distributed storage
`
`systems, data caching and cache coherence, parallel operating systems,
`
`multiprocessor computer architecture, chip design, reconfigurable computing, and
`
`quantum computing. My research interests also include security, privacy, and
`
`resilience to faults and denial of service attacks in Internet-scale systems.
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`In addition to my experience in academia, I have over 30 years of
`
`14.
`
`industrial experience designing computer systems. For example, from 1987 to
`
`1989, I worked with IBM on Project Athena, to produce a campus-wide distributed
`
`computing environment. From 1989-1993, I consulted for IBM on operating
`
`systems/device driver development, and from 2001-2003, worked with IBM on
`
`storage and autonomic computing. From 1996-1998, I worked with a small
`
`company called CLAM associates, to help develop cluster computing systems that
`
`automatically recover from node failures. From 2000-2001, I consulted with Sun
`
`Microsystems on RAS design techniques (specifically error correction codes for
`
`DRAM), and in 2006, I worked with Cisco Systems on network protocol design.
`
`15.
`
`I have been a frequent committee member for HotChips, an annual
`
`industrial conference where companies announce and discuss their latest computer
`
`chips—often for the first time. My duties involved soliciting and selecting talks for
`
`the conference; in both 2006 and 2018, I served as one of the chairs of the program
`
`committee. Over the years, I have been on the program committees for a number of
`
`computer systems conferences, such as the International Symposium on Computer
`
`Architecture (ISCA) and the Conference on Architectural Support for Programing
`
`Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). In 2020, I was a co-chair of the
`
`program committee for the International Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC),
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`as well as a member of the program committee for USENIX HotEdge. I have
`
`published and continue to publish papers in many of these conferences. I am thus
`
`an active member of the systems research community.
`
`16. As a result of my experiences designing the Alewife multiprocessor as
`
`well as my research and scholarship in the computer architecture, I am very
`
`familiar with the workings of processors and interconnection of different computer
`
`components with each other. I understand such technology at a hardware and
`
`software level; consequently, I can speak with authority about the topics of the
`
`ʼ750 patent.
`
`17.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including
`
`the IEEE, ACM, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
`
`(AAAS).
`
`18.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 100 papers in peer-reviewed
`
`journals, conferences, and workshops in the field of computer science and
`
`engineering. In addition, I have been a referee for a number of first-tier academic
`
`conferences, including the International Symposium on Computer Architecture
`
`(ISCA), the Symposium on Architectural Support for Programing Languages and
`
`Operating Systems (ASPLOS), the Symposium on High Performance Computer
`
`Architecture (HPCA), the Symposium on Operating Systems Design and
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`Implementation (OSDI), and the Symposium on Operating Systems Principles
`
`(SOSP). I served as editor for special issues of the IEEE Micro Journal devoted to
`
`the best participants from HotChips 2006 and 2018. I have also served as a
`
`reviewer for proposals for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
`
`19. A copy of my curriculum vitae (including a list of all publications) is
`
`attached as Appendix A. It contains further details regarding my experience,
`
`education, publications, and other qualifications to render an expert opinion in
`
`connection with this proceeding.
`
`II. Materials Reviewed
`I have reviewed all of the following exhibits listed in the following
`20.
`
`Table of Exhibits.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`U.S. Patent No. 6,345,330 (“Chu330”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0135771 (“Cupps”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,216,185 (“Chu185”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`U.S. Patent Application No. 60/134,122
`U.S. Patent No. 8,234,436
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,234,436 (“’436 FH”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 60/083,886 (“’886 Provisional”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,345,330 (“Chu330 FH”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,718,415 (“Chu8415”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,099,981
`U.S. Patent No. 7,363,415
`U.S. Patent No. 7,376,779
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,624
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,873
`IEEE Std 1596.3-1996, IEEE Standard for Low-Voltage
`Differential Signals (LVDS) for Scalable Coherent Interface (SCI)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,889,970 (“Horan”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0052296 (“Tracy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,065 (“Peleg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,157,976 (“Tien976”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,138,183 (“Tien183”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,041,873 (“’873 FH”)
`HyperTransport Technology Consortium, HyperTransport™ I/O
`Link Specification, Revision 1.03 (cited in US 7,146,510 (“Helms”)
`file history)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,146,510 (“Helms”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,490 (“Biran”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0039064 (“Locker”)
`82559 Fast Ethernet* Multifunction PCI/Cardbus Controller,
`Preview Datasheet, Jan. 1999
`82559 LAN on Motherboard (LOM) Design Guide
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,722 (“Mann”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1017
`1018
`1026
`
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`
`1048
`1049
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed the above patents, patent publications, and all other
`
`exhibits cited in this declaration.
`
`III. Relevant Law
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`22.
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and
`
`conclusions. My understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`I have been informed and understand that, in the context of an
`
`A.
`23.
`
`invalidity analysis, a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a
`
`hypothetical person who looks to prior art at the time of the invention. I further
`
`understand that the factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill include: (1) the problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art
`
`solutions to the problems encountered in the art; (3) the rapidity of innovations; (4)
`
`the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the education level of active workers
`
`in the field. I understand that these factors need not all be taken into account for
`
`the analysis and that one or more of these factors may control.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`24.
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`purposes of my analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the prior art, I have
`
`been informed that claims subject to inter partes reviews are currently reviewed
`
`under “the Phillips standard.”
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of
`
`the invention in light of the claim language and the patent specification.
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`I have been informed that the claims encompass the embodiments
`
`26.
`
`described in the specification.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a patentee can serve as his or her own
`
`lexicographer. As such, if the specification provides a claim term with a specific
`
`definition, I should interpret that claim term in light of the particular definition
`
`provided by the patentee.
`
`C. Written Description, Incorporation By Reference, and Priority
`I have been informed and understand that a patent’s specification must
`28.
`
`contain a written description of the invention that reasonably conveys to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of the claims at the
`
`time the application was filed. To satisfy the written description requirement, a
`
`patent specification must describe the claims in sufficient detail that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a description that merely
`
`renders the claims obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement.
`
`Rather, the disclosure must describe the claims with all of its limitations.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an applicant can show
`
`possession of the claims by describing the claims with all of its limitations using
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that
`
`fully set forth the claimed invention. Moreover, I have been informed and
`
`understand that other patents or patent publications incorporated by reference in
`
`the patent must be considered in assessing whether that patent provides adequate
`
`written description.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed and understand that when determining whether
`
`an issued patent properly incorporated by reference other patents or patent
`
`publications, the inquiry is whether one of ordinary skill in the art could identify
`
`the information incorporated.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed and understand that for a claim to receive a
`
`priority date of an earlier parent patent or patent application, the earlier patent or
`
`patent application must provide adequate written description of the claimed subject
`
`matter. I understand that for a claim to obtain the benefit of the filing date of an
`
`earlier parent patent or patent application, each parent patent in the chain leading
`
`back to the earlier parent patent or patent application must provide adequate
`
`written description of the claimed subject matter.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent can incorporate by
`
`reference specific disclosures found in a different patent or patent publication if a
`
`POSITA would understand with detailed particularity what specific material it
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found. I have been
`
`informed and understand that if a patent properly incorporated by reference
`
`specific disclosures found in a different patent or patent publication, the
`
`incorporated by reference material can provide written description support for the
`
`claims.
`
`34.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that a priority claim is
`
`different from incorporation by reference claim. A priority claim claims the
`
`benefit of the earlier filing date of an earlier filed patent application. In contrast,
`
`incorporation by reference simply incorporates the disclosure of a different patent
`
`or patent publication without claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date of an
`
`earlier filed patent application.
`
`D. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`35.
`
`considered to have been obvious to a POSITA as of the patent’s priority date.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed and understand that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a), “if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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
`
`said subject matter pertains,” a patent may not be obtained.
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`37. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a claim are not
`
`found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the differences
`
`between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the claim
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the earliest priority date of
`
`the patent application.
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`• Determining the level of POSITA;
`
`• Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• Ascertain what differences, if any, existed between the claims and the
`
`prior art; and
`
`• Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness, if such
`
`evidence is available, including whether a nexus exists between the claims
`
`and the evidence offered.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the relevant time for
`
`considering whether a claim would have been obvious to a POSITA is the time of
`
`the earliest priority date afforded to the patent application.
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of one or more
`
`40.
`
`references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if such a
`
`combination would have been obvious to a POSITA. I have been informed and
`
`understand that there is no rigid rule for finding that the two or more references
`
`would have been combined. But in determining whether a combination based on
`
`either a single reference or multiple references would have been obvious, it is
`
`appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, which, when combined, would yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a predictable
`
`variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of known
`
`design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success by
`
`those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`• whether the claim applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary creativity
`
`and is not an automaton.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions
`43. For the reasons explained below, I conclude that claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-
`
`31, 34-38, and 42-50 of the ʼ750 patent are disclosed in the prior art, and are
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`V. Technology Background
`44. The personal computer revolution started in the early 1980s by IBM
`
`and others was greatly enhanced by the presence of standardized bus interfaces
`
`(such as IBM’s ISA bus). These interfaces allowed customization of individual
`
`computer systems through the mixing and matching of peripherals such as disks,
`
`memory, video devices, printers, etc. Since consumers could choose devices to fit
`
`their own needs, they could build systems more cost-effectively, leading to
`
`popularity of these new systems.
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`45. Many of the original expansion interfaces (such as the ISA bus)
`
`required careful configuration of jumpers or DIP-switches to select interrupt
`
`vectors and I/O addresses so as to avoid conflicts between interfaces for different
`
`peripherals. Thus, a second generation of expansion interfaces were aimed at so-
`
`called “Plug and Play (PnP)” behavior which allowed peripherals to be plugged
`
`into a system without worrying about inter-device conflicts. One example of such
`
`an interface, well-known in the art at the time of the priority date of the ’750 patent
`
`was the “peripheral component interconnect (PCI) bus.” See Ex. 1001 [’750
`Patent] at 3:25-31. The original PCI specification was released in 1992.
`46. Reflecting simplicity of design, the original bus interfaces, including
`
`PCI, were parallel – in which multiple data bits were transmitted at the same time
`
`over multiple wires. The number of wires for transmitting data in a bus interface
`
`often reflected the data width of the CPU or a sub-multiple of this data width. For
`
`instance, the original ISA bus had 16 parallel data wires and was used with 32-bit
`
`processors, requiring two bus cycles to transmit a 32-bit data word over the bus.
`
`The original PCI bus provided both 32-bit and 64-bit widths, although the 32-bit
`version was prevalent at the time.
`47. Unfortunately, parallel bus interfaces have a number of disadvantages
`
`well recognized in the prior art: their connectors are big and expensive, the signals
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,750
`Claims 1-2, 4-21, 24-31, 34-38, and 42-50
`
`
`transiting over wires sometimes interfere with each other and experience “clock
`
`skew” (requiring slower transmission speeds and shorter maximum cable lengths),
`
`and the large bundle of wires connecting between the computer and device are
`
`bulky, expensive, and hard to use. See Ex. 1001 [’750 patent] at 3:52-4:7 (“One
`
`such limitation is the fact that PCI busses are not cable friendly… One
`
`disadvantage of an interface having a relatively large number of conductive lines
`
`and pins is that it costs more than one that uses a fewer number of conductive lines
`
`and pins. Additionally, an interface having a large number of conductive lines is
`bulkier and more cumbersome to handle.”).
`48. Ultimately, parallel interfaces were superseded by serial interfaces
`
`that sent one bit at a time. “Serialized” interf