venkat konda

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2021

IPR2020-00260 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 55
571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
VENKAT KONDA,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B21

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)

1 The papers filed in the two proceedings are the same or substantially
similar. Accordingly, we issue a single Decision to be entered in each case.
Although the analysis herein applies to both proceedings, unless otherwise
noted, we refer to the papers and exhibits filed in IPR2020-00260.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
We have jurisdiction to conduct these inter partes review proceedings
under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and this Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Flex
Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1–7, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47 (“the challenged
claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523 B2 (“the ’523 patent,” Ex. 1001) are
unpatentable.
A. Procedural History
Petitioner filed Petitions2 to institute inter partes reviews of claims 1–
7, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47, collectively, of the ’523 patent. Venkat
Konda (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response3 to each Petition.
With Board authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply, and Patent
Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply in each proceeding.4 Pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 15–18,
20–22, 32, and 47 in IPR2020-00260 (Paper 22, “260 Dec.”), and of claims
2–7 and 11 in IPR2020-00261 (Paper 22, “261 Dec.”) on the grounds
advanced in the respective Petitions. Patent Owner also filed a Request for
Rehearing of the Institution Decision in each proceeding, which was
denied.5

2 IPR2021-00260, Paper 1 (“Pet.”); IPR2020-00261, Paper 1 (“261 Pet.”).
3 IPR2020-00260, Paper 8; IPR2020-00261, Paper 9.
4 IPR2020-00260, Papers 12 (Prelim. Reply), 15 (Prelim. Sur-Reply);
IPR2020-00261, Papers 13, 16.
5 IPR2020-00260, Papers 26 (Request for Rehearing), 31 (Decision
Denying Request); IPR2020-00261, Papers 28, 32.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

3
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response,
Petitioner filed a Reply, and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply in each
proceeding.6 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1002 and
1003, Petitioner filed an Opposition, and Patent Owner filed a Reply in each
proceeding.7
Patent Owner also filed a Contingent Motion to Amend the claims,
Petitioner filed an Opposition to that Motion, and we provided Preliminary
Guidance under the Board’s motion to amend pilot program in each
proceeding.8 Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Withdraw the
Contingent Motion to Amend, which Petitioner opposed.9 We subsequently
granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Withdraw the Contingent Motion to
Amend in each proceeding. IPR2020-00260, Paper 45; IPR2020-00261,
Paper 46.
No oral hearing was held, as neither party requested one. See
IPR2020-00260, Paper 46; IPR2020-00261, Paper 47.
B. Real Parties-in-Interest
Petitioner identifies Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. as the real party-in-
interest. Pet. 1; 261 Pet. 2. Patent Owner identifies Venkat Konda as the

6 IPR2020-00260, Papers 33 (“PO Resp.”), 38 (“Pet. Reply”), 42 (“PO Sur-
Reply”); IPR2020-00261, Papers 34 (“261 PO. Resp.”), 39 (“261 Pet.
Reply”), 43 (“261 PO Sur-Reply”).
7 IPR2020-00260, Papers 47 (“PO Mot.”), 50 (“Pet. Opp.”), 51 (“PO
Reply”); IPR2020-00261, Paper 50, 53, 54.
8 IPR2020-00260, Papers 34 (Motion), 37 (Opposition), 40 (Preliminary
Guidance); IPR2020-00261, Papers 35, 38, 41.
9 IPR2020-00260, Papers 41 (Motion), 43 (Opposition); IPR2020-00261,
Papers 42, 44.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

4
real party-in-interest. IPR2020-00260, Paper 5, 1; IPR2020-00261,
Paper 6, 1.
C. Related Matters
Petitioner identifies the following district court proceeding involving
the ’523 patent: Konda Technologies Inc. v. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc.,
No. 5:18-cv-07581 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 1; 261 Pet. 2. Patent Owner
additionally identifies a pending application to reissue the ’523 patent: U.S.
Patent Application No. 16/202,067, filed November 27, 2018 (“the ’067
reissue application”). IPR2020-00260, Paper 5, 2; IPR2020-00261,
Paper 6, 2. Examination of the ’067 reissue application is stayed pending
the termination of these proceedings. See IPR2020-00260, Paper 24.
D. The ’523 Patent
The ’523 patent is titled “VLSI Layouts of Fully Connected
Generalized Networks.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The most commonly used
VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) layout in an integrated circuit is based
on a two-dimensional grid model comprising only horizontal and vertical
tracks. Id. at 2:40–42. The ’523 patent describes VLSI layouts of
generalized multi-stage networks for broadcast, unicast, and multicast
connections using only horizontal and vertical links. Id. at 3:21–24. The
VLSI layouts employ shuffle exchange links, where outlet links of cross
links from switches in a stage in one sub-integrated circuit block are
connected to inlet links of switches in the succeeding stage in another sub-
integrated circuit block. Id. at 3:24–28. The cross links are either vertical
links or horizontal, and vice versa. Id. at 3:28–29.
In one embodiment, the sub-integrated circuit blocks are arranged in a
hypercube arrangement in a two-dimensional plane. Id. at 3:29–31. The
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

5
VLSI layouts exploit the benefits of significantly lower cross points, lower
signal latency, lower power, and full connectivity with significantly fast
compilation. Id. at 3:31–34.
E. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1–7, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47 of
the ’523 patent. Pet. 1, 3–4; 261 Pet. 1, 4. Claim 1, the only independent
claim, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below.
1. An integrated circuit device comprising a plurality of
sub-integrated circuit blocks and a routing network, and
Said each plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks comprising a
plurality of inlet links and a plurality of outlet links; and

Said routing network comprising of a plurality of stages
y, in each said sub-integrated circuit block, starting from the
lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y, where y≧1; and

Said routing network comprising a plurality of switches
of size d×d, where d≧2, in each said stage and each said switch
of size d×d having d inlet links and d outlet links; and

Said plurality of outlet links of said each sub-integrated
circuit block are directly connected to said inlet links of said
switches of its corresponding said lowest stage of 1, and said
plurality of inlet links of said each sub-integrated circuit block
are directly connected from said outlet links of said switches of
its corresponding said lowest stage of 1; and

Said each sub-integrated circuit block comprising a
plurality of forward connecting links connecting from switches
in a lower stage to switches in its immediate succeeding higher
stage, and also comprising a plurality of backward connecting
links connecting from switches in a higher stage to switches in
its immediate preceding lower stage; and

IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

6
Said each sub-integrated circuit block comprising a
plurality straight links in said forward connecting links from
switches in said each lower stage to switches in its immediate
succeeding higher stage and a plurality cross links in said
forward connecting links from switches in said each lower stage
to switches in its immediate succeeding higher stage, and
further comprising a plurality of straight links in said backward
connecting links from switches in said each higher stage to
switches in its immediate preceding lower stage and a plurality
of cross links in said backward connecting links from switches
in said each higher stage to switches in its immediate preceding
lower stage,

said plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks arranged in
a two-dimensional grid of rows and columns, and

said all straight links are connecting from switches in
each said sub-integrated circuit block are connecting to
switches in the same said sub-integrated circuit block; and said
all cross links are connecting as either vertical or horizontal
links between switches in two different said sub-integrated
circuit blocks which are either placed vertically above or below,
or placed horizontally to the left or to the right,

each said plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks
comprising same number of said stages and said switches in
each said stage, regardless of the size of said two-dimensional
grid so that each said plurality of sub-integrated circuit block
with its corresponding said stages and said switches in each
stage is replicable in both vertical direction or horizontal
direction of said two-dimensional grid.
Ex. 1001, 35:23–36:14.
F. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims would have been
unpatentable on the following grounds:
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

7
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §10 Reference(s)
IPR2020-00260
1, 16, 20–22, 32 102 ’756 PCT11
15, 17 103 ’756 PCT
18, 47 103 ’756 PCT, Wong12
IPR2020-00261
2–7 102 ’756 PCT
11 103 ’756 PCT, Wong

Pet. 3–4; 261 Pet. 4. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of R. Jacob Baker,
Ph.D., P.E. (“Baker Declaration,” Ex. 1002).13 Patent Owner relies on the
Declaration of Vipin Chaudhary, Ph.D. (“Chaudhary Declaration,”
Ex. 2025).
II. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1002 and 1003, the
Declaration and Curriculum Vitae, respectively, of Dr. Baker “and all the
support presented in the Petition with respect to Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003.”
PO Mot. 1. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Baker is not qualified as a person
of ordinary skill in the art “according to Petitioner’s own definition, let alone
as an expert witness regarding the field of interconnection networks which is
very fundamental to the Challenged Claims of the ’523 [patent] in the

10 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284–88, amended as 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the effective
filing date of the challenged claims of the ’523 patent is before March 16,
2013, the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 apply.
11 WO 2008/109756, published September 12, 2008 (Ex. 1009).
12 US Patent No. 6,940,308, issued Sept. 6, 2005 (Ex. 1008).
13 Dr. Baker’s Declaration is Exhibit 1002 in both proceedings. We refer to
“Ex. 1002” when citing paragraphs common to the two declarations, and
“260 Ex. 1002” and “261 Ex. 1002” when citing paragraphs that differ.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

8
Petition.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). According to Patent Owner, because
Dr. Baker states that he relied on his “knowledge and experience in
designing, developing, researching, and teaching regarding circuit design
and memory devices” in forming the opinions in his declaration, Dr. Baker
“by his own admission has no experience in networks.” Id. at 2 (quoting
Ex. 1002 ¶ 3) (emphasis omitted).
Petitioner responds that Dr. Baker’s “considerable experience and
knowledge in field programmable gate array (‘FPGA’) technology as well as
interconnected networks” more than qualifies Dr. Baker “to testify from the
perspective of a” person of ordinary skill in the art, regardless of whether
Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art is applied.
Pet. Opp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–9, 14; Ex. 1003). Petitioner also
contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are “directed to the sufficiency of
the challenged evidence, as opposed to its admissibility” because Patent
Owner “essentially address[es] the credibility of Dr. Baker’s testimony.” Id.
at 4 (citing MindGeek, s.a.r.l. v. Skyy Inc., IPR2014-01236, Paper 45 at 23
(PTAB Jan. 29, 2016)).
A witness may qualify as an expert if they have “knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education” of a “scientific, technical, or other
specialized” nature that is likely to help the Board “to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also PTAB
Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019), https://go.usa.gov/xpvPF
(“CTPG”) (There is “no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s
experience and the relevant field.” (citing SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward &
Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010))). We consider the admissibility
of Dr. Baker’s testimony in light of this standard.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

9
As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner “focuses on one paragraph of
Dr. Baker’s declaration” and “makes baseless assertions” regarding
Dr. Baker’s knowledge and experience. Pet. Opp. 6; see also id. at 7 n.3
(arguing that “Patent Owner’s speculation as to the limits of Dr. Baker’s
experience based on the mere presence or absence of specific words in
Dr. Baker’s CV cannot substantiate Patent Owner’s claims”). We also note
that, despite Patent Owner’s concerns regarding Dr. Baker’s qualification as
an expert, Patent Owner chose not cross-examine Dr. Baker regarding his
credentials or to test his qualifications. See id. at 5 n.2. We conclude that
Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidence to support the assertion
that Dr. Baker’s testimony should be excluded.
We agree with Petitioner, and find that the otherwise uncontested
information in Dr. Baker’s Curriculum Vitae and in his direct testimony
establishes that Dr. Baker has sufficient education and experience to qualify
as an expert in these proceedings, and for the Board to rely on his testimony
in understanding the evidence presented. See Pet. Opp. 5–8; Ex. 1002 §§ 3–
13; Ex. 1003. We also agree with Petitioner and find that Patent Owner’s
challenge is directed to the sufficiency of Dr. Baker’s testimony, rather than
articulating a sufficient basis as to why it is inadmissible. Id. at 3–5.
“The policy considerations for excluding expert testimony, such as
those implemented by the gatekeeping framework established by the
Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993), are less compelling in bench proceedings such as inter partes
reviews that in jury trials.” Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben
Foods, Inc., IPR2015-00249, Paper 76 at 23 (PTAB June 2, 2016). We will
take into account Dr. Baker’s qualifications when evaluating the weight to
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

10
be given to his testimony, but the wholesale exclusion of a Dr. Baker’s
declaration is not called for here. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude is denied.
III. ANALYSIS14
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
(6) education level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or
more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.
Moreover, “[t]hese factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to
determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v.
Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In determining the level
of ordinary skill, we may also look to the prior art, which may reflect an
appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). Additionally, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of

14 The papers filed in the two proceedings are the same or substantially
similar. See, e.g., PO Resp. 1, n. 1 (“Patent Owner indicates to the Board
that the same Patent Owner’s Response is submitted in both proceedings”).
Although the analysis herein applies to both proceedings, unless otherwise
noted, we refer to the papers and exhibits filed in IPR2020-00260 for
convenience.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

11
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and at
least two to three years of experience with integrated circuits and networks,”
and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice
versa.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). Patent Owner, through its
declarant, Dr. Chaudhary, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
“would have had a master’s degree in electrical/computer engineering or a
similar field, and at least two to three years of experience with integrated
circuits, interconnection networks and Field Programmable Gate Arrays.”
Ex. 2025 ¶ 16.
The only substantive difference between the parties’ contentions as to
the level of skill in the art is with regard to the type of experience a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had. We adopt Patent Owner’s
definition, which overlaps that set forth by Petitioner, particularly with
respect to the two to three years of experience with integrated circuits and
networks, and because it is consistent with the prior art. Our determination
regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between
Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, however, and we note that our
conclusion would be the same under either definition.
B. Claim Construction
We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, the “words of a claim ‘are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” which is “the meaning that
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

12
the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “[W]e need only construe
terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
controversy.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to
construe any claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ dispute. Nidec
Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017l; see also Pet. 25 (“Petitioner submits that for
purposes of this proceeding, no term requires construction.”); PO Resp. 21
(not requesting construction of any claim term).
C. Whether the ’756 PCT Qualifies as Prior Art
The ’523 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial
No. 12/601,275 (“the ’275 application”), which was filed on November 22,
2009 as the national phase entry of PCT Application No.
PCT/US2008/064605 (“the ’605 PCT,” Ex. 1007), filed on May 22, 2008.
Ex. 1001, code (21), (22); Ex. 1004, 152. The ’275 application claims
priority to Provisional Application No. 60/940,394 (“the ’394 Provisional,”
Ex. 1026), filed on May 25, 2007. Ex. 1001, code (60). Petitioner contends
“the ’523 patent is not entitled to claim priority to May 25, 2007 or to
May 22, 2008, because . . . the claims of the ’523 patent are not fully
supported, and also are not enabled, by the ’394 provisional or the ’605
PCT.” Pet. 4. Instead, Petitioner contends that the earliest effective filing
date for the challenged claims of the ’523 patent is the November 22, 2009
filing date of the ’275 application. Id. at 4–5. Because the ’756 PCT
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

13
published on September 12, 2008, Petitioner contends that it therefore
“qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(b).” Id. at 20.
“It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the
benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure
of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later
application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also
Research Corps. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 871–72 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (holding that a later-filed application, with claims that were not
limited to a “blue noise mask,” was not entitled to the priority filing date of
the parent application, which was “limited to a blue noise mask”); ICU
Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(holding that “spikeless” claims “added years later during prosecution” were
not supported by the specification, which “describe[d] only medical valves
with spikes”); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158–60 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (holding that generic shaped cup claims of the later-filed child
application were not entitled to the filing date of the parent application that
“disclosed only a trapezoidal cup and nothing more”). “To satisfy the
written description requirement the disclosure of a prior application must
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” PowerOasis,
522 F.3d at 1306 (alteration in original) (citations and emphasis omitted).
The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective
inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a
person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). An earlier application will
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

14
satisfy the enablement requirement “only if one skilled in the art, after
reading the[] disclosures, could practice the invention claimed . . . without
undue experimentation.” Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247,
1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A patent specification need not disclose or teach
what is known in the art.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d
1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Streck, Inc. v. Research Diagnostics Sys.
Inc., 665 F.3d 1269, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Hybridtech Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Petitioner has the burden to persuade us that the ’756 PCT qualifies as
prior art. “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the
petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . .
and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v.
Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35
U.S.C. § 316(e)). Petitioner asserts that the ’756 PCT (either alone or in
combination with Wong) discloses each limitation of claims 1–7, 11, 15–18,
20–22, 32, and 47, and the ’394 Provisional and the ’605 PCT do not
provide written description support for, and do not enable, those same
claims. Thus, Petitioner has the burden of persuasion, based on all of the
evidence, on these assertions. Id. at 1378. Following Petitioner’s showing
regarding the alleged anticipation or obviousness of the subject matter of the
challenged claims in view of the ’756 PCT (260 Dec. 15–24; 261 Dec. 15–
20), however, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to produce
evidence and present persuasive argument based on the evidence to show
that the ’756 PCT is not prior art because the challenged claims are entitled
to the benefit of the May 22, 2008 filing date of the ’605 PCT or the May 25,
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

15
2007 filing date of the ’394 Provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d
at 1379.
1. Written Description
Petitioner’s contentions are based on “said routing network
comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated circuit block,
starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y, where y≧1” as
recited in claim 1. Pet. 7–8. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’605
PCT and the ’394 Provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) do
not disclose any sub-integrated circuit blocks that have only one stage (y=1)
and pluralities of forward and backward connecting links as required by
claim 1. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 56).
Petitioner recognizes that the priority applications illustrate a network
with one stage in Figures 2A1–2A3, but argues that the only links shown
therein are inlet and outlet links. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:19–21,
Figs. 2A1–2A3; Ex. 1026, 4:13–15, Figs. 2A1–2A3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50)
(emphasis omitted). Relying on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner contends
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these
inlet and outlet links are different than “forward connecting links” and
“backward connecting links,” at least because claim 1 “recites ‘inlet links’
and ‘outlet links’ separately from ‘forward connecting links’ and ‘backward
connecting links.’” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 35:25–27, 35:43–49; Ex. 1002
¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that there cannot be a plurality of forward
connecting links that connect switches in a lower stage to switches in its
immediate preceding stage, or a plurality of backward connecting links that
connect switches in a higher stage to switches in the immediate preceding
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

16
lower stage, when there is only one stage in the network. Id. (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 52).
Patent Owner’s arguments in response are directed to the disclosure in
the priority applications of a network with only one stage (y=1).
PO Resp. 9–12. In particular, Patent Owner argues that a person having
ordinary skill in the art “would understand that when there is one stage in a
butterfly fat tree network as illustrated in FIG. 2A1–3 of the priority
applications, it is the first stage as well as the last stage.” Id. at 11. Because
one stage has neither a preceding nor succeeding stage, Patent Owner argues
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “no forward
connecting links are connected from the stage and no backward connecting
links are connected from the stage.” Id. (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 35–37); see also
PO Sur-Reply 9–10 (A person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
understood that when there is one block there are no forward connecting
links and no backward connecting links as illustrated in FIG. 2A3 of the
’523 Patent, which is the smallest butterfly fat tree network.” (citing
Ex. 2025 ¶ 31)). According to Patent Owner, “[s]uch an understanding for a
[person of ordinary skill in the art] is straightforward,” and a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the named inventor was
in possession of the subject matter recited in Claim 1.” PO Resp. 11.
Based on our review of the full record now before us, we determine
that Petitioner has established that the priority applications do not provide
sufficient written description support for the claims. See Pet. 4–14; Ex. 1002
¶¶ 50–56. More specifically, we find that the priority applications do not
reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

17
was in possession of the claimed routing network comprising a plurality of
stages y when y=1 that also meets the additional limitations of claim 1.
Figure 2A3 of the priority applications is reproduced below.

Figure 2A3 depicts the VLSI layout of an example network described in the
priority applications, with Block 1_2 comprising switch 1. Ex. 1007, 26:26–
28; Ex. 1026, 22:23–25. Switch 1 consists of input switches IL1 and IL2,
and output switches OL1 and OL2. Ex. 1007, 26:28–29; Ex. 1026, 22:25–
26. The priority applications state that Figure 2A3 illustrates all of the
connection links. Ex. 1007, 7:19–21; Ex. 1026, 4:13–15. There is no
dispute, on this record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that there are no forward connecting links and no backward
connecting links when there is only one stage (y=1) in the network.
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51–52; Ex. 2025 ¶ 31 (Dr. Chaudhary testifying that a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that when there is one block
there are no forward connecting links and no backward connecting links as
illustrated in FIG. 2A3 of the ’523 patent, which is the smallest butterfly fat
tree network.”); Ex. 1051, 122:18–25.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

18
Claim 1, however, further requires that each sub-integrated circuit
block comprises, inter alia, “a plurality of forward connecting links
connecting from switches in a lower stage to switches in its immediate
succeeding higher stage” and “a plurality of backward connecting links
connecting from switches in a higher stage to switches in its immediate
preceding lower stage.” Ex. 1001, 35:43–49. Therefore, establishing proper
written description support in the priority applications for claim 1 requires
more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a routing network
with one stage (y=1); the priority applications must also show that the
inventor was in possession of a routing network with one stage that meets all
of the other limitations of claim 1 as well, including that each sub-integrated
circuit block also comprises a plurality of forward and backward connecting
links. See Ex. 1001, 35:23–36:14 (claim 1).
By acknowledging that a single-stage network does not (and cannot)
comprise a plurality of forward and backward connecting links, Patent
Owner and Dr. Chaudhary concede that the priority applications do not
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor
was in possession of a single-stage network comprising a plurality of
forward and backward connecting links as recited in claim 1. See
PO. Resp. 9–11; PO Sur-Reply 9–11; Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 31–34. Neither Patent
Owner nor Dr. Chaudhary otherwise explains how a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that the priority applications disclose a single-
stage network that meets all of the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner shows, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2–7, 11, 15–18, 20–22,
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

19
32 and 47 that directly or indirectly depend therefrom, lack written
description support in the priority applications when y=1.
2. Enablement
Petitioner also contends that the priority applications do not teach a
person of ordinary skill in the art “how to make and use at least a ‘routing
network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated
circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y’
where y=1 (i.e., single stage)” that “also includes the remaining limitations
of claim 1, including sub-integrated circuit blocks with the recited pluralities
of forward connecting links, backward connecting links, straight links, and
cross links as claimed in claim 1.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). Petitioner
contends that the priority applications do not disclose a one-stage routing
network that comprises such links and that “a network with all sub-
integrated circuit blocks having a single stage, as included in the claim range
of ‘y ≥ 1’, would have been incompatible with other parts of the claim such
as ‘lower stage,’ ‘immediate succeeding higher stage,’ ‘higher stage,’ and
‘immediate preceding lower stage.’” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 35:43–49;
Ex. 1002 ¶ 65). According to Petitioner, “these are plainly and
unambiguously incompatible features (i.e., incompatible with a single stage)
and no amount of experimentation would have led a” person of ordinary
skill in the art to make and use a single-stage network with the forward,
backward, straight, and cross links recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 65; Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1281,
1284 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Relying on Dr. Chaudhary’s testimony for support, Patent Owner
argues that the priority applications enable claim 1 for the same reasons that
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

20
the priority applications provide written description support for claim 1. PO
Sur-Reply 12–13 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 37). In particular, Patent Owner argues
that “there will be one stage when there is one block as illustrated in
FIG. 2A1–3 of the Priority Applications.” Id. at 12; see also Ex. 2025 ¶ 37
(Dr. Chaudhary’s testimony that this is “straight forward” for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to understand, and that “no experimentation is
needed to understand it, let alone undue experimentation.”).
Based on our review of the full record now before us, we determine
that Petitioner has established that the priority applications do not teach a
person of ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the claimed routing
network comprising a plurality of stages y when y=1, which also meets the
additional limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 17–19; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–65. As set
forth above, we agree with Petitioner and find that the priority applications
do not disclose a single-stage network that also comprises a plurality of
forward and backward connecting links as recited in claim 1. See
Section III.C.1, supra. We also find persuasive Petitioner’s contention,
supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a single stage sub-integrated circuit
block is incompatible with the other features of claim 1 (e.g., “immediate
succeeding higher stage”), such that “no amount of experimentation” would
have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make or use claim 1’s
routing network when y=1. Pet. 19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 65.
For these reasons, we find that Petitioner establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the priority applications do not teach a
person of ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the invention described
by independent claim 1 when there is a single stage (y=1). Claims 2–7, 11,
15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

21
claim 1, and thus are also not enabled by the disclosures in the priority
applications.
3. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, we determine that Petitioner
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims
of the ’523 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing
date of the ’394 Provisional, or the May 22, 2008 filing date of the ’605
PCT. Therefore, the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims is
November 22, 2009, the filing date of the ’275 application. Accordingly, we
determine that the ’756 PCT, which published on September 12, 2008,
qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under pre-AIA § 102(b).
D. Anticipation by the ’756 PCT
Petitioner contends that claims 1–7, 16, 20–22, and 32 are anticipated
by the ’756 PCT, and relies on the Baker Declaration in support of its
contentions. Pet. 26–76; 261 Pet. 27–82.
Petitioner’s challenge largely relies on the disclosure of the ’394
Provisional, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety into the ’756
PCT. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1009, 2:14–17. Petitioner submits, and we agree, that
the ’394 Provisional became publicly available as of the date the ’756 PCT
published. Pet. 21 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)).
37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) provides, in relevant part, that if an
unpublished application is incorporated by reference in an international
publication of an international application (such as the ’756 PCT), a copy of
“the unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon
written request and payment of the appropriate fee.” Accordingly, once
the ’756 PCT published, the ’394 Provisional that is incorporated by
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

22
reference therein became open to the public for inspection. Therefore,
the ’394 Provisional is prior art by virtue of the fact that it became publicly
available due to its incorporation into the ’756 PCT, and in addition is prior
art because it is part of the ’756 PCT itself.
We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the ’394 Provisional
Application was not available to the public under 37 C.F.R. §1.14(a)(1)(vi)
and (c) for any period after” the ’756 PCT published on September 12, 2008,
“because the ’394 Provisional Application was pending, and Patent Owner
never gave permission to anyone and no access was granted under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.14(i).” PO Resp. 16. Patent Owner’s argument is based on the last
sentence § 1.14(a)(1)(vi), which states that “[t]he Office will not provide
access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in
paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) (emphasis
added). This sentence, however, is directed to the file history (i.e., paper
file) of the unpublished application. It does not preclude access to the
application alone.
1. Claim 1
Petitioner asserts that the ’756 PCT, by way of its incorporation of
the ’394 Provisional, discloses all of the elements of independent claim 1.
Pet. 26–64. For example, Petitioner contends that the ’394 Provisional
discloses “said routing network comprising of a plurality of stages y, in each
said sub-integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the
highest stage of y, where y≧1” because “it discloses a network with a
number of stages (y) equal to five, and 5 ≥1.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92).
Petitioner uses an annotated version of Figure 1B of the ’394 Provisional,
shown below, to depict its contentions.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

23

Figure 1B is a diagram of a symmetrical folded multi-link routing network,
with Petitioner’s annotations highlighting the five stages in the top-most
sub-integrated circuit block. Id. (citing Ex. 1026, 2:12–14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 92).
Petitioner further contends that the ’756 PCT, by way of its
incorporation of the ’394 Provisional, discloses “said each sub-integrated
circuit block comprising a plurality of forward connecting links connecting
from switches in a lower stage to switches in its immediate succeeding
higher stage, and also comprising a plurality of backward connecting links
connecting from switches in a higher stage to switches in its immediate
preceding lower stage.” Id. at 41–45. Petitioner provides two annotated
versions of Figure 1K1 of the ’394 Provisional, shown below, to illustrate its
contentions.
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

24

Figure 1K1 shows the detailed connections of one block in a routing
network described in the ’394 Provisional (Ex. 1026, 3:19–21), with
Petitioner’s annotations highlighting a plurality of forward connecting links
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

25
in blue in the top figure, and a plurality of backward connecting links in
green in the bottom figure. Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 104–108).
Patent Owner does not address whether or not the ’756 PCT discloses
the limitations of claim 1. See generally PO Resp. Having reviewed all of
Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim 1, as well as the supporting evidence,
we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the ’756 PCT anticipates claim 1. Pet. 26–64; Ex. 1002
¶¶ 79–136.
2. Dependent Claims 2–7, 16, 20–22, and 32
Petitioner also contends that the ’756 PCT, by way of its incorporation
of the ’394 Provisional, discloses the limitations of dependent claims 2–7,
16, 20–22, and 32. Pet. 64–76; 261 Pet. 69–80.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further requires an integrated
circuit device where the stages and switches in each stage of the two-
dimensional grid of the sub-integrated circuit block are scalable by any
power of two, and with each multiplication by two, one more stage of
switches is added and the cross links between the one more stage of switches
are connected in hypercube format. Ex. 1001, 36:15–23. Petitioner
contends, with supporting testimony from Dr. Baker, that a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the ’394 provisional
application’s disclosure of the possible extension of the network of figure 1C
‘for any arbitrarily large’ network . . . discloses the scalability of the network
by any power of two.” 261 Pet. 70 (citing Ex. 1026, 20:14; 261 Ex. 1002
¶ 138). Therefore, according to Petitioner, “the ’394 provisional application
discloses that the network can be expanded by any power of two by adding
additional stages and switches to each of the sub-integrated circuit block,
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

26
where the layout of the blocks continues in a two-dimensional grid.” Id.
at 72 (citing Ex. 1026, 20:20–28, Figs. 1C, 1H; Ex. 1002 ¶ 140).
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites that “said cross links
in succeeding stages are connected as alternative vertical and horizontal
links between switches in said sub-integrated circuit blocks.” Ex. 1001,
36:24–27. Petitioner contends that the ’394 Provisional discloses that “inter-
block links between switch 1 and switch 2 of corresponding blocks are
vertical tracks,” “inter-block links between switch 2 and switch 3 of
corresponding blocks are horizontal tracks,” and “[t]he pattern is alternate
vertical tracks and horizontal tracks.” 261 Pet. 73–74 (quoting Ex. 1026,
19:25–20:10) (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the ‘inter-block links’
correspond to the ‘cross links’ recited in the claims, as they connect switches
in different sub-integrated circuit blocks.” Id. at 74 (citing 261 Ex. 1002
¶ 142).
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further recites “said switches
comprising active and reprogrammable cross points and said each cross
point is programmable by an SRAM cell or a Flash Cell.” Ex. 1001, 37:59–
62. Petitioner points to Figures 4A1–4A4 of the ’756 PCT, which
“correspond to figures 5A1–5A4 of the ’523 patent” and “relate to the
disclosure of implementations of cross point switches in one time
programmable and reprogrammable embodiments of networks, including the
network in figure 1B of the ’394 provisional.” Pet. 64–67 (citing Ex. 1001,
32:60–35:11, Figs. 5A1–5A4; 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–144; Ex. 1009, Figs.
4A1–4A4, 69:1–72:10). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that the ’756 PCT “discloses that the switches
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

27
in the networks disclosed, including those of the ’394 provisional, can be
implemented as cross points such as those shown in figure 4A1.” Id. at 67
(citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 140). Petitioner further argues that the ’756 PCT
discloses that transistors controlled by corresponding programmable cells
are used to implement the cross points between inlet links and outlet links,
and that the programmable cells can be SRAM or Flash cells. Id. at 68–69
(citing Ex. 1009, 69:17–70:6; 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 142–144).
Patent Owner does not address whether the ’756 PCT discloses the
limitations of claims 2–7, 16, 20–22, and 32. See generally PO Resp.; 261
PO Resp. Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s assertions regarding
dependent claims 2–7, 16, 20–22, and 32, as well as the supporting evidence,
we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the ’756 PCT anticipates claims 2–7, 16, 20–22, and 32 of
the ’523 patent. Pet. 64–76; 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–154; 261 Pet. 69–82;
261 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–151.
E. Obviousness over the ’756 PCT
Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 15 and 17 of
the ’523 patent would have been obvious over the teachings in the ’756
PCT. Pet. 76–82.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein said
horizontal and vertical links are implemented on two or more metal layers.”
Ex. 1001, 37:56–58. Petitioner contends that, although the ’756 PCT “does
not explicitly disclose that the inlet links and outlet links, which include
horizontal and vertical cross links, are routed using two or more metal
layers, this feature would have been obvious.” Pet. 77 (citing 260 Ex. 1002
¶¶ 156–160). Petitioner contends, with supporting testimony from
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

28
Dr. Baker, that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known that
metal layers are typically used to provide electrical connections on an
integrated circuit.” Id. (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 156). Petitioner also contends
that the ’756 PCT “describes using ‘vias’ to connect inlet links and outlet
links (Ex. 1009, 70:14–16), and a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would
have known that vias are commonly used to interconnect two different metal
layers in an integrated circuit device.” Pet. 77 (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 157).
According to Petitioner, implementing the inlet links in a different metal
layer than the outlet links “would have been a mere combination of known
components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce
predictable results.” Id. at 79 (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–160).
Claim 17 also depends directly from claim 1, and further recites
“wherein said sub-integrated circuit blocks are of equal die size.” Ex. 1001,
37:63–64. Relying on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner argues that although
“the ’394 provisional does not explicitly disclose that the ‘sub-integrated
circuit blocks are of equal size,’ it would have been obvious to configure the
integrated circuit device of [the ’756 PCT] to use the same layout for each of
the sub-integrated circuit blocks on the integrated circuit device.” Pet. 81
(citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 162). Petitioner argues that using “equal (as opposed
to unequal) die size would have been recognized as being a mere choice
among a finite number of known alternatives, each having predictable
outcomes.” Id. at 82 (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 162). Petitioner further argues
that reusing the same layout in each of the blocks “would have been
recognized as more efficient from a design standpoint and would have
ensured uniformity in placing the blocks in the two-dimensional grid and
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

29
uniformity in block operation (delays, drive strength, etc.).” Id. (citing
260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 162).
Patent Owner does not address whether the ’756 PCT discloses the
limitations of claims 15 and 17.15 See generally PO Resp. Having reviewed
Petitioner’s assertions regarding claims 15 and 17, as well as the supporting
evidence, we determine on this record that Petitioner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the ‘756 PCT renders claims 15 and 17
obvious. Pet. 76–82; 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 155–162.
F. Obviousness over the ’756 PCT and Wong
Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Baker, contends that
the subject matter of claims 11, 18, and 47 of the ’523 patent would have
been obvious over the combined teachings of the ’756 PCT and Wong.
Pet. 82–92; 261 Pet. 83–90.
Claim 11 depends from claim 6, and recites
wherein 𝑦𝑦 ≥ (log2 𝑁𝑁), where N>1, so that the length of the
horizontal shuffle exchange links in the highest stage is equal to

15 Patent Owner appears to introduce evidence regarding objective indicia of
nonobviousness in the Motion to Exclude. PO Mot. 10–15; PO Reply 4–7.
A motion to exclude is not a mechanism for making new arguments
regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. See CTPG 79
(describing what should be included in a motion to exclude). Accordingly,
we decline to consider the portions of the Motion to Exclude on this issue.
See also IPR2020-00260, Paper 23 (cautioning Patent Owner that “any
argument not raised” in the Patent Owner Response may be deemed
waived.”); CTPG 52 (“Once a trial is instituted, the Board may decline to
consider arguments set forth in a preliminary response unless they are raised
in the patent owner response.”); In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the patent owner waived an issue presented
in its preliminary response that it failed to renew in the response during
trial).
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

30
half the size of the horizontal size of said two dimensional grid
of sub-integrated circuit blocks and the length of the vertical
shuffle exchange links in the highest stage is equal to half the
size of the vertical size of said two dimensional grid of sub-
integrated circuit blocks, and
said each sub-integrated circuit block further comprising a
plurality of U-turn links within switches of said stages in each
said sub-integrated circuit blocks.
Ex. 1001, 37:19–29. Petitioner contends that the ’756 PCT discloses all of
the limitations of claim 11 except the recited plurality of U-turn links, but
that Wong discloses that feature. 261 Pet. 83–84 (citing 261 Ex. 1002
¶¶ 152–161). Petitioner contends that Wong “discloses a network with the
same general topology as figure 1B of the ’394 provisional application,” and
“that advantages can be obtained in such a network by including ‘corner
turning’ in the interconnection network.” Id. at 84–86 (citing 261 Ex. 1002
¶¶ 155–156; Ex. 1008, Fig. 13A, 7:22–31). Petitioner contends that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Wong’s “corner
turning” is the same as the “U-turn link” recited in claim 11. Id. at 87 (citing
261 Ex. 1002 ¶ 157).
Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
“would have been motivated to modify the switches included in each stage
of the sub-integrated circuit blocks of the network of figure 1B of the ’394
provisional to support the corner turning disclosed in Wong.” 261 Pet. 88
(citing 261 Ex. 1002 ¶ 159). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that by modifying the switches in
the ’394 Provisional, “‘shorter routes between logic cells which don’t travel
through all 2*(log2 𝑁𝑁) levels of switches’ are provided, as disclosed in
Wong.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008, 7:22–31; citing 261 Ex. 1002 ¶ 159).
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

31
Petitioner contends that such a modification “would have been
straightforward to implement, because Wong discloses how such corner
turning can be accomplished.” Id. at 89 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:55–56, 8:10–34,
Fig. 7; 261 Ex. 1002 ¶ 160).
Claim 18 depends from claim 15, and further requires that the sub-
integrated circuit blocks are Lookup Tables, and the integrated circuit device
is a FPGA device or block embedded in another integrated circuit device.
Ex. 1001, 37:65–38:3. Petitioner contends that the ’756 PCT does not
explicitly disclose that the sub-integrated circuit blocks are Lookup Tables,
but that Wong does disclose including Lookup Tables with the routing
network, and it would have been obvious to include such Lookup Tables in
the network described in Figure 1B of the ’394 Provisional, as incorporated
by reference into the ’756 PCT. Pet. 83 (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 164).
Claim 47 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the forward
connecting links and backward connecting links use a plurality of inverting
or non-inverting buffers to amplify signals driven through them. Ex. 1001,
42:5–10. Petitioner contends that the ’756 PCT does not disclose this
additional limitation of claim 47, “but it would have been obvious in view of
Wong to include such buffers” in the network of Figure 1B of the ’394
Provisional. Pet. 88 (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 172). Petitioner contends that
Wong discloses a network that includes forward and backward connecting
links, and “also discloses that buffers can be inserted to lengthen shorter
delay paths until the delay paths match,” and that a person of ordinary skill
in the art “would have understood that the buffers disclosed by Wong
include ‘non-inverting’ buffers.” Id. at 90 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 13, 10:60–
67, 11:1–6; 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–175). According to Petitioner, a person of
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

32
ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to include buffers in the
forward and backward connecting links in the network of figure 1B of
the ’394 provisional,” because that person “would have understood that by
including buffers, timing and drive strength issues can be rectified such that
signals properly propagate through the network.” Id. at 91 (citing
260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 176–177).
Petitioner further contends that Wong and the ’756 PCT are in the
field of interconnection networks used in FPGA devices, and that Wong, like
the ’756 PCT, “discloses Benes networks that include a plurality of stages of
switches for use in FPGAs.” Pet. 83–84 (citing Ex. 1008, code (54), 1:14–
17, 1:59–2:6; Ex. 1009, 13:23–14:5; Ex. 1026, 8:21–9:7, 15:1–2, 2:7–16;
Ex. 1002 ¶ 165). Therefore, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art “implementing an integrated circuit device that includes a
routing network as disclosed in [the ’756 PCT] would have had reason to
look to Wong.” Id. at 84 (citing 260 Ex. 1002 ¶ 165); 261 Ex. 1002 ¶ 154.
Patent Owner does not address whether the combined teachings of
the ’756 PCT and Wong disclose the limitations of claims 11, 18, and 47.
See generally PO Resp.; 261 PO Resp. Having reviewed Petitioner’s
assertions regarding claims 11, 18, and 47, as well as the supporting
evidence, we determine on this record that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 18, and 47 would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of the ’756 PCT and Wong. Pet. 82–
92; 260 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 163–178; 261 Pet. 83–90; 261 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152–161.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47
IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

33
of the ’523 patent are unpatentable based on the challenges presented in the
Petition.
In summary:

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1–7, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47 are unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
(IPR2020-00260, Paper 47; IPR2020-00261, Paper 50) in each proceeding is
denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

Claims 35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not Shown
Unpatentable
IPR2020-
00260

1, 16, 20–22,
32 102
’756 PCT 1, 16, 20–22, 32
15, 17 103 ’756 PCT 15, 17
18, 47 103 ’756 PCT, Wong 18, 47
IPR2020-
00261

2–7 102 ’756 PCT 2–7
11 103 ’756 PCT, Wong 11

Overall
Outcome
1–7, 11, 15–18,
20–22, 32, 47

IPR2020-00260
IPR2020-00261
Patent 8,269,523 B2

34
FOR PETITIONER:
Naveen Modi
Joseph E. Palys
Paul M. Anderson
Arvind Jairam
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
josephpalys@paulhastings.com
paulanderson@paulhastings.com
arvindjairam@paulhastings.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Venkat Konda
Venkat@kondatech.com