`
`·2· · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·VOLUSION, INC.
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner
`·6
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`·7
`· · · · · · · · VERSATA DEVELOPMENT
`·8· · · · · · · · · GROUP, INC.
`· · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`·9
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · AND
`
`11· · · · · · ·VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
`· · · · · · · ·Real Party-In-Interest
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · ·CASE CBM2013-00017
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent 6,834,282)
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · ·* * * * * * * * * * * * *
`· · · · · · · ·VIDEO/ORAL DEPOSITION
`18· · · · · · · · · · · ·OF
`· · · · · · · · SCOTT NETTLES, Ph.D.
`19· · · · · · · · ·MARCH 10, 2014
`· · · · · · ·* * * * * * * * * * * * *
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`VOLUSION EXHIBIT 1016
`Volusion v. Versata
`CBM2013-00017
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · VIDEO/ORAL DEPOSITION OF SCOTT NETTLES, Ph.D.,
`
`·4· ·produced as a witness at the instance of the
`
`·5· ·Petitioner, and duly sworn, was taken in the
`
`·6· ·above-styled and numbered cause on the 10th of
`
`·7· ·March, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:57 p.m., before
`
`·8· ·RHONDA HOWARD, CSR in and for the State of Texas,
`
`·9· ·reported by machine shorthand, at the offices of
`
`10· ·Haynes and Boone, 600 Congress, Suite 1300, Austin,
`
`11· ·Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`12· ·Procedure and the provisions stated on the record or
`
`13· ·attached hereto.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
`·4· ·Mr. William B. Nash
`· · ·HAYNES AND BOONE
`·5· ·112 East Pecan, Suite 1200
`· · ·San Antonio, Texas· 78205
`·6· ·(214) 200-0853
`· · ·bill.nash@haynesboone.com
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · -and-
`
`·9· ·Mr. Raghav Baja
`· · ·Ms. Thuc Nguyen
`10· ·HAYNES AND BOONE
`· · ·600 Congress, Suite 1300
`11· ·Austin, Texas· 78701
`· · ·(512) 867-8400
`12· ·raghav.baja@haynesboone.com
`
`13
`
`14· ·FOR THE RESPONDENT:
`
`15· ·Mr. David S. Frist
`· · ·Mr. Keith E. Broyles
`16· ·ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`· · ·One Atlantic Center
`17· ·1201 West Peachtree Street
`· · ·Atlanta, Georgia· 30309
`18· ·(404) 881-7000
`· · ·david.frist@alston.com
`19· ·keith.broyles@alston.com
`
`20
`
`21· ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
`
`22· ·Mr. Hank Wisrodt
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · INDEX
`
`·2· ·Appearances· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3
`· · ·Change Page· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 209
`·3
`
`·4· ·EXAMINATION
`
`·5· ·Examination by Mr. Frist· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·6
`· · ·Examination by Mr. Nash· · · · · · · · · · · · · 200
`·6· ·Further Examination by Mr. Frist· · · · · · · · ·204
`
`·7· ·SIGNATURE SHEET· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 210
`· · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION· · · · · · · · · · · · ·211
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
`
`10· ·NUMBER· · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`11· ·EXHIBIT NO. 3001· · EXCERPT FROM MICROSOFT· · · · 5
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · ·NOT MARKED, BUT REFERENCED AND ATTACHED:
`
`16· ·VOLUSION EXHIBIT 1001· · · · ·US PATENT 6,834,282 B1
`
`17· ·VERSATA EXHIBIT 2003· · · · · WITNESS DECLARATION
`
`18· ·VERSATA EXHIBIT 2004· · · · · WITNESS DECLARATION
`
`19· ·VERSATA EXHIBIT 2005· · · · · CROSS REFERENCE
`
`20· ·VERSATA EXHIBIT 2006· · · · · WITNESS C.V.
`
`21· ·VERSATA EXHIBIT 2007· · · · · DIAGRAM
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·(8:15 a.m.)
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · (Deposition Exhibit No. 3001 marked)
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Stand by, please.
`
`·4· ·Here begins Tape 1 of the video deposition of Scott
`
`·5· ·Nettles.· Today's date is March 10, 2014, and the
`
`·6· ·time on the monitor is 8:15 a.m.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Will counsel please identify themselves
`
`·8· ·for the record.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. FRIST:· David Frist with Alston &
`
`10· ·Bird on behalf of Petitioner.· With me today is
`
`11· ·Keith Broyles, also with Alston & Bird.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · MR. NASH:· William Nash with Haynes
`
`13· ·and Boone for the patent owner, Versata.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. BAJA:· Rag Baja for the patent
`
`15· ·owner.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · MS. NGUYEN:· Thuc Nguyen for the
`
`17· ·patent owner.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Will the court
`
`19· ·reporter please swear in the witness.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes.
`
`21· · · · · · · · · SCOTT NETTLES, Ph.D.,
`
`22· · · having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
`23· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Thank you.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`
`25· ·BY MR. FRIST:
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q· · Good morning, Dr. Nettles.
`
`·2· · · · A· · Good morning.
`
`·3· · · · Q· · You've served as an expert in a number of
`
`·4· ·litigations before.· Correct?
`
`·5· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`·6· · · · Q· · And you've been deposed a number of times
`
`·7· ·before.· Correct?
`
`·8· · · · A· · Yes, sir, I have.
`
`·9· · · · Q· · About how many times have you been
`
`10· ·deposed?
`
`11· · · · A· · I think 40 is a good rough estimate.
`
`12· · · · Q· · Okay.· So you know the drill, then, for a
`
`13· ·deposition and I don't really need to go through all
`
`14· ·the rules of a deposition.· Is that right?
`
`15· · · · A· · That's right.
`
`16· · · · Q· · Okay.· Is there any reason you can't
`
`17· ·testify truthfully today?
`
`18· · · · A· · No, sir.
`
`19· · · · Q· · And just one minor rule, if you need a
`
`20· ·break at any time, just let me know and we can take
`
`21· ·a break.
`
`22· · · · A· · Yes, sir, I -- I --
`
`23· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· One at a time, guys.
`
`24· · · · A· · Yes, sir.· I -- I -- I -- I think we --
`
`25· ·we'll -- we have the breaks covered.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q· · (By Mr. Frist) All right.· Aside from
`
`·2· ·depositions you've also testified in District Courts
`
`·3· ·before.· Correct?
`
`·4· · · · A· · That's correct.
`
`·5· · · · Q· · About how many times have you testified in
`
`·6· ·District Court?
`
`·7· · · · A· · I think it's eight.
`
`·8· · · · Q· · Okay.· And have you ever testified in
`
`·9· ·front of any other courts or panels or...
`
`10· · · · A· · I've testified at at least one bench
`
`11· ·trial, and I've testified informally in some claim
`
`12· ·construction matters.· But in particular, I have
`
`13· ·never testified in front of the PTO.
`
`14· · · · Q· · Okay.· And that was my next question.· So
`
`15· ·you've never testified in front of the PTO in
`
`16· ·post-grant proceeding or any other type of
`
`17· ·proceeding.· Correct?
`
`18· · · · A· · No, sir, I have not.
`
`19· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, as far as your District Court
`
`20· ·testifying experience, at least one of those cases
`
`21· ·was on behalf of Versata.· Correct?
`
`22· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`23· · · · Q· · And that was in a case against SAP.
`
`24· ·Correct?
`
`25· · · · A· · Yes, sir, that's correct.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q· · And the -- how many -- how many times --
`
`·2· ·or how many different cases have you been retained
`
`·3· ·by Versata in?
`
`·4· · · · A· · I would need to look at my C.V. to give
`
`·5· ·you a -- an accurate count, but without doing that,
`
`·6· ·I think five times.
`
`·7· · · · Q· · When was the first time you were retained
`
`·8· ·by Versata?
`
`·9· · · · A· · Again, I would need to look at my C.V.
`
`10· · · · · · ·Actually, why don't I just -- I think I
`
`11· ·have a copy here.· Let me just -- let me just look
`
`12· ·so I can give you a -- a precise answer.
`
`13· · · · · · ·I don't --
`
`14· · · · Q· · Dr. Nettles, why don't I help you out.
`
`15· · · · A· · Thank you.· I'm not -- I'm not finding it
`
`16· ·in this document.
`
`17· · · · Q· · Dr. Nettles, let me hand you a document
`
`18· ·that's been pre-labeled Exhibit 2006.· I believe
`
`19· ·that's a copy of your C.V.
`
`20· · · · A· · Yes, sir.· It appears to be on the face.
`
`21· · · · Q· · Okay.· Feel free to look through that and
`
`22· ·let me know if that helps you understand when the
`
`23· ·first time you were retained by Versata was.
`
`24· · · · A· · Yes, sir, it -- it -- it will when I find
`
`25· ·the right entry.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·All right.· Here we go.· This is the --
`
`·2· ·this is the reason I wanted to -- to look.· If we
`
`·3· ·look at Page 18, we see a matter at the bottom of
`
`·4· ·the page which is dated October, 2007 to October,
`
`·5· ·2009, and that would be the first time I would -- I
`
`·6· ·would have been retained by Versata.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·The -- the reason I wanted to check is
`
`·8· ·that I couldn't remember if I was retained in 2008
`
`·9· ·or if I really started working seriously in the case
`
`10· ·in 2008.
`
`11· · · · Q· · Okay.· And have all five of the cases
`
`12· ·you've been retained by Versata been related to
`
`13· ·patent infringement matters?
`
`14· · · · A· · No, sir.· Several of the cases have
`
`15· ·involved trade secrets.
`
`16· · · · Q· · Okay.· And how -- then how many cases
`
`17· ·have -- have involved patent infringement matters
`
`18· ·related to your Versata work?
`
`19· · · · A· · Well, patent infringement matters, I think
`
`20· ·that would be three cases.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Yes, sir, that's right, three -- three
`
`22· ·cases would have involved patent infringement.
`
`23· · · · Q· · In any of those three cases have you
`
`24· ·expressed an opinion related to whether the patent
`
`25· ·at issue or patents at issue in those cases were
`
`
`
`·1· ·directed to patentable subject matter?
`
`·2· · · · A· · Not to the best of my recollection.
`
`·3· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, you were a professor at
`
`·4· ·University of Texas.· Is that correct?
`
`·5· · · · A· · Well, I'm still an adjunct professor --
`
`·6· · · · Q· · But --
`
`·7· · · · A· · -- but, yes, sir, I was a full-time
`
`·8· ·professor.
`
`·9· · · · Q· · Okay.· So I was just trying to clarify,
`
`10· ·because in your C.V., I believe it's stated that --
`
`11· ·let me try to find it.· Oh, it does say until
`
`12· ·present.· Okay.· That was -- I just misread your
`
`13· ·C.V.
`
`14· · · · · · ·So from May, 2013 to -- to present you've
`
`15· ·been an adjunct professor for University of Texas.
`
`16· ·Is that correct?
`
`17· · · · A· · That's right.
`
`18· · · · Q· · And your other business is as a
`
`19· ·consultant.· Is that correct?
`
`20· · · · A· · That's correct.
`
`21· · · · Q· · And as a consultant, what percentage of
`
`22· ·your engagements relate to legal proceedings of
`
`23· ·different varieties?
`
`24· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry.· Can you
`
`25· ·slow down or speak up a little bit?
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · MR. FRIST:· Sure.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· As a consultant?
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · MR. FRIST:· As a consultant, what
`
`·4· ·percentage of your engagements relate to legal
`
`·5· ·proceedings of different varieties?
`
`·6· · · · A· · 100 percent currently.
`
`·7· · · · Q· · (By Mr. Frist) Now, when you sat down, I
`
`·8· ·think you noticed there were a couple of papers in
`
`·9· ·front of you.· I just want to make sure we identify
`
`10· ·those for the record.· So if you can see to your
`
`11· ·left, there's two packets clipped together.· And I
`
`12· ·want to make sure we identify each of the exhibits
`
`13· ·that's contained in those packets.· So why don't we
`
`14· ·start with the one you just happened to pick up.
`
`15· ·Since I can't see over your shoulder, what -- what
`
`16· ·exhibit are you looking at there?
`
`17· · · · A· · This is my declaration in support of the
`
`18· ·motion to amend, and that's Versata Exhibit 2004.
`
`19· · · · Q· · And if you look -- if you unclip that,
`
`20· ·there's actually several documents there.· Can you
`
`21· ·identify the documents that are also included in
`
`22· ·that --
`
`23· · · · A· · Uh-huh.
`
`24· · · · Q· · -- behind Exhibit 2004?
`
`25· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·The next one is Volusion Exhibit 1001, and
`
`·2· ·that appears to be a copy of the -- the patent at
`
`·3· ·issue.
`
`·4· · · · Q· · And that's a 282 patent?
`
`·5· · · · A· · The 282 patent, yes, sir.
`
`·6· · · · Q· · Okay.· So today, if I refer to the 282
`
`·7· ·patent will you understand I'm referring to Volusion
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 1001?
`
`·9· · · · A· · Yes, sir, I will.
`
`10· · · · · · ·And then the next exhibit is Versata
`
`11· ·Exhibit 2005, and that is the application that
`
`12· ·eventually led to the 282 patent.
`
`13· · · · Q· · And -- and if we just pause there for a
`
`14· ·second.· So Exhibit 2005 is the patent application
`
`15· ·that was filed that eventually led to the 282
`
`16· ·patent.· Is that correct?
`
`17· · · · A· · That's my understanding, yes, sir.
`
`18· · · · Q· · And in your declaration at times you refer
`
`19· ·to the original disclosure of the 282 patent.· Is
`
`20· ·Exhibit 2005 the original disclosure that you
`
`21· ·referenced in your declaration?
`
`22· · · · A· · Yes, sir, it is.
`
`23· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, I believe there's another
`
`24· ·document or two attached to that.· Can you identify
`
`25· ·those --
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A· · There --
`
`·2· · · · Q· · -- or am I incorrect?
`
`·3· · · · A· · -- there --
`
`·4· · · · Q· · That would be it there.
`
`·5· · · · A· · That's everything --
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Can I just ask you one
`
`·7· ·thing?· You're talking over him a little bit, and
`
`·8· ·that makes it tough for the real time.
`
`·9· · · · A· · That seems -- there only seems to be three
`
`10· ·in this -- in this bunch.
`
`11· · · · Q· · (By Mr. Frist) Okay.· Why don't we move to
`
`12· ·the next bunch, then.· I believe the front of that
`
`13· ·exhibit should be Exhibit 2003.· Is that correct?
`
`14· · · · A· · That's right.· Versata Exhibit 2003.· And
`
`15· ·this is my declaration in support of what I'll
`
`16· ·probably call the case in chief.
`
`17· · · · Q· · Oh, okay.· And by case in chief, that's
`
`18· ·your -- that's your declaration in support of
`
`19· ·Versata's response to the decision instituting this
`
`20· ·proceeding.· Is that correct?
`
`21· · · · A· · That's correct, in contrast to the motion
`
`22· ·to amend.
`
`23· · · · Q· · Okay.· And now if you can look at the
`
`24· ·documents attached to the Exhibit 2003 and identify
`
`25· ·those.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·Again, this second attached is Volusion
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 1001, which is the 282 patent.
`
`·4· · · · Q· · Okay.· And then I believe there's an
`
`·5· ·additional two documents afterwards.· Can you go
`
`·6· ·ahead and just identify both of those exhibits?
`
`·7· · · · A· · The next -- the next document is a single
`
`·8· ·sheet, and it's Versata Exhibit 2007.· And this is a
`
`·9· ·diagram which was used in the declaration.· And this
`
`10· ·was produced in this manner so that it would be
`
`11· ·larger and easier for everyone to read.
`
`12· · · · Q· · Okay.· Are there any other documents
`
`13· ·attached?
`
`14· · · · A· · There are.· There is one which is labeled
`
`15· ·Exhibit 3001, and this is -- this is an excerpt from
`
`16· ·a Microsoft press computer dictionary.· And it gives
`
`17· ·a definition that was used by -- by the Board in
`
`18· ·its -- I'm sorry, I don't quite have the right --
`
`19· ·right word.· But it's granting of -- of moving
`
`20· ·forward on this matter, and it contains a definition
`
`21· ·of hierarchy.
`
`22· · · · Q· · Okay.· Are there any other documents
`
`23· ·attached there?
`
`24· · · · A· · Not that I see.
`
`25· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, in both of your declarations,
`
`
`
`·1· ·Exhibit 2003 and 2004, you include a section called,
`
`·2· ·"Relevant Legal Standards."· Do you recall that?
`
`·3· · · · A· · I do recall that.
`
`·4· · · · Q· · And your opinions regarding whether the
`
`·5· ·claims of the 282 patent are directed to patentable
`
`·6· ·subject matter are based on the legal standards
`
`·7· ·described in those sections.· Correct?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry.· I'm having
`
`·9· ·a hard time understanding you.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · MR. FRIST:· I'll just re-read it.
`
`11· ·How about that?
`
`12· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· That's great.· Thank
`
`13· ·you.
`
`14· · · · Q· · (By Mr. Frist) And your opinions regarding
`
`15· ·whether the claims of 282 patent were directed to
`
`16· ·patentable subject matter are based on the legal
`
`17· ·standards described in those sections.· Correct?
`
`18· · · · A· · Well, I don't think I would say it quite
`
`19· ·that way.· I think I would say that those sections
`
`20· ·represent my -- my understanding of the -- the legal
`
`21· ·issues as I was informed by Versata's attorneys.
`
`22· · · · · · ·But my -- the -- the basis of my opinion
`
`23· ·really isn't just in those legal standards.· It's in
`
`24· ·my study of all of the materials involved in the --
`
`25· ·in the matter, so the patents, the petition, the
`
`
`
`·1· ·Board's ruling, so and on so forth.
`
`·2· · · · Q· · Do you agree that a component of your
`
`·3· ·analysis in this proceeding involved a study of
`
`·4· ·legal standards.· Correct?
`
`·5· · · · A· · Oh, yes, sir.
`
`·6· · · · Q· · And the component that related to legal
`
`·7· ·standards, that was based on the description of the
`
`·8· ·legal standards as described in your declarations.
`
`·9· ·Correct?
`
`10· · · · A· · Yes, sir.· And I think this segs the parts
`
`11· ·of the declaration that you mentioned.· I think
`
`12· ·that's where the majority of the legal understanding
`
`13· ·is stated, but there are other places where there
`
`14· ·are references made to -- to the -- to the legal
`
`15· ·standards.
`
`16· · · · · · ·So I wouldn't say that it's just limited
`
`17· ·to exactly that section.
`
`18· · · · Q· · Well, let me ask you a question regarding
`
`19· ·all of the legal standards that are provided
`
`20· ·throughout your declarations, then.
`
`21· · · · · · ·You didn't independently research any of
`
`22· ·the relevant legal standards in this case.· Correct?
`
`23· · · · A· · Oh, no, sir.· I'm -- I'm not an attorney.
`
`24· ·I -- I depend on the attorneys to explain to me what
`
`25· ·the -- the legal issues are.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q· · And -- and that's what I was getting at.
`
`·2· ·Is your understanding of the legal aspect of this
`
`·3· ·case was -- is based entirely on information that
`
`·4· ·was provided to you by Versata's counsel.· Is that
`
`·5· ·correct?
`
`·6· · · · A· · Of the -- of the legal standards, yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, you understand that you've
`
`·8· ·submitted on behalf of Versata declarations in two
`
`·9· ·different proceedings, one related to the 282 and
`
`10· ·the other related to the 481 patent.· Correct?
`
`11· · · · A· · Yes, sir, I do.
`
`12· · · · Q· · And you understand that today all we're
`
`13· ·going to discuss is your opinions and your
`
`14· ·declarations in regards to the 282 patent.· Do you
`
`15· ·understand that?
`
`16· · · · A· · I do.
`
`17· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, did you review Exhibit 2003
`
`18· ·and 2004 that were declarations in preparation for
`
`19· ·your deposition today?
`
`20· · · · A· · Oh, yes, sir.
`
`21· · · · Q· · And do those declarations contain your
`
`22· ·full opinions regarding the issues that were
`
`23· ·presented to you by Versata's counsel?
`
`24· · · · A· · Well, they contain my full opinions as
`
`25· ·they've been -- been written down.· But, of course,
`
`
`
`·1· ·I have an internal understanding, which, you
`
`·2· ·know, it would be very difficult to -- to write down
`
`·3· ·in -- in this few number of pages.· So I think I
`
`·4· ·have a more -- more -- there's certainly some
`
`·5· ·understandings of the issues at hand that are not
`
`·6· ·explicitly stated here, but this certainly
`
`·7· ·represents what I -- what I have written down and
`
`·8· ·what I will expect to depend on.
`
`·9· · · · Q· · Okay.· Well, let me ask you, in your
`
`10· ·review of your declarations, did you find any aspect
`
`11· ·of those opinions that you would like to change?
`
`12· · · · A· · I don't think that there's any aspect of
`
`13· ·my opinions that I would like -- of my opinions that
`
`14· ·I would like to change.
`
`15· · · · · · ·I -- I would note that at the beginning of
`
`16· ·each of those opinions, I list things that I've
`
`17· ·studied.· And I neglected to mention that I had
`
`18· ·studied the petitions and the Board's ruling.
`
`19· · · · · · ·And, also, anything that was cited in the
`
`20· ·actual documents.· So, for example, I did study that
`
`21· ·Microsoft dictionary definition.· So that's not a
`
`22· ·change in my opinions.· That's just a clarification
`
`23· ·as to exactly what materials I -- I considered in
`
`24· ·the process of preparing the declaration.
`
`25· · · · Q· · When you stated that you reviewed
`
`
`
`·1· ·materials cited in the documents, which specific
`
`·2· ·documents were you referring to?
`
`·3· · · · A· · Sorry.· In -- in the two -- in the two
`
`·4· ·declarations.· So there's -- there's the Microsoft
`
`·5· ·dictionary definition.· There's a memo that has
`
`·6· ·the -- to do with certain terminology usage from the
`
`·7· ·PTO that I remember reading and that I know is -- is
`
`·8· ·cited.· Those are the only things that I remember
`
`·9· ·being cited that weren't on this list or the
`
`10· ·petition or the Board's ruling.· But there might be
`
`11· ·others.· I -- that...
`
`12· · · · Q· · When you refer to reviewing materials
`
`13· ·cited in the documents you did not go through, for
`
`14· ·example, all of the prior art listed on the face of
`
`15· ·the 282 patent --
`
`16· · · · A· · Oh -- oh, no.
`
`17· · · · Q· · -- you did not review that.· Correct?
`
`18· · · · A· · Right.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Excuse me, sir.· When I say the documents,
`
`20· ·I mean in -- in the declarations.· So if I
`
`21· ·explicitly mention a document in the declaration, I
`
`22· ·reviewed that document even if it's not listed in
`
`23· ·that short list at the beginning of each of the
`
`24· ·declarations.
`
`25· · · · · · ·No, sir, I did not review the prior art in
`
`
`
`·1· ·the -- on the face of the patent.
`
`·2· · · · Q· · Okay.· Just to be clear, because I want to
`
`·3· ·be perfectly clear on this part, you did not review
`
`·4· ·the prior art listed on the face of the 282 patent
`
`·5· ·in part of your -- in preparation of your
`
`·6· ·declaration?
`
`·7· · · · A· · Well, I -- I certainly looked at what
`
`·8· ·prior art was cited on the face of the patent.· But
`
`·9· ·I don't recall -- and some of that prior art may --
`
`10· ·may be familiar to me anyway from my own experience.
`
`11· ·But I don't remember reviewing any specific pieces
`
`12· ·of prior art beyond just reviewing what was on the
`
`13· ·face of the patents.
`
`14· · · · Q· · Okay.· And I'm trying to understand what
`
`15· ·you mean by reviewing what was on the face of the
`
`16· ·pat -- patent.· When you say that, are you saying
`
`17· ·you read what the documents were listed on the face
`
`18· ·of the patent?
`
`19· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`20· · · · Q· · But you did not go to the Internet and
`
`21· ·pull the patents off the Internet and start reading
`
`22· ·all of the 20 or so patents that are listed on the
`
`23· ·282 patent?
`
`24· · · · A· · No, sir, I did not.
`
`25· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, is there anything else that
`
`
`
`·1· ·you reviewed in preparation of your declaration
`
`·2· ·that's not listed in the declarations?
`
`·3· · · · A· · I believe that the two additions that I
`
`·4· ·just made, plus anything that's explicitly cited in
`
`·5· ·the declaration is everything that I -- that I
`
`·6· ·reviewed.
`
`·7· · · · Q· · Okay.· So just to be clear about today and
`
`·8· ·my -- my questions today, I'm going to obviously ask
`
`·9· ·you a number of questions.· But my questions are
`
`10· ·going to solely be about your declaration and the
`
`11· ·exhibits cited and -- and attached to your
`
`12· ·declaration.· And I'm not going to ask you about any
`
`13· ·other documents.· Is that okay?
`
`14· · · · A· · That's fine.
`
`15· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now, in your opinions regarding the
`
`16· ·282 patent, you provided a construction of the term
`
`17· ·hierarchy.· Correct?
`
`18· · · · A· · Yes, sir, I did.
`
`19· · · · Q· · Okay.· And if we turn to Exhibit 2003 and
`
`20· ·go to Paragraph 30, that paragraph contains what you
`
`21· ·believe to be the perfect construction of the term
`
`22· ·hierarchy.· Correct?
`
`23· · · · A· · Yes, sir, based upon my understanding of
`
`24· ·who a person of ordinary school would be and what
`
`25· ·they would understand about the word hierarchy
`
`
`
`·1· ·reading the specification.
`
`·2· · · · Q· · Okay.· And your opinions in Exhibit 2003
`
`·3· ·are based on the construction of hierarchy that you
`
`·4· ·provide in Paragraph 30.· Correct?
`
`·5· · · · A· · Well, in part.· I think -- I think I would
`
`·6· ·say it a different way.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·I think I would say that my understanding
`
`·8· ·of that definition is based on my review of the
`
`·9· ·specification and of the other materials that we've
`
`10· ·discussed, and that, in general, my opinions as
`
`11· ·expressed in the declaration are based on my
`
`12· ·understanding of the specification of person of
`
`13· ·ordinary skill, the claims, other materials that are
`
`14· ·reviewed.
`
`15· · · · Q· · It's not -- I'm not sure that exactly
`
`16· ·answered my question.
`
`17· · · · · · ·My question was a little simpler.· I just
`
`18· ·want to know whether the definition that you provide
`
`19· ·here of hierarchy is the definition that you used of
`
`20· ·hierarchy throughout your declaration.· Is that
`
`21· ·correct?
`
`22· · · · A· · Well, it is the definition that I use, but
`
`23· ·I think that my opinions are really based on
`
`24· ·something more fundamental than just this
`
`25· ·declaration.· And I think that my opinions are
`
`
`
`·1· ·consistent with other possible definitions of
`
`·2· ·hierarchy, although I think this is the correct one.
`
`·3· · · · Q· · So are you saying you apply multiple
`
`·4· ·definitions of hierarchy throughout your
`
`·5· ·declaration?
`
`·6· · · · A· · Well, again, I think that my opinions are
`
`·7· ·consistent with my understanding of the
`
`·8· ·specification and of the other materials that I
`
`·9· ·reviewed.· So I applied that understanding.
`
`10· · · · · · ·I think this understanding of hierarchy is
`
`11· ·the most precise and correct one, but I think it
`
`12· ·would be incorrect to say that my opinions are
`
`13· ·inconsistent with other definitions of hierarchy.
`
`14· · · · Q· · So you're getting way ahead of me here.
`
`15· ·I'm going to get into your -- your -- your
`
`16· ·definition of hierarchy here.· And I'm going to get
`
`17· ·into why you believe this is correct and why you
`
`18· ·believe it's consistent with everything else.
`
`19· · · · · · ·I'm just trying to figure out what
`
`20· ·definition you used of hierarchy in assessing
`
`21· ·whether the Patent 282 is directed to patentable
`
`22· ·subject matter.· And you've given a definition in
`
`23· ·Paragraph 30.· Correct?
`
`24· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`25· · · · Q· · And -- and that definition is of op -- the
`
`
`
`·1· ·hierarchy means, "An operative data structure that
`
`·2· ·corresponds with browse-related activation of the
`
`·3· ·nodes thereof, specifies an organization imposed on
`
`·4· ·items in a database."
`
`·5· · · · · · ·Correct?
`
`·6· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`·7· · · · Q· · Is that definition the definition you used
`
`·8· ·of hierarchy when assessing whether the claims of
`
`·9· ·the 282 patent were directed to patentable subject
`
`10· ·matter?
`
`11· · · · A· · Yes, sir.· And -- and I think I've
`
`12· ·answered this question, but let me try to answer it
`
`13· ·again.
`
`14· · · · · · ·This definition is the definition that I
`
`15· ·used, but my opinions are consistent with my overall
`
`16· ·understanding of the specification and other
`
`17· ·materials.· And I believe that my opinions are --
`
`18· ·although I used this definition, I believe my
`
`19· ·opinions are consistent with other possible
`
`20· ·definitions.
`
`21· · · · Q· · Okay.· And, again, I just -- I just need
`
`22· ·to have this clear on the record, because I need to
`
`23· ·understand what -- what your opinion is.· And we'll
`
`24· ·get into whether it's consistent with other things
`
`25· ·and whether it's consistent with this patent.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·But I just want to know, did you use any
`
`·2· ·other definition other than the definition in
`
`·3· ·Paragraph 30 of the term hierarchy when performing
`
`·4· ·your analysis in Exhibit 2003?
`
`·5· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·And, again, I think I've answered this
`
`·7· ·question.· But I used this definition in
`
`·8· ·Paragraph 30 of the term hierarchy, but my opinions
`
`·9· ·are relative to the specification, the other
`
`10· ·materials that I've reviewed.· And I believe that my
`
`11· ·opinions are consistent with other definitions of --
`
`12· ·of hierarchy that -- that might be proposed or -- or
`
`13· ·found by the Board.
`
`14· · · · Q· · I'm having -- I'm struggling with your
`
`15· ·previous answer, because I'm not sure -- so -- so
`
`16· ·let me ask a little hypothetical.· Okay?
`
`17· · · · · · ·Your definition of hierarchy that you've
`
`18· ·provided includes the requirement that hierarchy be
`
`19· ·an operative data structure.· Do you see that?
`
`20· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`21· · · · Q· · The Board found that the term hierarchy
`
`22· ·did not have to be operative.· Would your definition
`
`23· ·be consistent with that?
`
`24· · · · A· · I think that my definition is consistent
`
`25· ·with the Board's definition.· I don't think that
`
`
`
`·1· ·anything that would match the Board's definition --
`
`·2· ·anything that would match my definition would also
`
`·3· ·match the Board's definition.· But I think that my
`
`·4· ·definition is -- is more precise.· I think it
`
`·5· ·focuses more on what the meaning would be to a
`
`·6· ·person of ordinary skill having read the
`
`·7· ·specification carefully.
`
`·8· · · · Q· · So I need you to focus on my questions.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·My question about a hypothetical world --
`
`10· ·you haven't read this before.· It's not been
`
`11· ·presented to you before, not been in any document
`
`12· ·you've reviewed before.
`
`13· · · · · · ·I just want to know -- let's assume that
`
`14· ·the Board adopted a definition of hierarchy that did
`
`15· ·not include the word operative.· Would your
`
`16· ·definition that's provided in Paragraph 30 be
`
`17· ·consistent with that definition?
`
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. NASH:· Objection; compound.
`
`19· · · · A· · Well, if -- if I understood the
`
`20· ·hypothetical, you're now saying the Board is
`
`21· ·proposing some definition of hierarchy.· It's a
`
`22· ·definition I've never seen or heard about.· And so
`
`23· ·I -- I can't possibly have an opinion about whether
`
`24· ·or not it's consistent, because I don't -- I don't
`
`25· ·have any idea of what the definition is.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Before I was answering the question based
`
`·2· ·on the definition that the Board has already
`
`·3· ·proposed.
`
`·4· · · · Q· · All right.· And -- and that's my point
`
`·5· ·here.· I want to focus on definitions that you've
`
`·6· ·actually used, not hypothetic ones or what the
`
`·7· ·Boards might -- might adopt or what the Board has
`
`·8· ·adopted.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·I want to know exactly what you've used in
`
`10· ·your declaration.· So I want to clarify that.· Okay?
`
`11· · · · · · ·So my next question is just going to be
`
`12· ·about what definition you used in your declaration.
`
`13· ·Okay?
`
`14· · · · A· · (Witness nods head.)
`
`15· · · · Q· · The definition of hierarchy that you used
`
`16· ·in your declaration is the one set out in
`
`17· ·Paragraph 30.· Correct?
`
`18· · · · A· · Well, again, I think I've answered this
`
`19· ·question a number of times.· But that is correct, I
`
`20· ·used this definition, but I believe that my opinions
`
`21· ·are consistent with the specification.· And I think
`
`22· ·that there are other definitions of hierarchy that
`
`23· ·would -- my opinions would also comport with.
`
`24· · · · · · ·So -- but I did use this definition.
`
`25· · · · Q· · Other than the -- I think you mentioned
`
`
`
`·1· ·the Board's construction in your previous answer.
`
`·2· ·Is that correct?
`
`·3· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`·4· · · · Q· · You mentioned other definitions.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·Did you list any other definitions in your
`
`·6· ·declaration other than the Board's definition of
`
`·7· ·hierarchy?
`
`·8· · · · A· · I only list in my declaration two possible
`
`·9· ·definitions of hierarchy, the one in Paragraph 30,
`
`10· ·which is the one I believe is correct, and then the
`
`11· ·one that I list -- I think I -- well, maybe I don't
`
`12· ·list it precisely in Paragraph 31, but the Board's,
`
`13· ·which I -- which I think is correct.· But I think
`
`14· ·it's not as precise or focused on the specification
`
`15· ·as it could be.
`
`16· · · · Q· · Okay.· For today, I'm going to assume that
`
`17· ·your -- when we discuss the term hierarchy that
`
`18· ·we're using the definition you provided in
`
`19· ·Paragraph 30.
`
`20· · · · · · ·If you would like to use a different
`
`21· ·definition of hierarchy at any point today other
`
`22· ·than the one set forth in Paragraph 30 of
`
`23· ·Exhibit 2003, will you let me know?
`
`24· · · · A· · I will, but I -- I think I -- I need to
`
`25· ·make the caveat that because this definition is
`
`
`
`·1· ·consistent with other definitions, it's certainly
`
`·2· ·the case that even if I'm using this definition in
`
`·3· ·my testimony today, my testimony would still
`
`·4· ·certainly be applicable to those other definitions
`
`·5· ·that it was -- that it was consistent with.
`
`·6· · · · Q· · All right.· Well, let's -- let's talk
`
`·7· ·about the -- the definition you have in
`
`·8· ·Paragraph 30.· I would like to understand a little
`
`·9· ·bit about what the different parts of that -- that
`
`10· ·construction mean.· Okay?
`
`11· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`
`12· ·