1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, et )
`al., )
` )
` Plaintiffs, )
` ) Civil Action No.
` vs. ) 2:13-cv-103-JRG-
` ) RSP
`GOOGLE INC., )
` )
` Defendant. )
`
` CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
` The videotaped deposition of HUBERT E.
`(BUSTER) DUNSMORE, called by the Defendant for
`examination, pursuant to Notice, and pursuant to the
`Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States
`District Courts, taken before Sandra L. Rocca, CSR,
`CRR, at One North Franklin Street, Chicago,
`Illinois, on the 10th of October, 2016, at the hour
`of 9:01 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 2446819
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 1
`
`
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, et )
`al., )
` )
` Plaintiffs, )
` ) Civil Action No.
` vs. ) 2:13-cv-103-JRG-
` ) RSP
`GOOGLE INC., )
` )
` Defendant. )
`
` CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
` The videotaped deposition of HUBERT E.
`(BUSTER) DUNSMORE, called by the Defendant for
`examination, pursuant to Notice, and pursuant to the
`Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States
`District Courts, taken before Sandra L. Rocca, CSR,
`CRR, at One North Franklin Street, Chicago,
`Illinois, on the 10th of October, 2016, at the hour
`of 9:01 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 2446819
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`any that existed before this patent. 09:49:37
`
` Q Do you believe that the asserted patents 09:49:39
`
`invented the idea of a multi-process browser? 09:49:41
`
` A They could have. 09:49:44
`
` Q When did you first personally learn of 09:49:48
`
`multi-process web browsers? 09:49:52
`
` A Well, I knew about them before working on 09:49:56
`
`this case, but of course I didn't start working on 09:49:59
`
`this case until 2014. 09:50:02
`
` Q When did you first personally learn of 09:50:05
`
`multi-process browsers? 09:50:07
`
` A It would have been a discussion of Google 09:50:09
`
`Chrome, in fact, and I can't remember when that was, 09:50:14
`
`but I'm pretty sure that it predates 2014. 09:50:18
`
` Q Same question I asked about sandboxing, who 09:50:23
`
`do you consider to have invented multi-process 09:50:26
`
`browsers? 09:50:30
`
` A I don't know. 09:50:30
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:50:31
`
`of using sandboxing in web browsers, correct? 09:50:35
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form. 09:50:39
`
` THE WITNESS: Your question is that the 09:50:40
`
`asserted patents did not invent the idea of using 09:50:50
`
`sandboxing with web browsers. Again, I'm not aware 09:50:54
`
`of any browsers before this patent that used the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 45
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`sandboxing concept, so perhaps they did invent it. 09:51:03
`
` Q What is process isolation? 09:51:08
`
` A The idea there is that a process is 09:51:11
`
`typically running in a memory space and unable to 09:51:19
`
`communicate with -- in the extreme, unable to 09:51:23
`
`communicate with anything else or a process can be 09:51:28
`
`isolated from certain other processes and other 09:51:31
`
`things. So it depends upon the context as to what 09:51:35
`
`it's isolated from. In its extreme, it would mean 09:51:41
`
`isolated from everything else. 09:51:45
`
` Q When did you first learn of process 09:51:46
`
`isolation? 09:51:50
`
` A Probably -- in talking about operating 09:51:50
`
`systems, probably around 2010 or so, something like 09:51:58
`
`that. 09:52:02
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:02
`
`of process isolation, correct? 09:52:06
`
` A No. 09:52:08
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:08
`
`of graphic processors, correct? 09:52:13
`
` A That is correct. 09:52:14
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:16
`
`of video processors, correct? 09:52:18
`
` A That is correct. 09:52:20
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 46
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 46
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`of multi-core processors, correct? 09:52:24
`
` A That is correct. 09:52:26
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:27
`
`of a multi-processor system, correct? 09:52:29
`
` A That is correct. 09:52:32
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:33
`
`of pinning processes to certain processors, correct? 09:52:36
`
` A That is correct. 09:52:41
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:42
`
`of pinning processors to different processor cores 09:52:45
`
`of the multi-core processor, correct? 09:52:49
`
` A Would you repeat that question? 09:52:51
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:52:53
`
`of pinning different processors to different cores 09:52:55
`
`in a multi-core processor, correct? 09:52:58
`
` A Of pinning processors -- 09:53:00
`
` Q So my earlier question was about pinning 09:53:06
`
`processes to different processors. 09:53:09
`
` A Right. 09:53:12
`
` Q Now my question is about pinning processes 09:53:12
`
`to different cores of the multi-core processor. The 09:53:16
`
`asserted patents did not invent that, right? 09:53:18
`
` A They did not. 09:53:20
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:21
`
`of a portable communication device, correct?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 47
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 47
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` A That is correct. 09:53:27
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:27
`
`of operating systems, correct? 09:53:30
`
` A That is correct. 09:53:31
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:32
`
`of operating systems with multi-threading, correct? 09:53:34
`
` A That's correct. 09:53:37
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:37
`
`of multi-tasking, correct? 09:53:40
`
` A That is correct. 09:53:42
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:42
`
`of web browsers, correct? 09:53:45
`
` A That is also correct. 09:53:47
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:48
`
`of using a common operating system of four different 09:53:51
`
`processes? 09:53:57
`
` A That is correct. 09:53:58
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:53:58
`
`of a portable communication device that had a common 09:54:00
`
`operating system, correct? 09:54:04
`
` A That is correct. 09:54:05
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:54:07
`
`of network interface devices, correct? 09:54:10
`
` A That is correct. 09:54:13
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 48
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 48
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`of executing a web browser process using a common 09:54:17
`
`operating system, correct? 09:54:21
`
` A That is also correct. 09:54:22
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:54:24
`
`of exchanging data across a network using a network 09:54:27
`
`interface device and a wireless connection, correct? 09:54:30
`
` A That is correct. 09:54:34
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:54:35
`
`of providing separate memory space for different 09:54:38
`
`processes, correct? 09:54:40
`
` A That's correct. 09:54:42
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:54:43
`
`of providing separate memory space for different web 09:54:45
`
`browser processes, correct? 09:54:50
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form. 09:54:51
`
` THE WITNESS: Ask your question again. Let 09:54:52
`
`me make sure I got it. 09:54:58
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:54:59
`
`of providing separate memory spaces for different 09:55:02
`
`processes that were running internet browser 09:55:06
`
`processes, correct? 09:55:09
`
` A I am not aware of anyone doing that before 09:55:10
`
`this patent, so they may have invented it. 09:55:13
`
` Q Do you affirmatively believe that they've 09:55:16
`
`invented that or do you just not know?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 49
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 49
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` A I just don't know. 09:55:22
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:55:23
`
`that a web browser could access data over an 09:55:25
`
`internet, correct? 09:55:29
`
` A That's correct. 09:55:29
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:55:30
`
`of providing a web browser that could store data 09:55:34
`
`that it accessed onto a memory space that was local 09:55:38
`
`to the web browser, correct? 09:55:41
`
` A That is also correct. 09:55:43
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:55:44
`
`of providing one web browser process that could 09:55:46
`
`spawn a second web browser process, correct? 09:55:51
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form. 09:55:54
`
` THE WITNESS: That's another one that I am 09:55:55
`
`not aware of a browser doing that before this 09:56:01
`
`patent. 09:56:04
`
` Q Do you affirmatively believe that the 09:56:05
`
`asserted patents invent that or do you just not 09:56:07
`
`know? 09:56:09
`
` A I just don't know. 09:56:10
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:56:10
`
`of passing data between a first web browser process 09:56:13
`
`and a second web browser process, correct? 09:56:17
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 50
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 50
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, I don't know of any web 09:56:21
`
`browsers that were doing that before this patent. 09:56:27
`
`So I don't -- I can't recall any browser that was 09:56:29
`
`doing that. 09:56:34
`
` Q Do you believe that the asserted patents 09:56:35
`
`invented that or do you just not know? 09:56:38
`
` A I do not know. 09:56:40
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:56:40
`
`of displaying data from a web browser process, 09:56:43
`
`correct? 09:56:46
`
` A That's correct. 09:56:46
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:56:47
`
`of protecting system files from corruption by 09:56:49
`
`malware, correct? 09:56:53
`
` A That is correct. 09:56:54
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:56:56
`
`of protecting system files by using different memory 09:56:59
`
`spaces, correct? 09:57:02
`
` A That is one that I don't recall having seen 09:57:03
`
`before this patent, so they may have invented that. 09:57:10
`
` Q Do you affirmatively believe the asserted 09:57:13
`
`patents invented that or do you just not know? 09:57:16
`
` A I do not know. 09:57:19
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:57:20
`
`of providing intelligent cellular telephone
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 51
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 51
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`capability, correct? 09:57:26
`
` A That is correct. 09:57:27
`
` Q The asserted patents did not invent the idea 09:57:28
`
`of using a video processor to combine data that 09:57:30
`
`would be subsequently displayed, correct? 09:57:34
`
` A The thing I'm having trouble with is 09:57:36
`
`combined data. Certainly -- ask the question again. 09:57:47
`
`Let me make sure I got it right. 09:57:53
`
` Q Sure. The asserted patents did not invent 09:57:54
`
`the idea of using a video processor to combine data 09:57:58
`
`from whatever sources that the video processor could 09:58:02
`
`retrieve data in order to display that data, 09:58:06
`
`correct? 09:58:09
`
` A I think that's correct. I think that 09:58:09
`
`existed before. 09:58:12
`
` Q Earlier you said that you did not know 09:58:13
`
`whether the asserted patents invented the idea of a 09:58:17
`
`multi-process browser. Do you affirmatively believe 09:58:20
`
`that they did or do you just not know? 09:58:23
`
` A I do not know. 09:58:25
`
` Q So we've talked about several things that 09:58:26
`
`the asserted patents did not invent. What do you 09:58:34
`
`believe the asserted patents did invent? 09:58:39
`
` A I think that what they invented was the idea 09:58:43
`
`of having separate processes running to achieve the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 52
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 52
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`functions of a web browser and in particular, having 09:58:55
`
`a process that had no access outside its own memory 09:59:01
`
`space, so that if there were malware in that 09:59:06
`
`process, it could not affect the -- and I'm talking 09:59:10
`
`here about P2 -- it could not affect what was 09:59:14
`
`happening in P1. 09:59:17
`
` Q You used the phrase "P1" and "P2." What do 09:59:19
`
`you mean by that? 09:59:23
`
` A From the patent, the -- all of the patents 09:59:25
`
`that we talk about, the inventors identify P1 as 09:59:29
`
`being a process that is running and it has access to 09:59:35
`
`its own memory along with the memory of another 09:59:42
`
`process, that process P2. But P2 has access only to 09:59:45
`
`its own memory, M2. 09:59:50
`
` Q I direct your attention to page 14 of your 09:59:52
`
`report. In paragraph 54, you write, "I have 09:59:56
`
`reviewed Professor Arbaugh's technology background 10:00:03
`
`section and generally agree with his statements. 10:00:07
`
`Below I note some exceptions I take with regard to 10:00:10
`
`Professor Arbaugh's characterizations." 10:00:14
`
` Do you see that? 10:00:17
`
` A Yes, I do. 10:00:17
`
` Q So except for the three issues that you take 10:00:18
`
`as described in paragraphs 55, 56, 57, you otherwise 10:00:23
`
`agree with Professor Arbaugh's technology background
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 53
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 53
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`section, correct? 10:00:32
`
` A I think so. 10:00:32
`
` Q I'd like to direct your attention to 10:00:32
`
`paragraph 54, 55 of your report. "This does not 10:00:35
`
`mean that a POSITA would conclude that processes 10:00:42
`
`that are not explicitly designed to communicate with 10:00:45
`
`each other would or should be able to communicate 10:00:48
`
`with each other." 10:00:51
`
` Do you see that? 10:00:53
`
` A Yes, I do. 10:00:53
`
` Q You're familiar with IPC, correct? 10:00:54
`
` A Yes. 10:00:56
`
` Q IPC allows for different processes to 10:00:57
`
`communicate with each other, correct? 10:01:01
`
` A That is correct. 10:01:02
`
` Q There are different methods for implementing 10:01:04
`
`IPC, correct? 10:01:08
`
` A That is also correct. 10:01:09
`
` Q Methods include sockets, named pipe, pipes, 10:01:10
`
`shared memory and other things, correct? 10:01:16
`
` A That is correct. 10:01:18
`
` Q There is no limitation on the type of data 10:01:18
`
`that can be sent using an IPC channel, correct? 10:01:22
`
` A I don't think that's correct because there 10:01:26
`
`can be limitations on interprocess communication.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 54
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 54
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` Q Depending upon the specific method of IPC, I 10:01:37
`
`understand that there are certain limitations, but 10:01:42
`
`generally, IPC does not refer to the exchange of a 10:01:44
`
`particular type of data as opposed to certain types 10:01:47
`
`of data that can't be exchanged, correct? 10:01:50
`
` A If you're using IPC as a generic term, yes, 10:01:53
`
`we're talking about two processes communicating with 10:01:58
`
`each other and exchanging information. 10:02:01
`
` Q Depending upon the IPC technique that was 10:02:03
`
`used, IPC can be used to exchange data from a 10:02:08
`
`website, correct? 10:02:12
`
` A IPC could be used for data exchange between 10:02:12
`
`two processes and it could be any data. 10:02:21
`
` Q You've heard of the component object model 10:02:23
`
`or COM? 10:02:26
`
` A Yes. 10:02:29
`
` Q You understand that is one of the standards 10:02:29
`
`that is used for IPC, correct? 10:02:32
`
` A Yes. 10:02:34
`
` Q I direct your attention to paragraph 56 of 10:02:34
`
`your report. "This does not mean that a POSITA 10:02:40
`
`would conclude that the process should create a 10:02:44
`
`child process." 10:02:47
`
` I think I'm getting hung up on the "should" 10:02:50
`
`here. You agree that a process can create a child
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 55
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 55
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`said clearly in possession. 11:47:16
`
` A I realized that after I said it. 11:47:17
`
` Q Can you give your understanding of "clearly 11:47:20
`
`and unequivocally disclosed" without using the words 11:47:23
`
`"clearly" or "unequivocally"? 11:47:26
`
` A That there is enough detail in the 11:47:27
`
`specification, both the verbiage and the figures, 11:47:30
`
`and that the description is done in such a manner 11:47:34
`
`that someone would have an idea how to practice the 11:47:40
`
`invention. 11:47:43
`
` Q I direct your attention to paragraph 467 of 11:47:45
`
`your report. In the last sentence you write, "The 11:47:50
`
`applicants broadened certain reissue claims relative 11:48:04
`
`to the original claims of the '247 patent by 11:48:07
`
`dropping the requirement of executing a second 11:48:10
`
`logical process using the second electronic data 11:48:15
`
`processor." 11:48:19
`
` A Right. 11:48:20
`
` Q Do you see that? 11:48:21
`
` A Yes, sir. 11:48:21
`
` Q So it is your opinion that the reissue 11:48:22
`
`claims are broader than the original claims in that 11:48:25
`
`the reissue claims drop the limitation that there 11:48:28
`
`must be two electronic data processors, correct? 11:48:31
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 119
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 119
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` THE WITNESS: They are broader in that 11:48:36
`
`aspect. 11:48:38
`
` Q Okay. 11:48:39
`
` A That aspect, yes, indeed. It went from 11:48:39
`
`required two processors to only one in some claims. 11:48:44
`
` (Dunsmore Exhibit 14 marked for 11:48:44
`
` identification.) 11:48:47
`
` Q I hand you Dr. Kogan's invalidity report. 11:48:47
`
`This is one of the documents you said you reviewed 11:48:57
`
`in preparing for your deposition today, is that 11:48:59
`
`correct? 11:49:01
`
` A That is correct. 11:49:01
`
` Q I hand you Exhibit 14, which is the exhibit 11:49:02
`
`number we're using for Dr. Kogan's invalidity 11:49:05
`
`report. I direct you to paragraphs 120 and 121 of 11:49:09
`
`Dr. Kogan's report. And to be clear, I'm doing this 11:49:15
`
`just because they quote Claim 1 and 15 right next to 11:49:22
`
`each other and it's an easy way to reference them 11:49:26
`
`instead of looking at the entire prosecution 11:49:28
`
`history. 11:49:31
`
` Are you on paragraphs 120 and 121 of 11:49:34
`
`Dr. Kogan's report? 11:49:38
`
` A Yes, sir. 11:49:39
`
` Q Neither the original Claim 1 nor the 11:49:39
`
`original Claim 15 contained a limitation that there
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 120
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 120
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` Q Now if you jump to the next paragraph, 11:51:02
`
`123 -- and here again I'm just using this because it 11:51:11
`
`conveniently has 1 and 15 side by side. 11:51:15
`
` A Right. 11:51:17
`
` Q Are you there? 11:51:18
`
` A Yes, sir. 11:51:18
`
` Q The applicants amended original Claims 1 and 11:51:19
`
`15 to include a limitation that there must be two 11:51:24
`
`electronic data processors, correct? 11:51:27
`
` A That is correct. 11:51:29
`
` Q The amended claims no longer read on a 11:51:30
`
`system or a method that just had one electronic data 11:51:35
`
`processor, correct? 11:51:38
`
` A I think that's true. Certainly in this 11:51:40
`
`claim, and I believe in 15, that it did require a 11:51:43
`
`first and second electronic data processor. 11:51:46
`
` Q If you go back to your report on 11:51:48
`
`paragraph 470, in paragraph 470 and 471, you 11:51:53
`
`summarize Corthell which you referenced earlier. Do 11:52:02
`
`you see this? 11:52:07
`
` A Yes, sir. 11:52:07
`
` Q My question to you is the amendments that we 11:52:07
`
`just identified to Claims 1 and 15, the purpose of 11:52:10
`
`those amendments was to overcome the examiner's 11:52:14
`
`rejection of Corthell, correct?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 122
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 122
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` A That is certainly my understanding of why 11:52:20
`
`they modified it the way they did. 11:52:24
`
` Q After the applicants' addition of the 11:52:26
`
`limitation that there must be two electronic data 11:52:30
`
`processors, the examiner allowed the claims, 11:52:32
`
`correct? 11:52:35
`
` A I believe that's correct. 11:52:36
`
` Q Are you aware of any authority to suggest 11:52:37
`
`that the step 2 of the recapture analysis could be 11:52:46
`
`done on an embodiment-by-embodiment basis? 11:52:50
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form. 11:52:56
`
` THE WITNESS: Let me remind myself. Let me 11:52:56
`
`go back here about the step 2. I'm going to go to 11:52:59
`
`my page 5 to see what it is -- to what you are 11:53:05
`
`referring here. No, not page 5. Recapture page 8. 11:53:11
`
` Q And it's 34 is where you explain -- 11:53:23
`
` A I say, step 2 requires one to determine 11:53:26
`
`whether the broader aspect of the asserted claims of 11:53:27
`
`the patents-in-suit relate to surrendered subject 11:53:30
`
`matter. And would you then repeat your question? 11:53:34
`
` Q Are you aware of any authority to suggest 11:53:37
`
`that step 2 can be done on an 11:53:40
`
`embodiment-by-embodiment basis? 11:53:43
`
` A I don't know the law on that. 11:53:46
`
` Q If you go back to paragraph 477.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 123
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 123
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`processors, yes, and that's what I should have said. 12:01:45
`
` Q Let me see if I can ask a clearer question. 12:01:47
`
` The applicants distinguished Corthell by 12:01:50
`
`adding the limitation that there must be at least 12:01:52
`
`two electronic data processors because Corthell only 12:01:56
`
`taught a single electronic data processor, correct? 12:02:00
`
` A That is correct. 12:02:03
`
` Q Now, let's return to the embodiment 12:02:03
`
`discussion. Nowhere in the '247 patent do the 12:02:06
`
`applicants explain that their amendment is limited 12:02:09
`
`to an embodiment, or vice-versa is not limited to an 12:02:13
`
`embodiment, there's just no discussion of specific 12:02:19
`
`embodiments as part of their amendments, correct? 12:02:22
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form. 12:02:25
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that I'm 12:02:30
`
`understanding your question, but I do know that in 12:02:32
`
`the '247 patent they do discuss several embodiments. 12:02:34
`
` Q I'm referring to the prosecution history in 12:02:38
`
`which the applicants explain why they are amending 12:02:40
`
`their claim and what the amendment constitutes. As 12:02:44
`
`part of that amendment and explanation process, the 12:02:48
`
`applicants never give an explicit discussion of the 12:02:52
`
`amendment applies or doesn't apply to particular 12:02:56
`
`embodiments, correct? 12:02:59
`
` MR. BENISEK: Object to form.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 129
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 129
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` Q And those claims eliminated entirely the 12:04:41
`
`requirement that there had to be two electronic data 12:04:44
`
`processors, correct? 12:04:48
`
` A That is correct. 12:04:49
`
` Q The 17 claims would therefore read on 12:04:49
`
`systems and methods that only had one electronic 12:04:53
`
`data processor, correct? 12:04:56
`
` A That's correct. 12:04:57
`
` Q You discuss the narrowing of the reissue 12:04:59
`
`claims and the reissue claims were narrowed in that 12:05:05
`
`now browser process of the '247 patent claims must 12:05:08
`
`be a web browser process of the reissue claims, 12:05:14
`
`correct? 12:05:17
`
` A Well, actually the original '247 talked 12:05:18
`
`about logical processes and it was narrowed to web 12:05:24
`
`browser processes. 12:05:28
`
` Q I'm referring to the issued '247 claims 12:05:29
`
`versus the reissue claims. 12:05:34
`
` A Let me look at '247. 12:05:39
`
` Q I hand you Exhibit 16 which is the '247 12:05:43
`
`patent. 12:05:48
`
` (Dunsmore Exhibit 16 marked for 12:05:49
`
` identification.) 12:05:49
`
` THE WITNESS: So I'm looking at Claim 1 and 12:06:10
`
`it says, "A method of operating a" -- computing
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 131
`
`Google - Exhibit 1014, page 131
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`soon as they with the reissue patents said these are 12:09:01
`
`-- that P1 and P2 are both going to be web browser 12:09:06
`
`processes, then it made more sense at that point for 12:09:08
`
`P1 to be able to access the internet and, therefore, 12:09:14
`
`the original idea of having the two processors was 12:09:22
`
`P1 will be isolated in that case. It can't access 12:09:26
`
`the network and running on its own machine, it's 12:09:30
`
`going to be isolated and secure. 12:09:35
`
` But now if P1 is accessing the internet, 12:09:37
`
`doesn't matter whether P1 is on its own processor or 12:09:40
`
`on the same processor as P2, it is exposed to the 12:09:45
`
`potential of mal
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
