UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC., )
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, )
`and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., )
` )
` Petitioners, )
` ) No. IPR2013-00071
` v. )
` ) Patent 6,218,930
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY )
`SOLUTIONS, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`____________________________ )
`
` DEPOSITION OF JAMES M. KNOX, PH.D.
`
` Date and Time: Monday, October 7, 2013
` 9:07 a.m. to 5:23 p.m.
`
` Location: DOVEL & LUNER LLP
` 201 Santa Monica Boulevard
` Suite 600
` Santa Monica, California 90401
`
` Reporter: Lindsay Pinkham, CCRR, CSR
` Certificate No. 3716
`
` Job No. 3254
`
`1
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC., )
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, )
`and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., )
` )
` Petitioners, )
` ) No. IPR2013-00071
` v. )
` ) Patent 6,218,930
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY )
`SOLUTIONS, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`____________________________ )
`
` DEPOSITION OF JAMES M. KNOX, PH.D.
`
` Date and Time: Monday, October 7, 2013
` 9:07 a.m. to 5:23 p.m.
`
` Location: DOVEL & LUNER LLP
` 201 Santa Monica Boulevard
` Suite 600
` Santa Monica, California 90401
`
` Reporter: Lindsay Pinkham, CCRR, CSR
` Certificate No. 3716
`
` Job No. 3254
`
`1
`
`
`
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC., )
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, )
`
`3 4
`
`5 and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., )
`
` )
`
`6 Petitioners, )
`
` ) No. IPR2013-00071
`
`7 v. )
`
` ) Patent 6,218,930
`
`8 NETWORK-1 SECURITY )
`
`SOLUTIONS, INC., )
`
`9 )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
`10 ____________________________ )
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14 THE DEPOSITION OF JAMES M. KNOX, PH.D., taken
`
`15 before Lindsay Pinkham, CSR 3716, a Certified Shorthand
`
`16 Reporter for the State of California, with principal
`
`17 office in the County of Los Angeles, commencing on
`
`18 Monday, October 7, 2013, at 9:07 a.m., at 201 Santa
`
`19 Monica Boulevard, Suite 600, Santa Monica, California
`
`20 90401.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`2
`
`
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`2
`
` For Petitioner AVAYA INC.:
`
`3
`
` CROWELL & MORING
`4 BY: JONATHAN M. LINDSAY, ESQ.
` 3 Park Plaza
`5 20th Floor
` Irvine, California 92614
`6 (949) 263-8400
` jlindsay@crowell.com
`
`7 8
`
` For Petitioner DELL INC.:
`9 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
` BY: MICHAEL J. SCHEER, ESQ.
`10 200 Park Avenue
` New York, New York 10166
`11 (212) 294-3325
` mscheer@winston.com
`
`12
`13 For Petitioner SONY CORP. OF AMERICA:
`14 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`15 BY: LIONEL M. LAVENUE, ESQ.
` (Not Present)
`16 ERIKA ARNER, ESQ.
` (Not Present)
`17 Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
`18 Reston, VA 20190-5675
` (571) 203-2700
`19 lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
` erika.arner@finnegan.com
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`3
`
`
`
`1 APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
`2
`
` For Petitioner HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.:
`
`3
`
` MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`4 BY: ROBERT J. WALTERS, ESQ.
` (Not Present)
`5 CHARLES J. HAWKINS, ESQ.
` (Not Present)
`6 500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20001
`7 (202) 756-8019
` rwalters@mwe.com
`8 chawkins@mwe.com
`9
`
` For Patent Owner NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.:
`
`10
`
` DOVEL & LUNER LLP
`11 BY: RICHARD E. LYON III, ESQ.
` SEAN LUNER, ESQ.
`12 201 Santa Monica Boulevard
` Suite 600
`13 Santa Monica, California 90401
` (310) 656-7066
`14 rick@dovellaw.com
` luner@dovellaw.com
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`4
`
`
`
`1 I N D E X
`2 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`3 JAMES M. KNOX, PH.D.
` MR. LINDSAY 7
`
` MR. SCHEER 215
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` PETITIONER'S DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
` Exhibit 1 Declaration of Dr. James Knox, 15
`9 including Attachments C and D, 116
` pages
`
`10
`
` Exhibit 2 Japanese Unexamined Patent 24
`11 Application Publication, 11 pages
`12 Exhibit 3 Excerpt (pages 123 and 124) from "The 35
` ISDN Subscriber Loop," 4 pages
`
`13
`
` Exhibit 4 Excerpt (pages 10 and 11) from "The 64
`14 ISDN Subscriber Loop," 4 pages
`15 Exhibit 5 Katzenberg patent, No. US 6,218,930, 68
` 7 pages
`
`16
`
` Exhibit 6 Power sourcing equipment and power 79
`17 device diagram, 1 page
`18 Exhibit 7 De Nicolo patent, No. 6,115,468, 8 94
` pages
`
`19
`
` Exhibit 8 Jenneve patent, No. 5,144,544, 5 150
`20 pages
`21 Exhibit 9 Dr. Knox's rebuttal report to report 153
` of Dr. Mercer in Network-1 v. Cisco
`22 Systems, et al., 259 pages
`23 Exhibit 10 Woodmas patent, No. 5,345,592, 13 163
` pages
`
`24
`25
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`5
`
`
`
`1 INDEX, CONTINUED:
`2
`
` Exhibit 11 Provisional patent application cover 167
`3 sheet and attachment ("Lehr
` provisional"), 16 pages
`
`4
`
` Exhibit 12 Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox in 176
`5 Network-1 v. Cisco Systems, et al.,
` 129 pages
`
`6
`
` Exhibit 13 Expert Rebuttal Report of James Knox, 182
`7 Ph.D. in Network-1 v. D-Link, et al.,
` including exhibits, 49 pages
`
` (ALL EXHIBITS BOUND SEPARATELY)
`
` INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER
`
` (None)
`
` INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
` (None)
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`6
`
`
`
`1 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2013
`
`2 9:07 A.M.
`
` JAMES M. KNOX, PH.D.,
`
`3 4
`
`5 having first duly affirmed to tell the
`
`6 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
`
`7 truth, was examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`8 9
`
`10 BY MR. LINDSAY:
`
`11 Q Dr. Knox, in preparing for today's deposition,
`
`12 did you review any additional documents that you did not
`
`13 disclose or cite to in your declaration, either before
`
`14 it was submitted or after it was submitted?
`
`15 A To the best of my recollection, no.
`
`16 Q Did you bring any documents with you today to
`
`17 the deposition?
`
`18 A I have a copy of my declaration, a couple of
`
`19 sticky tabs that I have put on it, and most, if not all,
`
`20 of the attachments are tabbed in the back. If you'd
`
`21 like to look through it, you're certain welcome to.
`
`22 Q No, that's fine. Regarding your declaration,
`
`23 are you aware of any errors in your declaration?
`
`24 A Some of the page numbers in the final printed
`
`25 copy appear to be off from the table of contents.
`
`7
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 Q Are you aware of any errors in the
`
`2 calculations?
`
`3 A No, I am not.
`
`4 Q And the assumptions of your declaration, any
`
`5 errors you discovered after submitting it that you'd
`
`6 like to correct?
`
`7 A No, nothing I'm aware of.
`
`8 Q And are the opinions expressed in your
`
`9 declaration the same opinions you hold today, or have
`
`10 they changed since you submitted them?
`
`11 A No, they have not changed.
`
`12 Q And the basis for those opinions, have those
`
`13 changed at all?
`
`14 A No, they have not.
`
`15 Q Now, at least some of the opinions in your
`
`16 declaration you formed before this IPR proceeding ever
`
`17 began; is that correct?
`
`18 A I'm not sure if that is the correct way to
`
`19 phrase it. I based my declaration on the information
`
`20 that I had available at the time I wrote this
`
`21 declaration, which is, of course, after this IPR
`
`22 proceedings began. There have been previous issues
`
`23 involving this patent, including court trials, and there
`
`24 is certainly a lot of overlap between statements I have
`
`25 made previously, reports I have issued, expert reports,
`
`8
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 things of that nature, and some of the information
`
`2 that's in this declaration.
`
`3 Q So was it yes, you have formed some opinions
`
`4 regarding the subject matter of your declaration before
`
`5 this proceeding began?
`
`6 MR. LYON: Objection under 402, 403.
`
`7 THE WITNESS: I believe, again, the way I
`
`8 answered it is the best answer I can give. I may have
`
`9 opinions expressed in here which are the same as
`
`10 opinions previously formed in these other cases, but
`
`11 everything that went into this declaration was looked at
`
`12 with a fresh eye.
`
`13 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Let me be more specific, then.
`
`14 The prior reference, Chang, you developed certain
`
`15 opinions about whether Chang read on one or more
`
`16 elements of the claims before this proceeding began; is
`
`17 that correct?
`
`18 MR. LYON: Objection. 611, 402, 403.
`
`19 THE WITNESS: I did use Chang in these prior
`
`20 cases that I referred to, and I certainly did have
`
`21 opinions on it at that time.
`
`22 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: The prior reference, De
`
`23 Nicolo, again, you developed certain opinions about
`
`24 whether it read on one or more elements of the '930
`
`25 patent before this proceeding began; is that also
`
`9
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 correct?
`
`2 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`3 THE WITNESS: Again, when I did this
`
`4 declaration, I looked at everything with a fresh eye.
`
`5 But yes, I had previously become familiar with De Nicolo
`
`6 and had an opinion at that time on his patent.
`
`7 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Did you review any deposition
`
`8 transcripts in formulating these opinions before this
`
`9 IPR proceeding began?
`
`10 A To the extent that we are talking about
`
`11 opinions that I had prior to this IPR, opinions which
`
`12 may or may not be relevant to this IPR, yes, I had read
`
`13 other depositions.
`
`14 Q Did you review the transcripts of depositions
`
`15 of the inventors on the '930 patent?
`
`16 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`17 THE WITNESS: At least Mr. Katzenberg. I
`
`18 believe there was another gentleman, but I don't recall
`
`19 his name at the moment, whose deposition I also read on
`
`20 that.
`
`21 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Did you identify or do you
`
`22 recall identifying any statements or information in
`
`23 those transcripts, or at least Dr. Katzenberg's
`
`24 transcript, that would be inconsistent with the
`
`25 positions you've taken in your declaration in this
`
`10
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 proceeding?
`
`2 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403, 611.
`
`3 THE WITNESS: No.
`
`4 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: In forming your opinions and
`
`5 rendering the opinions in your declaration, you relied
`
`6 on a reference book by Nick Burd entitled "The ISDN
`
`7 Subscriber Loop." Is that correct?
`
`8 A Yes, that is correct.
`
`9 Q Why did you select that particular reference
`
`10 book?
`
`11 A It was one I found an online copy of which had
`
`12 the information that I needed. It was not the only
`
`13 thing that had that information, but it was a good
`
`14 single source, and it was more or less the same time
`
`15 frame as the patents, for example, Matsuno and the '930
`
`16 Katzenberg patent.
`
`17 Q Would you consider the Burd reference book
`
`18 authoritative on the subject of ISDN subscriber loops?
`
`19 A I looked through the book, and yes, I would
`
`20 consider it authoritative.
`
`21 Q Are there any other publications that you
`
`22 considered that would be more authoritative on the
`
`23 subject of ISDN subscriber loops than the Burd reference
`
`24 book?
`
`25 A There is a standard in the United States for
`
`11
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 ISDN, but it's not relevant and doesn't have the
`
`2 information. It's a more authoritative reference in
`
`3 that sense, but since it doesn't contain or even address
`
`4 the information that we're going to be discussing here,
`
`5 I expect, that would not be useful or relevant.
`
`6 I did try to find some Japanese references.
`
`7 Unfortunately, they were in Japanese. And I didn't find
`
`8 any that I considered more useful or more important than
`
`9 Burd. Again, Burd seemed to be a very good textbook on
`
`10 the material.
`
`11 Q Okay, if I could separate that, taking the last
`
`12 part first. The references you looked for in Japanese
`
`13 you determined weren't any more relevant or
`
`14 authoritative than Burd. Did you prepare any
`
`15 translations of any of those references to determine
`
`16 that?
`
`17 A None that I considered useful, what do they
`
`18 call it, a certified translation. I did run something,
`
`19 a Google translate, and a lot of the electronic
`
`20 information, schematics, notations of voltages, things
`
`21 like that, translate -- they're the same in English that
`
`22 they are in any other language. I could tell therefore
`
`23 without being able to actually read the thing what
`
`24 material was and wasn't in there. And again, as I said,
`
`25 I didn't find anything in there that either provided me
`
`12
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 with additional useful information or that contradicted
`
`2 any of the information I already had.
`
`3 Q And referring to your previous answer again,
`
`4 the first part of it -- and I don't want to misstate
`
`5 what you said, I just want it to be clear -- you said
`
`6 that the ISDN standard did not have any information that
`
`7 was relevant to the subject matter we're discussing
`
`8 here?
`
`9 A We need to clarify that statement. I said the
`
`10 United States standard. If I didn't, I should have.
`
`11 The United States standard for ISDN doesn't even address
`
`12 the whole issue that's in the Matsuno patent.
`
`13 Q And by "the issue," can you please clarify what
`
`14 you mean?
`
`15 A There is no provision for remote power, remote
`
`16 operating power, in the United States for ISDN
`
`17 equipment.
`
`18 Q When designing an ISDN device in particular,
`
`19 would one of ordinary skill in the art want to consult
`
`20 the ISDN standard by the American National Standards
`
`21 Institute, the ANSI standard?
`
`22 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`23 THE WITNESS: If one were going to attempt to
`
`24 get it certified in the United States, then the answer
`
`25 would be most definitely.
`
`13
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: And you would want to design
`
`2 the device in this environment so that it complies with
`
`3 the standard's requirements?
`
`4 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`5 THE WITNESS: I think the correct answer would
`
`6 be you would want to consult the standards of the
`
`7 countries in which you wanted to certify the device.
`
`8 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Do other countries follow the
`
`9 ANSI ISDN standard?
`
`10 A Some do, some do not. And some, the answer is
`
`11 "partially."
`
`12 Q Do you know if Europe is one of the countries
`
`13 that follows the ANSI ISDN standard?
`
`14 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`15 THE WITNESS: The answer there is, Europe is
`
`16 not one country. But the answer in general is
`
`17 "partially."
`
`18 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Do you know if Japan is a
`
`19 country which follows the ISDN standard that's the ANSI
`
`20 standard?
`
`21 A Same answer. Partially. They each have their
`
`22 own separate additional rules and regulations.
`
`23 Q Are you aware of the T1.601 portion of the ISDN
`
`24 standard?
`
`25 A If you're talking about for a T1 line, I am.
`
`14
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 If you're talking more specifically, no, I'd have to
`
`2 refresh my memory.
`
`3 Q Isn't that the interface standard between the
`
`4 ISDN network and the NT?
`
`5 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403. 602.
`
`6 THE WITNESS: The communication portion of it,
`
`7 I believe it is, yes.
`
`8 MR. LINDSAY: I'd like to mark this document as
`
`9 Exhibit 1.
`
`10 Q This is a copy of your declaration. You're
`
`11 free to use the one you brought. I don't care.
`
`12 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was marked
`
`13 for identification.)
`
`14 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Is it your opinion that no
`
`15 current discussed in Matsuno qualifies as the low-level
`
`16 current that's recited in claim 6 of the '930 patent?
`
`17 A That is correct.
`
`18 Q You're aware of the definition of "low level
`
`19 current" that the board in this proceeding put in its
`
`20 decision?
`
`21 A You're talking about their preliminary
`
`22 construction?
`
`23 Q Yes.
`
`24 A Yes.
`
`25 Q Did you apply the board's definition in
`
`15
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 determining that Matsuno does not disclose this
`
`2 low-level current of claim 6?
`
`3 A I took the board's preliminary decision into
`
`4 consideration, but I think if you look at my
`
`5 declaration, there's a considerable discussion on
`
`6 low-level current, and you will see there exactly what I
`
`7 did use.
`
`8 Q The board's definition refers to not operating
`
`9 the access device. Correct?
`
`10 A That is correct.
`
`11 Q And what access device do you believe the board
`
`12 was referring to in that definition?
`
`13 A I don't recall that the board was specific in
`
`14 that respect. I believe that the defendants have
`
`15 alleged through Mr. Zimmerman that the access device is
`
`16 the NT1 or the DTE or the combination of the two.
`
`17 Q Do you believe the board was referring to any
`
`18 possible access device that you could connect, whether
`
`19 it be an NT1 or a DTE?
`
`20 A I don't believe the board was referring to that
`
`21 level of specificity. I believe they used "access
`
`22 device" as it's used in the '930 patent, as something
`
`23 which can connect over a data signaling pair to a data
`
`24 node adapted for data switching.
`
`25 Q Would the board's definition in your opinion
`
`16
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 include all access devices that are connected,
`
`2 regardless of the subscriber loop length?
`
`3 A I'm sorry. You stopped in the middle of your
`
`4 question?
`
`5 Q I'll rephrase. Is it your opinion that the
`
`6 board's definition of low-level current would include an
`
`7 access device that is connected at any subscriber loop
`
`8 length?
`
`9 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`10 THE WITNESS: I don't see that the board made
`
`11 any such statement one way or the other. I don't see
`
`12 that the board specifically considered ISDN standards in
`
`13 any particular country or anything, in that they made
`
`14 the statement and they gave their reasons why.
`
`15 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: And the board said nothing
`
`16 about power requirements of the access device that they
`
`17 were referring to in their definition; correct?
`
`18 A That is correct.
`
`19 Q Can you state for me the definition of
`
`20 low-level current that you relied on in rendering your
`
`21 opinions?
`
`22 A I have in my declaration quite a number of
`
`23 pages where I explain my understanding of the low-level
`
`24 current as it's explained in the '930 patent.
`
`25 Q I understand that. What is the definition that
`17
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 you apply to "low level current," in coming to these
`
`2 opinions?
`
`3 A The definition is that that was brought out in
`
`4 this declaration. If you are looking for a one-sentence
`
`5 definition, I did not state so, because I don't believe
`
`6 it can be adequately described in only one sentence or a
`
`7 portion.
`
`8 If you would like, however, I can tell you that
`
`9 on paragraph 63 is probably as close to a short
`
`10 definition as you are going to get, where I recognize
`
`11 that there are at least two requirements: One, that it
`
`12 be sufficient to source enough current to operate an
`
`13 access device if the length of the data signaling pair
`
`14 is relatively short, and not sufficient to source enough
`
`15 current -- I'm sorry. That's not the right spot. It's
`
`16 relevant, but not --
`
`17 Q May I ask a question and help you find it?
`
`18 A Certainly.
`
`19 Q Is it the sentence on page 31, it's in that
`
`20 paragraph 63, that says:
`
`21 "...'low level current' that is low
`
`22 enough such that it is insufficient to
`
`23 operate the access device at all
`
`24 reasonable data signaling pair lengths
`
`25 contemplated by the disclosed system"?
`
`18
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 Is that the one?
`
`2 A No. That's the other part of what I was
`
`3 reading, but I realized that I'm not looking at the
`
`4 place I thought I was. Please give me just a moment.
`
`5 I think paragraph 64 is a better reading there,
`
`6 and it says two things, in essence:
`
`7 "In addition to being sufficiently
`
`8 low that, by itself, it will not operate
`
`9 the access device, one of ordinary skill
`
`10 in the art would understand that the
`
`11 claimed 'low level current' must be
`
`12 sufficiently low that it will not damage
`
`13 a device that is not capable of
`
`14 accepting remote power."
`
`15 So I think those two statements there in that
`
`16 one sentence would do the best for a short explanation.
`
`17 However, again, I would refer you to the entire section
`
`18 of my declaration for a good understanding of low-level
`
`19 current.
`
`20 Q The board in this case was able to construe the
`
`21 term "low level current" in about a sentence. Courts in
`
`22 the past have construed the term "low level current" in
`
`23 about a sentence. Were you not able to come to a
`
`24 construction of "low level current" in about a sentence?
`
`25 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`19
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 THE WITNESS: Well, No. 64, first off, is a
`
`2 sentence. However, having said that, in a case where
`
`3 people may deliberately attempt to misconstrue the
`
`4 construction or to read it in more than one way, then --
`
`5 and this will probably come up again throughout today's
`
`6 deposition -- a short sentence is not adequate
`
`7 frequently to distinguish the meaning and proper use of
`
`8 the term in all the considerations and all the different
`
`9 ways one might wish it.
`
`10 So I did not, and you will notice in here there
`
`11 are no little blocks of text where I give a short
`
`12 definition -- we've had the problem in the past where
`
`13 that short definition confuses both sides. I believe
`
`14 that in my declaration, I have explained at length how I
`
`15 used "low level current" in arriving at my opinions.
`
`16 Q In your opinion, does the low-level current
`
`17 have to be insufficient to operate the access device if
`
`18 the access device is located at a reasonable subscriber
`
`19 loop length from the switching station?
`
`20 A Can you tell me what you mean by "reasonable"?
`
`21 Q I think it's the term you use in your
`
`22 declaration. So I'm using it as you used it in your
`
`23 declaration.
`
`24 A I believe I said "relatively short." Are you
`
`25 referring to something else in here?
`
`20
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 Q Yes, I believe I am. On page 31 there's a
`
`2 sentence that starts:
`
`3 "Accordingly, the voltage sourced
`
`4 must generate a low level current that
`
`5 is low enough such that it is
`
`6 insufficient to operate...."
`
`7 See that sentence there?
`
`8 A No, I did not.
`
`9 Q I'm on page 31.
`
`10 A Oh. I'm not. Sorry. And now you're looking
`
`11 where, to speed things along?
`
`12 Q Bottom of page 31, starts "accordingly."
`
`13 A I found the sentence:
`
`14 "Accordingly, the voltage sourced
`
`15 must generate a low level current that
`
`16 is low enough such that it is
`
`17 insufficient to operate the access
`
`18 device at all reasonable data signaling
`
`19 pair lengths contemplated by the
`
`20 disclosed system...."
`
`21 Okay, I see that.
`
`22 Q Is it your opinion that the low-level current
`
`23 has to be insufficient to operate an access device
`
`24 that's located at a reasonable subscriber loop length
`
`25 from the switching station?
`
`21
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 A "Reasonable" as I used it here means something
`
`2 that is a practical distance away that a device might be
`
`3 physically located. It does not, for example, mean that
`
`4 it has to be within 2 inches of the telco terminal
`
`5 station. That's not a reasonable distance, even though
`
`6 I can certainly conceive of something that might operate
`
`7 at that distance and not operate at 2 feet.
`
`8 In the paragraph right above that, and it's
`
`9 actually still in this paragraph 63, I talk about
`
`10 relatively short subscriber loops up to 2,000 feet.
`
`11 2,000 feet is quite a distance away. It can cover
`
`12 multiple city blocks, and would, I think, be considered
`
`13 a reasonable distance.
`
`14 Q Would 5,000 feet in the ISDN environment be
`
`15 considered a reasonable distance?
`
`16 A I don't believe ISDN uses the
`
`17 word "reasonable." Different countries have different
`
`18 specs on that. But typically, the goal is to operate
`
`19 ISDN equipment at subscriber loop lengths of up to about
`
`20 10,000 feet -- I'm sorry -- I think it's 18,000 feet,
`
`21 about 10,000 -- no, 6,000 meters, something of that
`
`22 nature. I'd have to look at the spec. And again, it
`
`23 varies from country to country. But it is longer than
`
`24 the 2,000 feet you address here.
`
`25 Q That would be considered a reasonable ISDN
`
`22
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 subscriber loop length?
`
`2 A That word is not applied either by myself or
`
`3 by, to the best of my knowledge, the ISDN standard, to
`
`4 those lengths.
`
`5 Q Dr. Knox, it is applied by yourself in your
`
`6 declaration. And I'm just trying to understand what you
`
`7 meant when you wrote "all reasonable data signaling
`
`8 paired lengths."
`
`9 MR. LYON: Objection. 403.
`
`10 THE WITNESS: I can tell you that it was not my
`
`11 intent that anything up to a distance here of 10 miles,
`
`12 which is what's stated in that subsection "b" of that
`
`13 paragraph, be considered within that statement of a
`
`14 reasonable length. When I used the phrase here,
`
`15 "reasonable data signaling pair length," I was referring
`
`16 to it not being so bizarre as to require the NT1 to be
`
`17 within, for example, a couple of inches of the telco.
`
`18 While you could certainly connect something that way,
`
`19 that's not a real-world, practical, reasonable
`
`20 subscriber length loop.
`
`21 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Is 18,000 feet a real-world,
`
`22 reasonable, subscriber length loop?
`
`23 A It's not the one I was addressing here, no.
`
`24 Q I understand that. I think my question was a
`
`25 little different. Is it a reasonable length loop,
`
`23
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 18,000 feet?
`
`2 MR. LYON: Objection. 402, 403.
`
`3 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that, because I
`
`4 don't know how you're using the word "reasonable."
`
`5 Obviously it's not the same as the way I used
`
`6 "reasonable." You haven't told me if you've got
`
`7 repeaters in there, you haven't told me a lot of
`
`8 information. So I can only say that that is not what I
`
`9 intended by the word "reasonable" in that paragraph.
`
`10 MR. LINDSAY: This is the Matsuno reference.
`
`11 I'd like to mark it as Exhibit 2.
`
`12 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 was marked
`
`13 for identification.)
`
`14 Q BY MR. LINDSAY: Dr. Knox, you included that
`
`15 the 48-volt source in Matsuno was insufficient to
`
`16 operate the specific access device that's disclosed in
`
`17 Matsuno. Is that correct?
`
`18 A I don't believe so, no, sir. You want to try
`
`19 asking that again?
`
`20 Q Sure. In your declaration, if we can turn back
`
`21 to your declaration for a moment. Look at paragraph 98.
`
`22 And I'm going to read the sentence for you there that is
`
`23 the second sentence:
`
`24 "To the contrary, as I explain
`
`25 below, the current generated by the 48
`
`24
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 volts disclosed in Matsuno is sufficient
`
`2 to, by itself, operate the specific
`
`3 access device disclosed in Matsuno."
`
`4 A Yes.
`
`5 Q Do you still believe that to be the case, the
`
`6 48-volt source is sufficient to operate the access
`
`7 device?
`
`8 A Yes. If there appears to be a conflict,
`
`9 perhaps I misheard your earlier question or you asked
`
`10 it -- somewhere we're missing a word from the earlier
`
`11 question and answer.
`
`12 Q No problem. And what is the specific access
`
`13 device that you're referring to there when you say "the
`
`14 specific access device disclosed in Matsuno"?
`
`15 A I tried to address the opinions of
`
`16 Dr. Zimmerman in this and take into account what they
`
`17 had claimed, which was the NT1, the DTE, or the
`
`18 combination of the two. Obviously, it's not reasonable
`
`19 to consider the entire universe of DTE, because we have
`
`20 no statement in Matsuno of what that is.
`
`21 So I for that purpose used a, what I would
`
`22 consider a reasonable DTE at that time, which would be
`
`23 something with a 20-milliamp current loop for operation.
`
`24 The NT1, I used both the information out of the Burd
`
`25 reference that we discussed earlier, and I used also the
`25
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 potentially higher or more conservative standard
`
`2 addressed in Matsuno.
`
`3 Q So the system disclosed in Matsuno would be
`
`4 designed to operate a range of devices; correct?
`
`5 A Matsuno describes driving the NT1 to which a
`
`6 DTE can be connected. And his system is designed to
`
`7 operate the NT1 and, to a degree that's not specified,
`
`8 some DTE.
`
`9 Q And those NT1s and DTEs would have a range of
`
`10 power consumption requirements. For example, they would
`
`11 be located a range of distances from the station;
`
`12 correct?
`
`13 A Let's take that backwards. At a range from the
`
`14 station, most certainly, yes, that's the easy one to
`
`15 answer. For the DTE and the NT1, the NT1 we have
`
`16 reasonable upper power limits based on the various
`
`17 standards. For the DTE, we have a statement from
`
`18 Matsuno himself as well as the number that I told you I
`
`19 used, which was standard at the time for the operation
`
`20 of such equipment.
`
`21 Q Would one of ordinary skill in the art reading
`
`22 Matsuno assume that the systems disclosed there were
`
`23 attempting to power only the lowest power consuming
`
`24 devices?
`
`25 A I would say no.
`
`26
`
`ELITE COURT REPORTING (949) 829-9222
`
`
`
`1 Q Would one of ordinary skill in the art reading
`
`2 Matsuno conclude that it was designed to power a range
`
`3 of devices which had varying power requirements?
`
`4 A I believe one reading Matsuno would believe
`
`5 that he was expecting to power a minimum level of
`
`6 devices under emergency conditions.
`
`7 Q Can you explain to me what you mean by "a
`
`8 minimal level of devices"?
`
`9 A I think I said "minimum." I certainly see
`
`10 nothing in Matsuno that implies or even suggests that he
`
`11 expects to power all potential DTE devices over all
`
`12 possible subscriber lengths. He never makes any such
`
`13 statement, he never addresses that, and in fact, it's
`
`14 quite obviously not a true statement, because there are
`
`15 many DTE devices that draw many times the amount of
`
`16 power, hundreds of times the amount of power that the
`
`17 NT1 is allowed to accept off of the line. Matsuno
`
`18 himself describes this as a situation in which local
`
`19 power has failed. So we have an abnormal condition here
`
`20 to begin with.
`
`21 I am aware, and I will tell you
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
