`
`r
`
`___7
`
`Page 1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Case No.
`
`IPR2013—00087
`
`Docket No. 0100157—00240
`
`----------------------------------- 2:
`
`EMC CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`PATENT OWNER OF 0.3. PATENT NO. 8,001,096
`
`TO FARBER ET AL.
`
`___________________________________ x
`
`September 25, 2013
`
`8:57 a.m.
`
`Deposition of ROBERT B.K. DEWAR,
`Ph.D.,
`taken by Petitioner, pursuant
`
`to
`
`16 Notice, held at the offices of Wilmer
`
`17 Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
`
`7
`
`18 World Trade Center, New York, New York,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`25
`
`before Todd DeSimone,
`
`a Registered
`
`Professional Reporter and Notary Public of
`
`the State of New York.
`
`EMC/VMware v. PersonalWeb
`1PR2013—00083
`
`EMCVMW 1074
`
`212-279—9424
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2_———]
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`Attorneys for EMC Corporation and
`
`VMWare,
`
`Inc.
`
`BY:
`
`PETER M. DICHIARA, ESQ.
`
`peter.dichiaraGwilmerhale.com
`
`CYNTHIA D. VREELAND, ESQ.
`
`cynthia.vreeland@wilmerhale.com
`
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`
`‘901 North Glebe Road
`
`11th Floor
`
`'Arlington, Virginia 22203—1808
`
`Attorneys for PersonalWeb
`Technologies LLC
`
`BY:
`
`JOSEPH A. RHOA, ESQ.
`
`JAR@nixonvan.com
`I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25[—fl
`
`
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`-
`
`unwmhverfiextcon1
`
`212—490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`R 0 B E R T B.K.
`
`D E W A R, Ph.D.,
`
`called as a witness, having been first
`
`duly sworn, was examined and testified
`
`as follows:
`
`EXAMINATION BY MR. DICHIARA:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Dr. Dewar.
`
`Good morning.
`
`You understand why you are here
`
`today, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I do.
`
`And that is in connection with
`
`six IPR review proceedings.
`
`They are
`
`officially labeled I
`
`think IPR 2013—82
`
`through 87 inclusive.
`
`Each one of those
`
`has a separate patent associated with it,
`and I will try today to mostly use the
`
`patent numbers.
`
`I think it is a little
`
`A.
`
`Right. Certainly to me that is
`
`true“
`
`Q.
`And you have been deposed
`before, correct?
`I
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I have.
`
`19 bit more familiar than the IPR numbers.
`
`
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`74
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`i
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`And just as some basic kind of
`Q.
`
`
`212-279—9424
`
`unvuhverfiextconl
`
`212-490—3430
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDMECONWANY
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`l
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` 23
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`R. DEHLAR
`
`ground rules for the deposition, your
`
`testimony today is just like as if you
`
`were in court giving trial testimony,
`
`right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And if I ask a question and it
`
`is in any way unclear, please let me know
`
`and I will do my best to try and rectify
`
`the situation.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`And as I mentioned before, if
`
`at any point you want a break, just let me
`
`know.
`
`The only thing I'm going to ask is
`
`that it not be while there is a question
`
`pending.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`And I'm here today to represent
`
`EMC and VMware on two of the IPRs and EMC
`
`solely on the other four,
`
`so EMC across
`
`six, VMware across the first two. With me
`
`is Cindy Vreeland as well.
`
`MR. RHOA: Dr. Dewar,
`
`the only
`
`
`
`24
`
`time you are allowed to ask for a break
`
`25 while a question is pending is if you have
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`unwuhverfiextcon}
`
`212—490—3430
`
`I VERIT‘EXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`a concern that yOur answer would divulge
`
`privileged information, attorney—client
`
`privileged information, or even
`
`confidential
`
`information, something like
`
`that, you can ask for a break while a
`
`question is pending. Otherwise you can't
`
`ask for breaks.
`
`'
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I understand.
`
`Q.
`
`So, Dr. Dewar,
`
`just for the
`
`record, could you identify your name,
`
`I
`
`address,
`
`that kind of stuff.
`
`A.
`
`Robert Dewar, D—e—w-a-r.
`
`Do
`
`you need middle initials? It is B.K.
`
`And
`
`my address is 1591 Carpenter Hill Road,
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16 Bennington, Vermont 05201. That's the
`
`17 mailing address which is I
`
`think what we
`
`18
`
`need for this.
`
`Q.
`
`And, Dr. Dewar, what is your
`
`area of expertise?
`
`A.
`
`I'm a computer scientist.
`
`My
`
`22 main areas of expertise have been
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`operating systems, programming languages,
`
`compilers, but
`
`in 40 years of being a
`
`professor I have taught very widely, but
`
`__—E
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`212—279—9424
`
`unvunverfiextconl
`
`212—490-3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 6
`
`those are my main research areas. But
`I
`have publications in algorithms.-
`I have
`publications in other areas too.
`
`Then more recently I retired
`
`from the university,
`
`I guess it has got
`
`to
`
`be six years ago,
`
`so I devote all my
`
`attention to the company I
`
`founded of
`
`' which I'm still president, although no
`
`longer CEO.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And which company is that?
`
`That is AdaCore Technologies.
`
`I
`
`founded that about 20 years ago with two
`
`colleagues and we specialize in tools for
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`'15
`
`building high integrity software,
`
`
`
`16
`
`1'7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`20 would a speaker characterize your
`
`avionics, air traffic control,
`
`that kind
`
`of thing.
`
`Q.
`
`And if you were to be
`
`introduced at a technical canference, how
`
`expertise if they were introducing you?
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`think I'm best known for
`
`compilers and programming languages in
`
`recent years, partly because of my
`
`association with the company, because
`
`
`VERJTEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`212—279«9424
`
`.
`
`unwuhverfiextconl
`
`212—490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R” DEHWAR
`
`Page 7
`
`that's where the company's technology
`
`lies. But
`
`I would say in recent years I
`
`would often be more so introduced as an
`
`expert
`
`in safety and security because a
`
`lot of the high integrity aspects of the
`
`software we are involved with involve
`
`safety critical and security critical
`
`applications.
`
`Q.
`
`So a number of the documents we
`
`are going to use today have already been
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`12 marked in this proceeding which I
`
`think
`
`13 will make things more smooth.
`
`So what I'm
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`handing you now is a binder that has all
`
`of the board decisions for the six IPRs we
`
`talked about.
`
`They are tabbed.
`
`You have reviewed the board
`
`18
`
`decisions, correct?
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`I haven't concentrated on
`
`them, but
`
`I have gone through those.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`21 Maybe I have seen these.
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`And so you will see that on the
`
`front page of each of the decisions they
`identify the relevant IPR.
`So if you take
`
`a look at the first tab,
`
`there is IPR
`
`212—279-9424
`
`unvuhverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`VERHEXTREPORTEKECOMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`2013—00082, and each one is just the next
`
`number. All right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`right?
`
`Right.
`
`You said you had reviewed them,
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`It has not been a major
`
`focus.
`
`My major focus has been on the
`
`alleged prior art documents and the
`
`patents themselves.
`
`..
`
`MR. RHOA:
`
`I will say now just
`
`for the record any questions about
`
`these
`
`decisions I will probably object to as
`
`
`
`outside the scope.
`
`MR. DICHIARA: Okay.
`
`Q.
`
`So I'm going to ask you to turn
`
`to pages, on the first one, on the IPR for
`
`the ‘791 patent, you can see that on the
`
`front page, if you can turn to pages 7
`
`through 12.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And this is where the board is
`
`discussing the Woodhill prior art patent,
`
`right?
`
` 1
` 16
`
`
`17
`
`‘18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Yes, right.
`
`212—279-9424
`
`www.veritext.c0m
`
`212490-3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`1
`
`}
`1
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Q.
`
`And then if you go starting
`
`from the middle of page 12 through I
`
`think
`
`it is page 26,
`
`that‘s where the board is
`
`discussing its analysis of the claim
`
`construction, right?
`
`A.
`Right.
`Q.
`And then from 26 through 32 is
`where the board is discussing its analysis
`
`of the Woodhill prior art in View of its
`claim construction?
`
`A.
`Q,
`
`Okay.
`And I
`
`just want
`
`to start with
`
`the first portion,
`
`the 7
`
`through 12, where
`
`they are discussing Woodhill.
`
`And I
`
`just
`
`
`
`16 want
`to confirm,
`I
`think you said this
`17
`earlier, but you did consider the
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`decisions in forming your opinions in your
`
`expert report, correct?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, outside
`
`the scope of his declaration.
`
`I
`
`A.
`
`I More I was really asked to
`
`focus on the claims and how the prior art
`
`reflected on the claims.' My attorney did
`
`I
`
`think inform me of all the relevant
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`,
`
`212—279—9424
`
`mnnmhverfiextconl
`
`212-490—3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`mdmthMb-l
`
`9
`
`decisions that might affect that.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me ask you this: Did you
`
`consider the board's claims constructions.
`
`in forming your opinion?
`
`A.
`
`‘
`
`Yes,
`
`I did.
`
`I was aware of all
`
`the claims constructions.
`
`I
`
`think in fact
`
`most of them are quoted in my
`
`declarations.
`
`So I'was aware of those
`
`10
`
`because I understand that those are
`
`11
`
`12
`
`important.
`
`Q.
`
`And did you look at the way the
`
`13
`
`board had analyzed the claims in forming
`
`14
`
`15
`
`your opinions in your expert reports?
`
`A.
`
`I was aware of that.
`
`I didn't
`
`16
`
`analyze it closely from this document.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Q.
`
`Did you consider the board's
`
`analysis important
`
`in forming your
`
`opinions in —-
`
`A.
`
`I ——
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, outside
`
`the scope of his declaration.
`
`Q.
`
`Just so that we can keep the
`
`
`
`24
`
`court reporter sane, we have to finish the
`
`25
`
`I know where you are going, but
`question.
`
`
`212—279—9424
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDKECOMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`you have to let me finish my question.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That is perfectly fine.
`
`So let me
`
`take that questiou
`
`back and start from the top.
`
`In forming your opinions that
`
`you expressed in your declarations, did
`
`you consider the board's analysis
`
`important
`
`in forming those opinions?
`
`A.
`
`I believe that my attorney had
`
`informed me of anything that would have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`been relevant, but it certainly was not a
`
`13 major source.
`
`My major source for my
`
`14
`
`declarations was the patents and the
`
`15
`
`actual prior art documents.
`
`I mean,
`
`I was
`
`16
`
`asked really to give my analysis of
`
`17 whether the prior art documents really
`
`18
`
`reflected prior art with respect to the
`
`19
`
`patent claims.
`
`That was my primary task.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q.
`
`And was one of your
`
`tasks to
`
`consider the board's claim constructions
`
`in forming those opinions?
`
`A.
`
`Q;
`
`Not specifically, no.
`
`.Did you read the decisions
`
`before forming your opinions?
`
`
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDKECOMPANY
`
`212-279-9424
`
`unvuhverfiextcona
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 12
`
`A.
`
`I can't remember, because we
`
`did discuss them, but
`
`they were not
`
`the
`
`focus certainly of my study and work. But
`
`as I say,
`
`I believe that my attorney
`
`informed me of the critical information
`
`and in particular the claim constructions
`
`which I have adhered to those claim
`
`constructions in my declarations.
`
`Q.
`
`So in forming your opinions, as
`
`you expressed them in your declarations,
`
`I
`
`take it,
`
`then, you didn‘t try and identify
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13 whether the board had analyzed --
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Il?‘
`
`technically analyzed Woodhill correctly or
`
`not?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`important?
`
`No.
`
`You didn't think that was
`
`A.
`
`I was asked to really directly
`
`look at Woodhill and the claims and give
`
`my independent objective opinion on how
`
`Q.
`
`So you have no opinion whether
`
`the board analyzed Woodhill correctly or
`
`just so I'm
`incorrectly? And by that,
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`22 Woodhill reflected on those claims.
`
`
`
`
`212-279—9424
`
`\Nmmmverfiextcona
`
`212-490—3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 13
`
`thanme
`004mm
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`clear,
`
`I'm talking about pages 7
`
`through
`
`'12,
`
`just their understanding of the facts
`
`of Woodhill, not
`
`the analysis with the
`
`claims just yet.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No, not specifically, no.
`
`So let's turn to the next
`
`section which was the claim construction
`
`section starting on page 12, and you might
`
`want
`
`to spend just a minute or two just
`
`seeing the kind of claims that they did
`
`construe,
`
`the claim terms they did
`
`construe, and let me know when you've had
`
`14
`
`a chance to take a look at that.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`(Witness perusing document.)
`
`A.
`
`All this is familiar to me or
`
`makes sense.
`
`Do you have a specific
`
`question?
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`The first question is,
`
`are these the claim constructions you
`
`considered in forming your opinions
`
`22
`
`contained ——
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`the Q&A.
`
`Yes,
`
`they are.
`
`Again, we just have to finish
`
`212-279—9424
`
`‘
`
`unwuhverfiextconx
`
`212-490-3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`.Page 14
`
`de'llwaH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1'7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2o
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`.
`
`If I can add to that,
`
`I believe
`
`there are one or two cases,
`
`in fact there
`
`are one or two cases in my declarations
`
`where I addressed specifically claim
`
`construction issues and say if the claim
`
`construction says this, if it said that,
`
`then I would have a different opinion.
`
`But that‘s very clear in the declarations.
`
`Q.
`
`We will get
`
`to that.
`
`So just focusing on the IPR for
`
`the moment that‘s in front of you for the
`
`
`
`'791 patent, were the board's
`
`constructions wrong?‘
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`The only iSsue I see with the
`
`claim constructions is the claim
`
`construction of true name, and we did
`
`discuss this,
`
`so this is a familiar issue
`
`to me,
`
`that we are working, as I
`
`understand it, with a construction that
`
`ignores point
`
`4
`
`in the patent
`
`specification, which relates to it being
`
`cryptographic, nonreversible hash.
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`unvnhverfiextconl
`
`212—490—3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COM?ANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 15
`
`Q.'
`
`Where are you pointing to so I
`
`can follow where you are at?
`
`I
`
`A.
`
`I'm really looking at true name
`
`data —-
`
`I'm looking at the construction of
`
`true name on page 16.
`
`Q.
`
`So other than that, do you
`
`think the board's constructions were
`
`correct?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of his declarations.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`-
`
`As far as I can tell, yes.
`
`And for all of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`.14
`
`constructions,
`
`including the construction
`
`15
`
`of true name, which I understand from what
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`18 with their construction, do you think the
`
`you just said you have some dispute with,
`
`and realizing that you have a disagreement
`
`board's constructions were reasonable?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`I'm not sure what "reasonable"
`
`
`
`23 means.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q.
`
`Reasoned.
`
`MR. RHOA:
`
`Same objection.
`
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`212—279—9424
`
`EVWHMVEIHBXLCOHI
`
`'
`
`212-490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Q.
`
`Two people can have reasonable
`
`views on a matter and disagree about
`
`the
`
`outcome, can't they?
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`there isn't any dispute,
`
`question, or confusion over whether ——
`
`over the meaning of true name in the '791
`patent.
`It is important that it be a
`
`cryptographic hash and it definitely must
`
`be a cryptographic hash for the approach
`
`to fully work of that particular patent.
`
`But
`
`I understand -— my attorney
`
`explained to me that the board attempts to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interpret terms as broadly as possible.
`
`So I don't have a big problem with the
`
`fact that they say well, we would like to
`
`extend the notion of true name to
`
`non-cryptographic hashes.
`
`-Q.
`
`.
`
`I guess that's the point I'm
`
`trying to get at is you might have a
`
`reasoned view about why it means
`
`cryptographic and the board might have a
`
`view that their interpretation is within
`
`the broadest reasOnable construction, and
`
`
`
`
`
`you understand that, right? —j
`
`\ERHEXTRHTRUNGCOMRM“7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`212-279—9424
`'
`www.veritext.com
`212—490—3430
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I understand that.
`
`And when you were doing your
`
`analysis, did you consider the board‘s
`
`constructions or only your own?
`
`A.
`
`Only the board‘s constructions.
`
`If I could just repeat,
`
`to clarify that,
`
`I
`
`used the board's constructions only, and
`
`this doesn't apply to the true name
`
`situation, but only in certain cases did I
`
`comment if the construction had been
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`differently,
`then my opinion would have
`15 Ibeen affected in a different way. But
`
`I
`
`used the board's constructions,
`
`I didn't
`
`
`
`
`25 within the broadest reasonable
`
`212—279-9424
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDMECOMPANY
`www.veritext.com
`
`.
`212-490—3430
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`invent my own.
`
`Q.
`
`That is exactly the point I'm
`
`getting at.
`
`A.
`
`I used the board's
`
`constructions.
`
`Q.
`
`And just to confirm, when
`
`talking about
`
`the '791, you thought that
`
`the board's constructions were at least
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`l
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`construction?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I did, yes.
`
`And then if you focus on the
`
`IPR starting at page 26 through 32, it is
`
`the analysis section -—
`
`A.
`
`Can I add a little bit of
`
`clarification to the previous thing?
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, sir.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`My source of information on the
`
`board's constructions were what my
`
`attorney told me
`
`the board constructions
`
`I've looked through this and as far
`
`16
`
`as I can tell, you know, without wasting a
`
`17
`lot of our time studying it in great
`18‘ detail,
`the constructions I see here
`
` 15 were.
` 25
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`correspond to what
`
`I was
`
`told.
`
`So as far
`
`aslI know, and consistent with looking
`
`through this material right now,
`
`I believe
`
`that I followed the board's constructions
`
`at all points.
`
`Q.
`
`And then for the portion of the
`
`that's
`IPR starting at page 26 through 32,
`
`
`212—279-9424
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`unvuaverkextconn
`
`212-490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`UNH
`
`5‘
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`716
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`the portion of the decision where the
`
`board analyzes Woodhill
`
`in view of their
`
`construction, right?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the-declarations.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Do you have any opinion one way
`
`
`
`or the other whether the board's analysis
`
`was correct or incorrect?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection,
`
`form,
`
`also beyond the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`So we are going to go through
`
`this,
`
`I apologize, but we have to go
`
`through each of the IPRs,
`
`so if you go to
`
`the next
`
`tab.
`
`So did you read this decisiou
`
`in forming your opinions that you provided
`
`in your expert declarations?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Ask that again}
`
`So we are now looking __
`
`Because you broke it down into
`
`sections before and now you are asking
`
`the whole document.
`about
`
`
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`WWW.veritext.com
`
`212—490—3430 ,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 20
`
`Q.
`
`One of the things I'm going to
`
`try and establish is what were the
`
`materials you considered in forming your
`
`declarations, because that sort of goes to
`
`whether you considered whatever materials
`
`in forming your decisions,
`
`so I can ask
`
`you the basis for your opinions that you
`
`put
`
`in your declaration.
`
`Do you
`
`understand that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I understand that.
`
`So I just need to confirm on
`
`the record whether you have considered at
`
`all, not at all,
`
`some level, for each of
`
`the IPRs as we dive into the prior art and
`
`so forth.
`
`Just so you know why I'm going
`
`through this.
`
`It is not meant
`
`to he -—
`
`A.
`Q.
`
`-I understand completely.
`So for this second IPR which is
`
`for the '280 patent, have you read this
`
`before?
`
`A.
`
`I believe I've looked thrOugh
`
`it, but it certainly wasn't
`
`the focus of
`
`my declarations or the work I did on the
`
`
`
`declarations.
`
`
`212—279—9424
`
`wwwveritexttom
`
`212—490-3430
`
`VERHEXTREPORTEKECOM?ANY
`
`(”NI-4
`GJQQUIIIL
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`It is the same as you mentioned
`
`The same as I mentioned before,
`
`So like the situation before,
`
`Q.
`before?
`
`yes.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`there is a section in here starting at
`
`page 9 and going forward that deals with
`
`the claim construction, it goes to the
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`10 middle of page 11 I believe.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`I'm turning to my declaration
`
`now because in every case my declaration
`
`gives a very complete statement of the
`
`claim constructions that I depended on.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`So if you want
`
`to ask what
`
`claim constructions did I depend on,
`
`they
`
`are explicitly in the declarations.
`
`Q'.
`
`But just so that we are clear,
`
`provided or not?
`
`A.
`
`My understanding is that they
`
`22 were they the constructions that the board
`
`25 were the constructions the board provided.
`
`
`212—279-9424
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDM3COMPANY
`unwuaverfiextconl
`
`212~490u3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6'
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
` 19
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Q.
`
`And,
`
`like the former question
`
`that I asked in connection with the '791
`
`patent, were the boardfls claim
`
`constructions within the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in your opinion or
`
`not?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`You are asking me
`
`to look
`
`specifically at data file? That's the
`
`only one I see here.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`yes.
`
`‘
`
`I
`
`think that's correct.
`
`The answer to your question is
`
`Q.
`And I have to ask,
`though I
`think I know the answer, on pages 11
`
`through the end where they analyze the
`
`claims in View of the construction and in
`
`view of the prior art, you don't have any
`
`opinion whether that analysis was correct
`
`or incorrect?
`
`MR. RHOA:
`
`objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations,
`
`form also.
`
`
`
`25
`
`trying
`I guess I would answer,
`A.
`
`
`2I2—279-9424
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDMECOM?ANY
`unvuhverfiextconn
`
`212—490-3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 23
`
`to be as complete as possible with my
`
`answer here,
`
`I don't really know because I
`
`addressed many issues in my declaration.
`
`Some of the issues were obvious just by
`
`the form of the situation. Many of the
`
`issues were things my attorney asked me
`
`to
`
`address.
`
`So it may well be that the
`
`declarations do in that sense consider
`
`this material.
`
`Q.
`
`Maybe we can group some of the
`
`stuff together to move things along. But
`
`is it fair to say you read each of the
`
`decisions in expressing your opinions in
`
`your declarations?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I‘m sorry, say that again.
`
`For your declarations,
`
`for each
`
`of the declarations for each of the
`
`patents, did you read the decisions in
`
`forming your opinions?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`These decisions were not a
`
`primary source of forming my Opinions.
`
`Q.
`
`But
`
`the question was a little
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`212-279—9424
`
`VERHEXTREPORTHKECOMPANY
`unwuhverfiextconl
`
`212—490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 24
`
`simpler. Did you just read them?
`
`A.
`
`I mean,
`
`the reason I'm
`
`hesitating is early on there was huge,
`
`giant piles of stuff, and so I can tell
`
`you what
`
`I studied carefully for the
`
`declaration, and with respect
`
`to that the
`
`answer would be no.
`
`Did I read through them at some
`
`point?
`
`I‘m not sure. Because certainly
`
`in our discussions,
`
`in our discussions
`
`with my attorney,
`
`these issues came up
`
`sometime.
`
`My attorney would say well,
`
`the
`
`board said this. That's why I used
`
`"directly" in my response.
`
`Q.
`
`Is it the situation that you
`
`didn't consider the decisions particularly
`
`important
`
`in forming your opinions?
`
`A.
`
`I presume that if there were
`
`important points in the decisions which I
`
`needed to address, my attorney requested
`
`that I address those.
`
`Q;
`
`So your focus was whatever -—
`
`
`
`by your attorney,
`
`I‘m assuming you mean
`
`Mr. Rhoa?
`
`
`
`212—279—9424
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`212—490—3430
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDK3COMPANY
`
`mquflthI-l
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`R. DEWIAR
`
`Yes, and the firm.
`
`And his firm?
`
`And Brian Siritzky too.
`
`So I was asked to look at,
`
`for
`
`my declarations,
`
`I was asked to look at
`
`the question of whether these patents were
`
`valid with respect to the prior art
`
`documents and, you know, we discussed many
`
`specific points in that, as discussing in
`
`preparation for those declarations. But
`
`I
`
`didn't specifically inform the
`
`declarations independently myself by
`
`reading this material.
`
`Q.
`
`So you relied on Mr. Rhoa and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16 Mr. Siritzky to point you to relevant
`
`portions?
`
`A.
`
`No. We never sat down and said
`
`look at this section of this document.
`
`Q.
`
`I
`
`And that's your memory.for all
`
`six of the ——
`
`A.
`them, yes.
`
`That's my memory for all of
`I
`
`‘Q.
`
`And in terms of doing your
`
`declarations, who did you work with
`
`
`212—279—9424
`
`VERHEXTREPORTDK3COMPANY
`www.veritext.com
`
`Q 212—490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 26
`
`besides Mr. Rhoa and Mr. Siritzky? Were
`
`there any other attorneys, any others that
`
`you remember?
`
`A.
`
`I'm not 100 percent sure, but
`
`those were my two primary contacts for
`
`sure.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you work with Mr. Rhoa more
`
`or less than Mr. Siritzky?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`-More I would say overall.
`
`Did each one of those gentlemen
`
`have like specific patents or specific
`
`roles that you think?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection,
`
`relevance,
`
`form.
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`_ Q.
`
`Then just to confirm, for each
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` 10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18'
`
`of the six IPRs,
`
`the board's claim
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`construction you did consider, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`‘ Yes.
`
`And you thought it was within
`
`the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`correct?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`unwuhverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Page 27
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`A.'-
`
`My attorney gave me
`
`the claim
`
`constructions to follow.
`
`He did not ask
`
`me
`
`to give an opinion on whether they were
`
`reasonable or consistent.
`
`They were
`
`6 material
`
`that was given to me as a
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`starting point for my declarations.
`
`I
`
`don't think there is any point at which
`
`there was a problem with them from my
`
`point of View. but that‘s what
`
`I worked
`
`11 with.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`, Q.
`
`We will get
`
`to that.
`
`I
`
`think
`
`there may have been a couple that showed
`
`up in the declarations which we can talk
`
`about.
`
`So I'm handing you a binder.
`
`17 Here is one that should have the patents
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that are being challenged.
`
`These have all
`
`been marked in the proceedings. Usually
`
`you will see it down in the lower right
`
`corner,
`
`there is some kind of marking.
`
`But
`
`I
`
`think it will be saner if we just
`
`refer to it by the patent number.
`
`If we
`
`go to the '791 patent to begin with.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I‘m turning to my copy of it
`A.
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`www.veritext.com
`
`'
`
`_
`
`212-490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`here“
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Just so the record is
`
`clear, and I have no objection to it, but
`
`those are Dr. Dewar's broad binder full
`
`of —— and maybe you can describe what's in
`
`the binder.
`
`A.
`
`What's in my binder here is my
`
`declarations,
`
`the patents, and the
`
`following documents, Woodhill, Kantor,
`
`Langer, Satyanarayanan and Fischer.
`
`And
`
`the ZIP standard,
`
`the C910 standard,
`
`the
`
`TAR standard, and I believe that is a
`
`complete list.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`No notes of any sort?
`
`There are some notes on some of
`
`the -— there are minimal number of notes
`
`in a couple of places tabbed for easy
`
`reference.
`
`Q.
`
`Let's focus on the '791 patent.
`
`You certainly reviewed the '791 patent in
`
`forming your opinions, right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Did you understand the subject
`
`(AMP
`m-Jmmuh
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`matter of the '791 patent?
`
`
`212-279-9424
`
`wwwveritext. com
`
`21241906430
`
`VERHEXTRBPORTDKECONWANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`
`
` whether the subject matter of the '791
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Yes.
`
`Was
`
`there any part that you
`
`didn't understand?
`
`A.
`
`I'm very familiar with the ‘791
`
`patent.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you have an opinion about
`
`sIIONU'IIwaI-J
`
`no
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`patent works?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection, beyond
`
`the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`Works? What exactly does that
`
`13
`
`mean?
`
`Q.
`
`Does the system work?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection,
`
`form.
`
`Also beyond the scope of the declarations.
`
`A.
`
`Well, it is an invention that
`
`can be used in the construction of a
`
`system.
`
`It is not a system itself. Most
`
`certainly there are systems around that
`
`successfully use the invention of this
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`And so the reason I'm asking
`
`this question is, or I should say one of
`
`the reasons I'm asking this question, when
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`212-279—9424 212—490~3430 unvuhverfiextconl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`I ask you about
`
`the patent,
`
`I'm going to
`
`ask you to just focus on the patent
`itself, not on whether you have any
`
`independent knowledge of whether
`
`
`
`OD-dO‘nUluh-wNH
`
`Mr. Farber and company had some software
`
`product you might be familiar with or any
`
`third—party products or anything like
`
`that.
`
`It is just going to be about
`
`the
`
`patent.
`
`Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`That is completely fair.
`
`That's why your first question surprised
`
`me.
`
`Q.
`
`I have to admit, sometimes
`
`people —— there is a product associated_
`
`with it and understanding bleeds between
`the two and I'm going to focus on the
`
`actual
`
`text, okay?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That won‘t be a problem here.
`
`So in talking about Woodhill,
`
`I
`
`want
`
`to start out with hopefully what is a
`
`simple example. Assume that you,
`
`Dr. Dewar, have a really short CV and that
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`the only thing it says is "I live in j
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`212—279-9424
`unvuhverfiextconl
`
`
`212-490—3430
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`
`
`otom~JmLnhI»A:H
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13-
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Vermont and I have extensive experience in
`
`the Ada programming language."
`
`So far,
`
`so
`
`good?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`That is your short CV.
`
`Okay.
`
`Assume that that file, as luck
`
`would have it, that it would fit into what
`
`the patent calls a simple data item.
`
`Do
`
`you-understand that so far?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Because the patent talks about
`
`simple data items and compound data items.
`
`I
`
`just want
`
`to focus on the simple for the
`
`16 moment.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A.
`
`I would like to correct a
`
`possible misimpression you put on the
`
`table that it is something to do with
`
`size.
`
`It is something to do with
`
`structure, not size.
`
`Q.
`
`Let"s assume that the size of
`
`the file and the structure of the system
`
`is such that that CV fits in a simple data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`251
`item.
`-.
`v|
`
`
`
`212—279-9424
`
`unvunverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`
`
`
`—‘1
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14 _
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`'
`
`Okay.
`
`Let's just also assume that
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`your CV is unique,
`
`that no one else in the
`
`system that is using the ‘791 technology
`
`has the same CV as you do.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`That's a fair assumption,
`
`That's a fair assumption.
`
`In fact,
`
`in file systems there
`
`is a lot of unique files, right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`There could be some that are
`
`15
`
`duplicates and there could be some that
`
`
`
`
`are unique?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`-
`
`Yes.
`
`So we are talking about a
`
`unique file, your CV, short form, right?
`
`A.
`
`I mean,
`
`I don't think I could
`
`guarantee it is unique.
`
`For
`
`instance,
`
`I
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`22! have multiple copies of my CV that are
`23
`absolutely identical on my PC, if you were
`
`to bring it here, under different file
`
`I don't
`names and different directories.
`
`
`212‘279—9424
`
`unwuhverfiextconl
`
`212-490—3430
`
`VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. DEWAR
`
`Page 33
`
`think I can presume uniqueness of the
`
`file.
`
`Q.
`
`For this assumption,
`
`let‘s just
`
`presume it is.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`We will presume it is unique.
`
`Your first version of it.
`
`So just so that we have
`
`something concrete,
`
`if you could write
`
`whateyer you want that short CV to be.
`
`I
`
`like the idea of "I live in Vermont and I
`
`specialize in Ada," but just so that we
`
`can refer back to it.
`
`A.
`
`To clarify, you have no
`
`interest in whether this is accurate or
`
`not?
`
`Q.
`
`Right.
`
`This is what we call a
`
`hypothetical.
`
`A.
`
`There is a small file sitting
`
`in front of me, okay.
`
`Q.
`
`This is so we have a concrete
`
`example and so we can refer back to it.
`
`For purposes of this hypothetical, we will
`
`talk about
`
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
