`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Case No.
`IPR2013—00635
`Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`CERTIFIED COPY
`
`DELL,
`
`INC.; HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY;
`
`and NETAPP,
`
`INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
`
`Patent Owner .
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF
`
`DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`
`Atlanta, Georgia
`
`Thursday, August 7, 2014
`
`Court Reporter: Michelle M. Boudreaux, RPR
`
`Job No. 82984
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`1
`
`PamntOwnerETRlEx.2007
`|PR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` August 7, 2014
` 9:10 a.m.
`
` Deposition of DR. THOMAS M. CONTE,
`held at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference
`Center, 800 Spring Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia,
`pursuant to Agreement before Michelle M.
`Boudreaux, a Registered Professional Reporter
`in the State of Georgia.
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`Page 3
`
`On behalf of the Petitioners:
` JOHN EMERSON, Esq.
` Haynes and Boone
` 2323 Victory Avenue
` Dallas, Texas 75219
`
` THOMAS KELTON, Esq.
` Haynes and Boone
` 2505 North Plano Road
` Richardson, Texas 75082
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` MATTHEW PHILLIPS, Esq.
` DEREK MEEKER, Esq.
` Renaissance IP Law Group
` 9600 SW Oak Street
` Portland, Oregon 97223
`
`Also Present: M. Ray Mercer, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`12
`
`34
`
`5
`
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE,
`being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
`follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. EMERSON:
` Q All right. So you understand that you've
`just been sworn in and you're under oath, correct?
` A I do.
` Q And any reason why you can't testify
`truthfully and completely today?
` A No, there is not.
` Q And unless I hear otherwise from you, I'm
`going to assume you understand my questions, so do you
`understand that?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q All right. And if you don't understand my
`question, let me know.
` A I will.
` Q I'll fix it for you.
` Let's take a look at Exhibit 1001, which is
`the '346 patent.
` All right, why don't you turn to Figure 4.
` A (Witness complies with request of counsel.)
` Q Are you there?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`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
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` A Yes.
` Q Can you point out the RAID to me in Figure 4?
` A It's Element 490.
` Q And that's the element that includes both
`RAID controllers, all four network interface
`controllers, and both of the hub or switch mechanisms?
` A Yes, in this figure. In Figures 5 and 6,
`it's pointed out differently.
` Q Okay. How many disk drives are in this RAID?
` A That's not illustrated in this figure.
` Q Is there any way to tell how many disk drives
`there are?
` A There would be if the degree of RAID was
`known.
` Q When you mean -- "the degree of raid," you
`mean RAID 0, 1, 2, 3, like that?
` A Exactly.
` Q If this was RAID 1, how many disk drives
`would there be?
` A There would need to be two disk drives.
` Q Okay. Is that always the case for RAID 1?
` A That may or may not necessarily be the case,
`but it's -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. RAID 1
`would need at least two disk drives to support
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`redundancy.
` Q At least two, but there could be more than
`two?
` A Yes. Although I don't know of commercial
`products that support RAID 1 that have more than two.
` Q More than two disk drives?
` A More than two redundant disk drives.
` Q How would you distinguish a disk drive
`from -- how many arrays are shown in Figure 4?
` A We just discussed that the disk drives and --
`oh, let me step back. There is one array shown in
`Figure 4.
` Q Okay. How do we know that?
` A Because there's an array per RAID.
` Q Each RAID has one array?
` A It's a redundant array --
` Q Okay.
` A -- of inexpensive or independent disk. Array
`is singular.
` Q Okay. Can you tell from looking at the
`figure or from reading the specification what level
`RAID we have in Figure 4?
` A Let me look at the specification. I'm able
`to determine it's at least RAID 1.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` Q How are you able to determine that?
` A Because it says "redundancy."
` Q And what makes -- why does that make it at
`least RAID 1?
` A RAID 0 doesn't support any fault tolerance,
`just performance enhancement.
` Q Okay.
` A And this talks about -- for example, Column 1
`at 18 discusses what a RAID is, and it says, "...is a
`fault tolerant system in which the disks or
`controllers, etc. have a redundant nature."
` Q Take a look at Claim 1, please, the very back
`page.
` A If you don't mind, I'm going to look at the
`chart I have in my report since the writing is a little
`larger.
` Q Okay.
` A Okay.
` Q How many RAIDs does Claim 1 require?
` A It requires -- well, if the preamble is
`limiting, it requires one.
` Q One and only one, or could there be more than
`one?
` A My understanding of the patent is it's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`speaking about one.
` Q Would you turn to page 9 of your declaration,
`paragraph 18. Do you see there on the third and fourth
`lines that you state, "The mass storage device is built
`from multiple, physical disk drives"?
` A Yes.
` Q And again, can we point these out in Figure 4
`or any of the other figures, for that matter?
` A I think to one skilled in the art, it's
`understood that there are disk drives in the RAID and
`they're not illustrated.
` Q Does Claim 1 expressly claim multiple
`physical disk drives?
` A It does by stating it's a RAID, yes.
` Q In the '346 patent, how is the RAID's
`operation described?
` A I think we just highlighted that in its
`definition in Column 1.
` Q Would you point me to that again, please?
` A I'll read it back. "A RAID is a storage
`system based on a large capacity and a high
`performance, by using much quantity of disks" -- I note
`that the authors were not native speakers. I think
`they're saying "much quantity" being more than one --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`"and is a fault tolerant system in which the disks or
`controllers, etc. have a redundant nature. In general,
`the RAID has two controllers, which are used like a
`method shown in Figure 1 or 2."
` Q Okay. Would one of -- in your opinion, one
`of skill in the art recognize that each disk drive
`would have its own controller?
` A In a RAID or in another -- I'm sorry, I don't
`understand your question.
` Q So let's start with a RAID.
` A Okay.
` Q Even in a RAID, would each disk have a
`controller?
` A Not necessarily.
` Q Okay. How about in other contexts?
` A I'm sorry, what other contexts? Could you be
`more specific?
` Q Outside the context of a RAID, would a disk
`drive need to have a controller in order to operate?
` A Yes.
` Q But not in the context of a RAID?
` A That is not what I said. I said that in the
`context of a RAID, each disk drive, since there are
`multiple disk drives, does not need a controller. They
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`can share one controller.
` Q Understood. All right, let's take a look at
`paragraph 19.
` A Give me a moment. Okay.
` Q And -- let's see here. In paragraph 19,
`they're talking about Webster's Dictionary. I'm
`handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 2004.
` A Okay.
` Q Now, in paragraph 19, you quote from the
`Webster's Computer Dictionary. Can you point to me in
`Exhibit 2004 where you're quoting from exactly?
` A Let me find the spot. Give me a moment. The
`definitions of at least RAID 0, RAID 1, and RAID 2.
`I'm sorry, and RAID 5.
` Q And that's where you -- and specifically
`you're talking about multiple hard drives -- multiple
`hard disks, excuse me, that are combined into a single
`logical drive?
` A Yes. It says, "A type of RAID storage
`device" -- this same text is repeated in the
`definitions of RAID 0, 1, 2, and 5, and it says,
`"A type of RAID storage device that combines two or
`more hard disk drives into a single logical drive."
` And checking with the quotation that I have
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`in my report, that appears to be identical. So I don't
`believe I misquoted.
` Q No, I don't think you did either.
` A Thank you.
` Q So was it your -- I just want to understand
`your thought process here. You weren't intending to
`quote from just RAID 1, but RAID 1, RAID 2 -- I guess
`those are the two that say two or more hard disks in a
`single logical drive.
` A No, that's incorrect.
` Q Okay.
` A I was intending to quote from all four of
`these. However, in the context of the '346 patent,
`which specifies redundancy, RAID 0 would have been
`excluded.
` Q Understood. Why didn't you use the
`definition for -- the first definition there just for
`"RAID"?
` A Because in my opinion, one skilled in the art
`at the time would readily understand the concept of
`combining into a single logical drive.
` Q Do you disagree with anything in the
`definition of "RAID"?
` A I'm sorry, which one?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` Q The plain old RAID.
` A Could you point that out? I'm sorry.
` Q It's on the left-hand column, fourth entry.
` A Give me a moment. Yeah, I think that it is
`imprecise.
` Q How so?
` A Well, for example, it says, "A group of hard
`disks that work together to improve performance and
`decrease the odds of losing data due to mechanical or
`electronic failure." That's not a property of RAID 0.
` Q Okay. Anything else?
` A Sitting here today, I don't see anything
`else.
` Q Take a look again at the definition in
`Column 1 of the '346 patent that you quoted from
`earlier.
` MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, what would you
` like me to look at specifically?
` MR. EMERSON: Just under "Prior Art of
` the Invention" where it begins, "A RAID is a
` storage system," that paragraph.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
` MR. EMERSON: Okay.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` Q (By Mr. Emerson) And correct me if I'm
`wrong, you quoted that paragraph earlier in your
`testimony today, right?
` A I believe that's correct. I recall doing
`that, yes.
` Q And that's where the '346 patent defines a
`RAID, correct?
` A There may well be other places in the patent,
`but sitting here today, that's where I see it.
` Q Do you disagree with that definition of a
`RAID?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I already indicated that I
` agreed with that definition. One skilled in
` the art at the time in reading that would
` understand that definition and what it was
` referring to.
` Q (By Mr. Emerson) Do you disagree with the
`Board's definition of "RAID"?
` A I believe I address this in my report, so
`let's discuss that.
` Q Would you like the institution decision, or
`you want to just take a look at your declaration?
` A I reference it in my report, so I can talk
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`about it there in my report.
` Q Can I interrupt you briefly. I want to go
`back to the '346 patent real quick.
` A Could I finish this line of thought since I'm
`in the middle of it?
` Q Sure.
` A Thank you. I'm not finding it right here, so
`if you could -- if I recall, the institute had two
`different definitions of "RAID."
` Q I'll hand you the institution decision, which
`is Paper 19.
` A Sitting here today, I only see one
`definition, which is an expansion of the acronym.
` Q Okay. And do you disagree with that
`definition?
` A I think that that definition is clearly
`correct since it's an expansion of the acronym.
` Q Take a look at -- I'm sorry to have
`interrupted you before. Go back to the '346 patent,
`that paragraph we referred to a few minutes ago, right
`there in Column 1, beginning, "A RAID is a storage
`system." Do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q Either there or anywhere else in the '346
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`patent, does the '346 patent define a RAID to require
`the disks to be a single logical unit?
` A At the time, one skilled in the art would
`understand that a RAID was plug compatible with a disk
`drive and was a single logical unit.
` MR. EMERSON: I object to that as
` nonresponsive.
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
` MR. EMERSON: That's okay. It's just a
` technicality.
` Q (By Mr. Emerson) So let me ask you again. I
`want to know if either -- and I'll make it more -- I'll
`make my question more clear. Either in this paragraph
`or anywhere else in the '346 patent, does the '346
`patent ever expressly state that a RAID must be
`multiple drives that are set up as a single logical
`unit?
` A I believe Figure 1 supports that
`interpretation.
` Q Let me ask you this: Does the '346 patent
`use the phrase "single logical unit" to describe a
`RAID?
` A I would need to perform a tech search.
` Q Have you thus far in your work on this case
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`come across the words "single logical unit" in the '346
`patent?
` A I cannot recall. I know that it is well
`understood to one in the art.
` Q Let's take a look at Webster's again. And
`let's look at the definition of "RAID 1." And RAID 1
`defines -- it defines RAID 1 as, "A type of RAID
`storage device that combines two or more hard disks
`into a single logical drive, but, in contrast to
`RAID 0, in a way that backs up the data so that nothing
`is lost if one of the drives should fail."
` That last phrase, "in a way that backs up the
`data so that nothing is lost if one of the drives
`should fail," first of all, do you agree with that
`definition?
` A Although I agree, I believe it's a little
`imprecise.
` Q How so?
` A Well, in the art, it's -- a "hard disk drive"
`is the full phrase, and this definition is using
`different pieces of that.
` Q "Hard disk drive" is the full phrase for
`what?
` A In fact, it's the full phrase for a hard disk
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`drive. It's the full phrase for a physical disk that
`one would purchase, for example, at any electronic
`store.
` Q Just so I understand your testimony, are you
`saying that where this definition talks about "hard
`disks," it should say "hard disk drives"?
` A Yes.
` Q That's the imprecision you're talking about?
` A No. The second imprecision is in the second
`phrase. I believe that the authors of this definition
`in saying, "in a way that backs up the data so that
`nothing is lost if one of the drives should fail," it
`would make no sense if the RAID is a single logical
`drive, there's only one thing to fail. So one skilled
`in the art would understand that they're saying if one
`of the hard disk drives that make up the RAID should
`fail.
` Q So in that second phrase, then, it should
`read "nothing is lost if one of the hard disk drives
`should fail"?
` A Yes, I think that's more precise.
` Q Okay. Assuming that's what the author meant
`here, do you agree with this definition?
` A First, let me state, I can find no other
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`logical way to interpret this. So therefore, yes, I'd
`agree with this definition with that additional
`qualification.
` Q Do you believe that only RAIDs that you can
`buy at electronics stores meet the Board's definition
`of "RAID"?
` A Oh, I haven't -- sitting here today, I
`haven't considered whether or not there are other kinds
`of RAIDs that one could not purchase that would also
`meet the Board's definition of a RAID.
` Q What do you mean by "single logical unit"?
` A Typically, a single logical unit is -- and I
`define this in my report, so I'll just go to there.
`"Rather, what sets a RAID apart" --
` Q I'm sorry, could you point me to where you --
`what paragraph --
` A Paragraph 19. "Rather, what sets a RAID
`apart is that it is a 'black box' that can be
`interchanged with a traditional SLED without needing to
`change the hardware or software interfaces."
` I then later state in 38 that, "As I discuss
`above," referring to that prior discussion, "one
`skilled in the art would readily understand a RAID to
`be a single logical unit for mass storage that provides
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`fault tolerance and recovery via employing multiple
`physical disks."
` Q Let's go back to paragraph 19. In the first
`sentence there that you didn't read, you state, "The
`idea of providing multiple physical disk drives for
`redundancy is not the novel part of a RAID?" Do you
`see that?
` A Yes.
` Q What do you base that on?
` A My understanding of computer design history,
`that that idea had been around for a long time.
` Q Do you have any -- let me back up.
` Other than that, do you base that statement
`on any authoritative source, like a paper or a
`definition -- or a dictionary, rather, anything like
`that?
` A We already talked about the Webster's
`Dictionary. I refer also to a Microsoft definition.
` Q Do you think that the Microsoft or Webster's
`definitions would lead to the conclusion that providing
`multiple physical disk drives for redundancy is not the
`novel part of a RAID?
` A I also base -- well, yes, I think that those
`definitions call out the idea of a single logical drive
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`or, in the case of Microsoft, that function as a single
`storage unit.
` Q Do you take "single storage unit" to be
`synonymous with "single logical unit"?
` A Yes. I think that those are used relatively
`synonymously. I think "single logical unit" is a
`little more precise.
` Q You mentioned the Microsoft definition, so
`let me hand you that. It's already been marked as
`Exhibit 2005.
` So I think you just answered this question,
`at least indirectly, but the Microsoft definition
`doesn't talk about a single logical unit, using those
`words. Do you find that the Microsoft definition is
`consistent with the Webster's definition?
` A When one accounts for the imprecision in the
`Webster's definition already discussed about earlier
`today, I believe that it does, yes.
` Q Do you differentiate between a physical unit
`and a logical unit?
` A One in the art would understand that there --
`that generally a logical unit is something that appears
`to operate as a physical unit but isn't necessarily a
`physical unit. So, yes, I do differentiate between the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`two.
` Q So a logical unit can be made up of more than
`one physical unit?
` A A logical unit may well represent a single
`physical unit, it may well represent more than one
`physical unit, but it operates the same as the physical
`unit it's replacing.
` Q Can you show me in Figure 4 of the '346
`patent the different physical and logical units?
` A As we have earlier discussed today, and as I
`believe is appropriate to one skilled in the art, the
`figures do not show the actual physical disk drives.
`What they show is the interface to the actual physical
`disk drives. That would be Element 490 from the
`perspective of those computers; 400, 401, 402, 403,
`404, and 405 would appear to be a single logical unit.
` Q So take a look at the Microsoft definition
`again. Do you see where it says, "This redundancy
`ensures that no information will be lost if one of the
`disks fails"?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And the redundancy there is referring
`to the redundancy of disks, right?
` A It's referring to the redundancy of disk
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`drives.
` Q Okay.
` A It's using "disk" as an informal reference to
`disk drive.
` Q And you agree with that part of the
`definition?
` A I agree with it. I'll note that not all
`companies use all terms identically for technology.
`IBM, for example, is notorious for using different
`terms for everything. And disk and disk drives are not
`interchangeable in IBM parlance.
` Q Understood.
` Is there any reason why you left this part of
`the definition out of what you quoted in your
`declaration?
` A There's no particular reason. I didn't see
`that it was required.
` Q Can a single logical unit be mapped to
`different physical units via system configuration?
` A So in this case, the meaning of "logical" and
`"physical" are now in the context of an operating
`system, which takes on a slightly different meaning.
`In the context of an operating system, I could see that
`as a possibility.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` Q I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1006, and we're
`not going to go through much of this at all. I just
`have it because it's actually shorter than the one in
`the reference.
` A Give me a moment, please. Okay, go on.
` Q Turn to paragraph 44, please. Are you there?
` A I am.
` Q It's page 22.
` A I am.
` Q And in paragraph 44, Dr. Mercer quotes a
`definition of "RAID" from the Weygant reference. Do
`you see that?
` A Yes. What's the Weygant reference?
` Q It's -- was one of the references that was
`used in the petition.
` A But I did not review it.
` Q That's fine.
` A Okay. So I don't know the context in which
`this quote comes.
` Q Okay. Accepting that, if you could take a
`minute to read that definition of "RAID" and let me
`know when you're ready to proceed.
` A All right.
` Q Do you agree with this definition of "RAID"?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` A No, I do not. I don't think it's true to the
`original inventors of RAIDs intent of RAID.
` Q Okay. How so?
` A RAID was originally invented, as I explain in
`my document, in my declaration, to replace a SLED,
`which is a single logical -- I'm sorry, single large
`expensive disk. By using multiple inexpensive disks
`that appeared to be the same as a single large
`expensive disk, but was plug compatible with a single
`large expensive disk, you could achieve the same
`reliability as a single large expensive disk for a
`reduced cost.
` Q Okay.
` A So I don't think that the statement here is
`consistent with that.
` Q And can you point to me -- point out to me
`where specifically in this Weygant definition that you
`think it's inconsistent with your understanding?
` A Again, I want to note that I have not
`reviewed Weygant. I do not -- I do not know the
`context in which this quote comes from, and the context
`may change the interpretation here. So if you give me
`a moment to review --
` Q Sure.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` A I don't understand the phrase "either as a
`single unit or in various combinations of striped and
`mirrored configurations."
` Q Okay. And what don't you understand about
`that?
` A All the configurations he discusses are
`either striped or mirrored. I don't see any one that
`isn't. So I don't understand what, in Weygant's view,
`quote, a single unit is referring to.
` Q Are you familiar at all with this Weygant
`reference?
` A I believe that I looked at some of the
`quotations from it, but I haven't studied it in any
`depth, no.
` Q And as part of your work in this case, you
`reviewed the original petition, right?
` A I was asked to specifically look at -- and I
`can find this in my declaration. I'm sorry. I was
`asked only to consider whether or not Hathorn
`anticipated the claims at issue of the '346 patent.
` Q I was just curious if, when you read the
`petition, if you noticed Weygant, if you were familiar
`with it.
` A All I did when I read the petition was to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`25
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`focus on the Hathorn portion.
` Q Weygant's definition, do you find that to be
`consistent with the Microsoft or the Webster's
`definitions?
` A No, I do not.
` Q Why not?
` A I've already indicated the ambiguity and the
`logic in Weygant's definition that renders it hard to
`interpret.
` Q Okay. Given the three definitions that we've
`talked about here today -- I guess there's four.
`There's the definition that's given in the '346 patent,
`right? Do you understand there's a definition in the
`'346 patent of a RAID?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm waiting for you to
` list the four, please, sir.
` MR. EMERSON: Okay. '346, Webster's,
` Microsoft, and Weygant, right?
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
` MR. EMERSON: Those are the four we've
` discussed.
` Q (By Mr. Emerson) And they all differ a bit,
`don't they?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`26
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
` A I think that's incorrect. I think that the
`definition in the patent is consistent with Microsoft
`and Webster's. I believe that the main differentiation
`is between those three and Weygant since, as I've said,
`Weygant is illogically written.
` Q Well, there's a fourth definition also, and
`that's the -- or fifth definition, rather, which is the
`Board's definition, right?
` A The Board's definition is an expansion of the
`acronym itself.
` Q That's right, and that's -- and so that's the
`definition that the Board is using, that's how it
`construed RAID, right?
` A Then one skilled in the art would have to
`understand the meaning of each of the words when used
`in that phrase, but yes.
` Q And is it your opinion that one skilled in
`the art would understand that acronym or the words in
`that acronym to be consistent with what your definition
`of "RAID" in paragraph -- I believe it's 38.
` A Yes. I do believe that the Board's
`definition, which is an expansion of the acronym,
`would, when viewed by one skilled in the art, be
`consistent with the definition that I provide in 38 of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` DR. THOMAS M. CONTE
`a RAID being a logical unit for mass storage that
`provides fault tolerance and recovery via employing
`multiple physical disk drives.
` Q So do you believe that Weygant is incorrect
`when it defines a RAID as either a single unit or in
`various combinations of striped and mirrored
`configurations?
` A No, that isn't what I said.
` Q Okay. Could you explain to me again, then,
`because I must misunderstand your differences with
`Weygant. So what is your issue with the Weygant
`definition?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, answered.
` THE WITNESS: I will try to summarize my
` answer that I gave previously, that Weygant
` states "either as a single unit or in various
` combinations of striped and mirrored
` configurations," and then lists -- "The types
` of configurations available called RAID
` levels are," and then lists things that are
` either striped or mirrored.
` There's nothing listed there that
` corresponds to a single unit, and I don't
` know how Weygant is using a single unit. Is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`28
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2007
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`2