EXHIBIT 2029
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi O
`|PR2013-
`Exhibit
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi O
`|PR2013-
`Exhibit
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`In the Matter Of:
`
`BROADCOM VS. WI—FI ONE
`
`IPR2013-00601, IPR2013-00602, IPR2013-00636
`
`HARRY BIMS, PH.D.
`
`October I 7, 2014
`
`f V
`
`‘T J
`
`800.21 1.DEPO (3376)
`
`EsquireSoIutions. com
`
`5 0 L
`
`U
`
`T
`
`'
`
`0 N
`
`3
`
`Broadcomv.Wi-FiOne,LLC
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`· · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· · Case IPR2013-00601
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,· · · U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215
`· · · · · ·Petitioner,
`· · · ·VS.· · · · · · · · ·Case IPR2013-00602
`WI-FI ONE, LLC,· · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`· · · · · ·Respondent.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· · Case No. IPR2013-00636
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625
`
`· · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF HARRY BIMS, Ph.D.
`
`· · · · · · · · · October 17, 2014
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·8:37 a.m.
`
`· · ·Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`· · · · · · · · · ·60 State Street
`· · · · · · · · Boston, Massachusetts
`
`· · · ·Susan A. Romano, RMR, CRR, CSR #119393
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`·4· · · · · MICHAEL A. DIENER, ESQUIRE
`
`·5· · · · · Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`·6· · · · · 60 State Street
`
`·7· · · · · Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`·8· · · · · 617.526.6454
`
`·9· · · · · michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`10
`
`11· ·ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
`
`12· · · · · JOHN M. SHUMAKER, ESQUIRE
`
`13· · · · · Lee & Hayes, PLLC
`
`14· · · · · 13809 Research Boulevard, Suite 405
`
`15· · · · · Austin, Texas 78750
`
`16· · · · · 512.605.8162
`
`17· · · · · jshumaker@leehayes.com
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`
`·2· ·Deposition of:· HARRY BIMS, Ph.D.
`
`·3· ·EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE NO.
`
`·4· ·By Mr. Shumaker· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`·8· ·NO.· · · · · · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · PAGE NO.
`
`·9· ·1022 (IPR2013-00636)· · Reply Declaration· · · ·4
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`11· ·1002 (IPR2013-00636)· · Patent 5,610,595· · · · 6
`
`12· ·2027 (IPR2013-00636)· · 5/29/13 Transcript· · ·67
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·and 5/30/13 Transcript
`
`14· ·1001 (IPR2013-00636)· · Patent 6,424,625· · · ·69
`
`15· ·1026 (IPR2013-00602)· · Opposition Declaration 70
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`17· ·1025 (IPR2013-00602)· · Patent 6,172,988· · · ·73
`
`18· ·1002 (IPR2013-00602)· · Patent 5,488,610· · · ·79
`
`19· ·1006 (IPR2013-00602)· · Reply Declaration· · · 79
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`21· ·1023 (IPR2013-00602)· · Patent 5,541,662· · · ·79
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24· ·(Original exhibits attached to original transcript.)
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·HARRY BIMS, Ph.D.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · ·October 17, 2014
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · PROCEEDINGS
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · HARRY BIMS, Ph.D., the deponent, having been
`
`·6· ·satisfactorily identified and duly sworn by the
`
`·7· ·Notary Public, was examined and testified as
`
`·8· ·follows:
`
`·9· · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`10· · · · · · · BY MR. SHUMAKER:
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·Good morning, Doctor Bims.
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·Good morning.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · MR. SHUMAKER:· I'd like the court
`
`14· ·reporter to label this exhibit IPR2013-00636,
`
`15· ·Exhibit 1022.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 1022 in IPR2013-00636,
`
`17· ·Reply Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D., marked for
`
`18· ·identification.)
`
`19· · · · · · · BY MR. SHUMAKER:
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Doctor Bims, I'm handing you Exhibit 1022
`
`21· ·from IPR2013-00636.· It's the reply declaration of
`
`22· ·Harry Bims.· Is Exhibit 1022 a declaration you filed
`
`23· ·in this particular case?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·And is your signature on page 7 of this
`
`·2· ·exhibit?
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I'd like you to turn to
`
`·5· ·paragraph 4, page 2 of Exhibit 1022.· Do you agree
`
`·6· ·with the statement that a transmitter could use, for
`
`·7· ·example, a control message RNR to send a lost
`
`·8· ·message that commands the receiver to receive the
`
`·9· ·next packet and move the receive window?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·In your view, does the RNR command in
`
`12· ·Garrabrant command receiver to receive the next
`
`13· ·packet?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· That's implicit, yes.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·And your view, does the RNR command and
`
`16· ·Garrabrant command receiver to move the receive
`
`17· ·window?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, it does.
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·Do you contend that the lost message
`
`20· ·refers to a control message being lost which
`
`21· ·indicates the packets had been lost?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·The lost message commands the receiver to
`
`23· ·move its receive window and receive the next packet.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·So do you contend in Garrabrant that the
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·lost message refers to a control message named
`
`·2· ·"lost" which indicates the packets had been lost?
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· As it says in my paragraph 4, yes.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·And do you contend that the RNR command
`
`·5· ·from Garrabrant is a control message named "lost"?
`
`·6· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· The RNR message is a control
`
`·7· ·message that is used to send a lost message.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·Let's turn -- actually, I'm going to give
`
`·9· ·you the next exhibit.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · MR. SHUMAKER:· Would the court
`
`11· ·reporter please mark this exhibit as Exhibit 1002
`
`12· ·IPR2013-00636.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 1002 in IPR2013-00636,
`
`14· ·Patent 5,610,595, marked for identification.)
`
`15· · · · · · · BY MR. SHUMAKER:
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·Doctor Bims, I'm handing you Exhibit 1002
`
`17· ·from IPR2013-00636.· Have you seen Exhibit 2 before?
`
`18· ·I meant to say Exhibit 1002.
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, I have.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And Exhibit 1002 the Garrabrant
`
`21· ·reference that you refer to in your declarations in
`
`22· ·this case?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·I'd like you to turn to figure 8A of
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·Garrabrant, please.· You're familiar with this
`
`·2· ·figure, correct?
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·Sir, can you assume, as described in
`
`·5· ·Garrabrant, packets 0 and 1 were successfully
`
`·6· ·received to define the valid window 164 in
`
`·7· ·figure 8A?
`
`·8· · · · ·A.· ·So figure 8A shows a position of the
`
`·9· ·received window such that packets from 2 to 17 are
`
`10· ·packets that are within the receive window.
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·And does Garrabrant describe figure 8A as
`
`12· ·packet 0 and 1 being successfully received to define
`
`13· ·the valid window 164?· I'd like to direct your
`
`14· ·attention to column 10 of Garrabrant, lines 28
`
`15· ·through 30.· Actually, not those lines.· Line 17.
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·Line 17 of what column?
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·Actually, let me start one more time.
`
`18· · · · · · · Let me direct your attention to lines --
`
`19· ·column 10, lines 27 to 30.· It says, "In figure 8A,
`
`20· ·it is assumed that out of eight packets sent, packet
`
`21· ·0 and 1 were successfully received to define valid
`
`22· ·window 164, and packets 2 through 6 were lost."
`
`23· · · · · · · Do you agree with that statement?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·I'd like to direct your attention back to
`
`·2· ·figure 8A, please.· Would you agree that figure 8A
`
`·3· ·is a schematic diagram of the rejection window
`
`·4· ·before the rejection window is updated in response
`
`·5· ·to a lost message?
`
`·6· · · · ·A.· ·So figure 8A is the rejection window
`
`·7· ·prior to the lost message, and figure 8B is the
`
`·8· ·rejection window after updated in response to the
`
`·9· ·receipt of a lost message.
`
`10· · · · ·Q.· ·So figure 8B -- do you agree that
`
`11· ·figure 8B is a schematic diagram of a rejection
`
`12· ·window 170 and a circle set of acceptable sequence
`
`13· ·numbers 172 at the destination unit after the
`
`14· ·rejection window has updated in response to the
`
`15· ·receipt of an RNR message in Garrabrant?
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·So figure 8B is an illustration of the
`
`17· ·position of the rejection window after the lost
`
`18· ·message described in column 10 has been received.
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·And you contend that the RNR is a lost
`
`20· ·message, correct?
`
`21· · · · ·A.· ·The RNR message described in Garrabrant
`
`22· ·is a control message that contains a lost message.
`
`23· · · · ·Q.· ·So in Garrabrant, after receipt of an RNR
`
`24· ·command, the rejection window would be depicted as
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·in figure 8B, correct?
`
`·2· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·Would you agree that after the receipt of
`
`·4· ·the lost message or the RNR command, the sequence
`
`·5· ·number 7 is included in the rejection window 170 of
`
`·6· ·8B?
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. DIENER:· Excuse me.· Can you
`
`·8· ·repeat that question.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · (Record read.)
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·So figure 8B is mentioned in the patent
`
`11· ·in column 10 in which the patent is talking about
`
`12· ·the receipt of the lost message.· So I'm a little
`
`13· ·confused about your question about the RNR message.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So would you agree that after the
`
`15· ·receipt of the lost message, that sequence number 7
`
`16· ·is included in the rejection window 170 of
`
`17· ·figure 8B?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·And would you agree that the RNR command
`
`20· ·is a lost message?
`
`21· · · · ·A.· ·So the RNR command is a control message
`
`22· ·that is used to send a lost message.
`
`23· · · · ·Q.· ·Would you agree that after receipt of the
`
`24· ·RNR command in Garrabrant, the sequence number 7 is
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·included in the projection window 170 of figure 8B?
`
`·2· · · · ·A.· ·That sequence number 7 is in the
`
`·3· ·rejection window is your question?
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·Yes.
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·So figure 8B shows that after the lost
`
`·6· ·messages are received, the rejection window has been
`
`·7· ·moved, and sequence numbers 24 through 7 at the top
`
`·8· ·of figure 8B would be within the rejection window.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q.· ·So it is true that after the receipt of
`
`10· ·the RNR control message command, that sequence
`
`11· ·number 7 is included in the projection window 170 of
`
`12· ·figure 8B?
`
`13· · · · ·A.· ·Sequence number 7 is contained within the
`
`14· ·range of the rejection window.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·And if a packet having sequence number 7
`
`16· ·is received by a receiver whose valid window is
`
`17· ·defined by figure 8B, then it is true, is it not,
`
`18· ·that the packet having sequence number 7 would be
`
`19· ·rejected by the receiver?
`
`20· · · · ·A.· ·So in your hypothetical, you're saying
`
`21· ·the transmitter would send a message using a
`
`22· ·sequence number that is a -- within the rejection
`
`23· ·window after the lost message has been transmitted.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·My question is, if a packet having
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·sequence number 7 is received by a receiver whose
`
`·2· ·valid window is defined by figure 8B, then it's
`
`·3· ·true, is it not, that the packet having sequence
`
`·4· ·number 7 would be rejected by the receiver?
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·(Deponent viewing document.)· I think
`
`·6· ·it's true that if the rejection window was
`
`·7· ·configured as shown in figure 8B, that the receiver
`
`·8· ·would not expect to receive a packet with sequence
`
`·9· ·number 7.
`
`10· · · · ·Q.· ·And if a packet having sequence number 7
`
`11· ·is received by a receiver whose valid window is
`
`12· ·defined by figure 8B, that packet having sequence
`
`13· ·number 7 would be rejected by the receiver, would it
`
`14· ·not?
`
`15· · · · ·A.· ·(Deponent viewing document.)
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·Doctor Bims, let me ask you another
`
`17· ·question.
`
`18· · · · · · · A message that's received in Garrabrant
`
`19· ·having a sequence number that's found in a rejection
`
`20· ·window would be projected by a receiver in
`
`21· ·Garrabrant, would it not?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·From my reading of Garrabrant, I don't
`
`23· ·see where Garrabrant teaches that.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· In Garrabrant, a message received
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·by unit in a packet radio communication system will
`
`·2· ·be rejected unless the number stored in the sequence
`
`·3· ·number field is in the valid window, correct?
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·(Deponent viewing document.)
`
`·5· · · · ·Q.· ·Let me direct your attention to column 9.
`
`·6· · · · ·A.· ·Oh, yes.· Yes.· That's true.
`
`·7· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So you say it's true that a
`
`·8· ·message received by a unit in a packet radio
`
`·9· ·communication system will be rejected in Garrabrant
`
`10· ·unless the number stored in the sequence number
`
`11· ·field is in a valid window.
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·Correct.
`
`13· · · · ·Q.· ·Now, in Figure 8B is sequence number --
`
`14· ·actually, figure 8B sequence number 7 is not stored
`
`15· ·in the valid window, is it?
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·Sequence number 7 in figure 8B is not
`
`17· ·within the valid window, correct.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·So under Garrabrant, if a packet having
`
`19· ·sequence number 7 would be sent to a receiver whose
`
`20· ·valid window is shown in figure 8B, a packet having
`
`21· ·sequence number 7 would be rejected by the device in
`
`22· ·Garrabrant, would it not?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·It would be rejected according to
`
`24· ·Garrabrant, yes.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· But doesn't Garrabrant state that
`
`·2· ·packet 7 is accepted?
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·Under your hypothetical?
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·No.· Under Garrabrant's disclosure.
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·So in the Garrabrant disclosure, there's
`
`·6· ·discussion of a packet number 7 that falls within
`
`·7· ·the valid window, which is different than the
`
`·8· ·hypothetical you posed.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q.· ·I'd like to direct your attention to
`
`10· ·column 10, line 36 of Garrabrant.· Those two
`
`11· ·sentences state, "When packet 7 eventually arrives
`
`12· ·at the destination unit, it falls within the valid
`
`13· ·window 164 and is accepted by the destination unit."
`
`14· ·Stop there.
`
`15· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·I'd like to direct your attention to
`
`18· ·column 10, line 23.· It states, "Figure 8B is a
`
`19· ·schematic diagram of a rejection window 170 in the
`
`20· ·circle set of acceptable sequence numbers 172 at the
`
`21· ·destination unit after the rejection window is
`
`22· ·updated in response to the receipt of a lost
`
`23· ·message."
`
`24· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q.· ·Next sentence, "In figure 8A, it is
`
`·3· ·assumed that out of eight packets sent, packets 0
`
`·4· ·and 1 were successfully received to define the valid
`
`·5· ·window 164, and packets 2 through 6 were lost."
`
`·6· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·Next sentence states, "As a consequence,
`
`·9· ·the valid window 164 did not advance further."
`
`10· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`11· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·Next sentence, "Each time a packet was
`
`13· ·transmitted, the sender unit incremented its
`
`14· ·sequence count (and in the sequence count field 92
`
`15· ·of the frame 90)."
`
`16· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·"However, because these packets were
`
`19· ·lost, the destination unit (see figure 8A) did not
`
`20· ·receive them and the valid window 164 is still set
`
`21· ·between 2 and 17."
`
`22· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· The receive valid window 164 is
`
`24· ·still set between 2 and 17, yes.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·Next sentence, "When packet 7 eventually
`
`·2· ·arrives at the destination unit, it falls within the
`
`·3· ·valid window 164 and is accepted by the destination
`
`·4· ·unit."
`
`·5· · · · · · · Do you agree with that sentence?
`
`·6· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·7· · · · ·Q.· ·So you agree that figure 8B is the result
`
`·8· ·of the valid window in Garrabrant after receipt of
`
`·9· ·packet 7?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·No.
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·Let me direct your attention to
`
`12· ·column 10, line 36.· "When packet 7 eventually
`
`13· ·arrives at the destination unit, it falls within the
`
`14· ·valid window 164 and is accepted by the destination
`
`15· ·unit."
`
`16· · · · · · · Do you still agree with that sentence?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·And it says, "The destination unit then
`
`19· ·sets its internal sequence count to eight as shown
`
`20· ·in figure 8B and slides its valid window 164 to the
`
`21· ·position of valid window 174 shown in figure 8B to
`
`22· ·allow packets 8 through 23."
`
`23· · · · · · · Do you agree with that?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·So is it your testimony that figure 8B is
`
`·2· ·not the position of the valid window after packet 7
`
`·3· ·is received by the receiver?
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·So it's my position that in this scenario
`
`·5· ·outlined in column 10, that there is a lost message
`
`·6· ·that causes the received window to move, as stated
`
`·7· ·in -- earlier in this column, and that lost message
`
`·8· ·is included with packet number 7.· And it's the lost
`
`·9· ·message that causes the received valid window to
`
`10· ·move.
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·Garrabrant doesn't disclose that the lost
`
`12· ·message is included in packet 7, does it?
`
`13· · · · ·A.· ·It implicitly discloses that because this
`
`14· ·passage in column 10, the rejection window is
`
`15· ·updated in response to receiving the lost message.
`
`16· ·And, also, the valid window moves in response to the
`
`17· ·reception of packet 7, figure 8B showing the result
`
`18· ·of that movement based upon the receiving of the
`
`19· ·lost message and the receiving of packet 10.
`
`20· ·Therefore, it implies that packet 7 and the lost
`
`21· ·message are received together.
`
`22· · · · ·Q.· ·Could column 10 also be explained if
`
`23· ·packet 7 and a lost message are one and the same?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·That doesn't make any sense.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·If -- why would it not make any sense?
`
`·2· · · · ·A.· ·Because then you're saying that
`
`·3· ·Garrabrant discloses that the lost message is always
`
`·4· ·associated with packet number 7.· Even though in
`
`·5· ·this, figures 8A and 8B, it discloses a range of
`
`·6· ·sequence numbers from 0 to 24 in this example.
`
`·7· ·You're saying that the lost message only applies to
`
`·8· ·packet number 7.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q.· ·Is it your testimony that the lost
`
`10· ·message is part of packet number 7?
`
`11· · · · ·A.· ·So it's my testimony that the lost
`
`12· ·message is included with packet number 7 in the
`
`13· ·transmission to the destination unit.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·So is it your testimony that the RNR
`
`15· ·control message is included within packet 7 during
`
`16· ·transmission?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·So what's discussed in column 10 is the
`
`18· ·lost message and packet number 7.· And, as I stated
`
`19· ·earlier, along with the transmission of packet
`
`20· ·number 7, the lost message is transmitted to the
`
`21· ·destination unit.
`
`22· · · · ·Q.· ·And the lost message, in your view, is an
`
`23· ·RNR command, correct?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·An RNR command is a type of lost message,
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·yes.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So under your scenario, an RNR
`
`·3· ·command is transmitted along with packet 7 in
`
`·4· ·Garrabrant?
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·So Garrabrant implicitly discloses the
`
`·6· ·use of an RNR command as a lost message.· Therefore,
`
`·7· ·in this passage in column 10, an RNR command can be
`
`·8· ·used to send the lost message in this passage in
`
`·9· ·column 10.
`
`10· · · · ·Q.· ·How is the RNR command, in your opinion,
`
`11· ·used to send the lost message?
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·So the RNR command can, within its
`
`13· ·contents, include an indication of the lost message
`
`14· ·along with the sequence number of the range of lost
`
`15· ·messages.
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·Where is that disclosed in Garrabrant?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·In column 5.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·Where exactly in column 5?
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·In column 5, lines 36 through 45.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Where within column -- where within
`
`21· ·column 5, lines 36 through 45, is this disclosed?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·In column 5, lines 36 through 45 of
`
`23· ·Garrabrant, there is a paragraph that describes a
`
`24· ·protocol such as the AX.25 amateur packet radio link
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·layer protocol, which is incorporated into the
`
`·2· ·specification by reference.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·And is it your understanding that the
`
`·4· ·AX.25 protocol includes an RNR command?
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q.· ·And it's your testimony that RNR command
`
`·7· ·disclosed an AX.25 is the lost message used in
`
`·8· ·Garrabrant?
`
`·9· · · · ·A.· ·So it's my testimony that Garrabrant
`
`10· ·discloses a lost message and that the RNR command
`
`11· ·disclosed in Garrabrant is a type of lost message.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·You do know, do you not, that RNR stands
`
`13· ·for received, not ready?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·And you do know, do you not, that an RNR
`
`16· ·command indicates to a transmitter that a receiver
`
`17· ·is busy and not ready to receive a message from a
`
`18· ·transmitter?
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·Not always.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·And your testimony -- in your opinion,
`
`21· ·some cases does an RNR command indicate to a
`
`22· ·transmitter that a receiver is busy and not ready to
`
`23· ·receive a message from a transmitter?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·So as I recall, this AX.25 protocol
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·mentions the various uses of the RNR command.· I
`
`·2· ·don't recall all of the uses of the RNR command in
`
`·3· ·that protocol document, as I sit here.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·But it is true, is it not, that a device
`
`·5· ·sends an RNR command to indicate that it does not --
`
`·6· ·let me ask another question.
`
`·7· · · · · · · You do know that a device sends an RNR
`
`·8· ·command to indicate that the device that sent an RNR
`
`·9· ·command is not ready to receive a message?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·I'd have to look at the specific language
`
`11· ·in that protocol.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·Sir, you're identifying the RNR command
`
`13· ·as a lost message, correct?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·As I've said, the RNR command disclosed
`
`15· ·in Garrabrant is a command used to send a lost
`
`16· ·message, yes.
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·And that RNR command, your testimony, is
`
`18· ·defined in AX.25, correct?
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·The RNR command is disclosed in that
`
`20· ·AX.25 protocol as well as in column 6.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·And is it correct that an RNR command
`
`22· ·indicates to a transmitter that a receiver is busy
`
`23· ·and not ready to receive a message from a
`
`24· ·transmitter?
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·So that's one of the functions of the RNR
`
`·2· ·command and one of its modes of operation.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·What's another function of the RNR
`
`·4· ·command?
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·So another function of the RNR command is
`
`·6· ·to contain within it the lost message indicating
`
`·7· ·that the sequence number of the -- the top of the
`
`·8· ·range of discarded packets.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q.· ·Sir, does AX.25 describe functionality of
`
`10· ·RNR that lists as top of sequence range of packets
`
`11· ·to be discarded?
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·As disclosed in Garrabrant, yes.
`
`13· · · · ·Q.· ·As disclosed in AX.25?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·As AX.25 is incorporated by reference
`
`15· ·into Garrabrant, reading AX.25 in the context of
`
`16· ·Garrabrant, the specification, Garrabrant teaches
`
`17· ·that the RNR command contains within it the lost
`
`18· ·message disclosed in Garrabrant.
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·Sir, I'm going to focus solely on AX.25
`
`20· ·for now.· Does AX.25 define an RNR command that
`
`21· ·describes the top of the range of discarded packets?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`23· · · · ·Q.· ·How so?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·Within the RNR command there is a field
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·that indicates the sequence number of the last
`
`·2· ·received packet according to the transmitter, and
`
`·3· ·that field then constrains the receiver to only look
`
`·4· ·for subsequent packets whose sequence number matches
`
`·5· ·or is greater than the sequence number transmitted
`
`·6· ·to it in the RNR command.
`
`·7· · · · ·Q.· ·And your testimony is what you've just
`
`·8· ·described is defined and described in AX.25.
`
`·9· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · MR. SHUMAKER:· Could you repeat that,
`
`11· ·please, his answer.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · (Record read.)
`
`13· · · · · · · BY MR. SHUMAKER:
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·And your understanding of the RNR
`
`15· ·command, as described in AX.25, is that's a command
`
`16· ·set from a transmitter to a receiver.· Is that
`
`17· ·correct?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·As described in AX.25, one of the uses of
`
`19· ·the RNR command is for it to be transmitted from the
`
`20· ·transmitter to the receiver.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·And your understanding of the AX.25 RNR
`
`22· ·command is it's a command from a transmitter to a
`
`23· ·receiver to tell the receiver which packets to
`
`24· ·ignore?
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·So as disclosed in AX.25, the RNR command
`
`·2· ·can be sent from the transmitter to the receiver
`
`·3· ·and, in that transmission, indicate to the receiver
`
`·4· ·the sequence number at the start of the range of
`
`·5· ·valid sequence numbers that the transmitter will
`
`·6· ·subsequently use.· And that indication tells the
`
`·7· ·receiver that sequence numbers below that number
`
`·8· ·have either been successfully received by the
`
`·9· ·transmitter or could potentially be discarded by the
`
`10· ·transmitter, and, as such, the receiver does not
`
`11· ·look for subsequent -- the receiver does not expect
`
`12· ·to receive sequence numbers below the sequence
`
`13· ·number included in the RNR command.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·So is it your testimony that the RNR
`
`15· ·command indicates information about packets that are
`
`16· ·waiting to be transmitted by the sender of the RNR
`
`17· ·command?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·So the RNR command in AX.25 has several
`
`19· ·uses, and one of those uses is to be used by the
`
`20· ·transmitter to transmit to the receiver.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·Transmit what to the receiver?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·To transmit the RNR command, including
`
`23· ·the sequence number of the -- of the last received
`
`24· ·packet at the transmitter, thereby indicating the
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·range of sequence numbers that the receiver should
`
`·2· ·not expect to receive.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "the last received
`
`·4· ·packet at the transmitter"?
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·So the transmitter indicates in the RNR
`
`·6· ·command a sequence number indicating to the receiver
`
`·7· ·that the transmitter does not expect to transmit a
`
`·8· ·packet using a sequence number equal to that
`
`·9· ·sequence number or below, that indication thereby
`
`10· ·communicating to the receiver that it should not
`
`11· ·expect to receive packets whose sequence number
`
`12· ·equals the sequence number in the RNR command or
`
`13· ·below.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·In your opinion, does the sequence number
`
`15· ·in the RNR command indicate information about any
`
`16· ·packets having a sequence number greater than that
`
`17· ·particular number?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·Since the RNR command communicates from
`
`19· ·the transmitter to the receiver, the range of
`
`20· ·sequence numbers that the transmitter does not
`
`21· ·expect to transmit subsequently to the receiver,
`
`22· ·then sequence numbers greater than the sequence
`
`23· ·number in the RNR command are valid sequence numbers
`
`24· ·for the receiver to receive.
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·In your situation, the transmitter
`
`·2· ·sending an RNR command to the receiver, what's the
`
`·3· ·status of the busy on parameter for the transmitter?
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·I'd have to see the document to recall
`
`·5· ·that.· I don't recall the details of that particular
`
`·6· ·field without looking at the document.
`
`·7· · · · ·Q.· ·It's true, is it not, that the RNR
`
`·8· ·represents a temporary busy condition in a receiver
`
`·9· ·due to a buffer being full?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·I'd have to look at that in the protocol
`
`11· ·to confirm that.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·And it's true, is it not, that a device
`
`13· ·that sends an RNR command sets its busy on variable?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·I'd have to look at the protocol document
`
`15· ·to confirm that.
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·And it's true when a device sends an RNR
`
`17· ·command and it sets its busy on variable that the
`
`18· ·device that sends the RNR command does not expect to
`
`19· ·receive any more packets?
`
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. DIENER:· Objection.
`
`21· · · · ·A.· ·I'd have to see the protocol document to
`
`22· ·confirm that.
`
`23· · · · ·Q.· ·And it's true, is it not, the device that
`
`24· ·sends an RNR command will not receive any more
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·packets until its busy on variable is turned off?
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · MR. DIENER:· Objection.
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·I don't remember those details off the
`
`·4· ·top of my head.· I'd have to see the protocol
`
`·5· ·document to confirm that.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q.· ·So as you sit here today, you don't --
`
`·7· ·you're not aware of any interaction between an RNR
`
`·8· ·command and a busy on variable.· Is that correct?
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. DIENER:· Objection.
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·I'd have to look at the protocol document
`
`11· ·to refresh my memory of those details.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·And it's true, is it not, that you
`
`13· ·included no details of the RNR command in any of
`
`14· ·your expert declarations in this case?
`
`15· · · · ·A.· ·I do discuss the RNR command in at least
`
`16· ·one declaration.
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·In your reply declaration, Exhibit 1022,
`
`18· ·in paragraph 4.· Is that correct?
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· It's mentioned there, yes.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Other than paragraph 4 of Exhibit 1022 of
`
`21· ·the IPR2013-00636 case, you do not discuss any
`
`22· ·details of an RNR command, do you?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·(Deponent viewing document.)· So in this
`
`24· ·reply declaration, Exhibit 1022, paragraph 4 is the
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·only place that I mention the RNR command.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q.· ·And you don't mention the RNR command in
`
`·3· ·any other declarations you filed in this case, do
`
`·4· ·you?
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·I don't recall whether or not I mentioned
`
`·6· ·the RNR command in my original declaration, for the
`
`·7· ·'625 patent.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·So as you sit here, you're not aware of
`
`·9· ·any other instance where you discuss the RNR command
`
`10· ·other than paragraph 4 of Exhibit 1022.· Is that
`
`11· ·correct?
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·It may have been mentioned in my original
`
`13· ·declaration.· I'm just not sure without looking at
`
`14· ·the declaration.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·But in your view, the RNR command is a
`
`16· ·control message that sends a lost message in
`
`17· ·Garrabrant.· Is that correct?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·So in my view, a transmitter could use a
`
`19· ·message such as the RNR control message to send a
`
`20· ·lost message.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·And Garrabrant, under your view, uses the
`
`22· ·RNR command to send a lost message, does it not?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Garrabrant discloses the sending of a
`
`24· ·lost message.· And as I mentioned in paragraph 4,
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi One, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`·1· ·the control message RNR can be used by the
`
`·2· ·transmitter to send that lost message.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·So in your view, Garrabrant uses the RNR
`
`·4· ·control message to send a lost message.· Is that
`
`·5· ·correct?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · MR. DIENER:· Objection.
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·But it is true, is it not, that
`
`·9· ·Garrabrant does not support the RNR command?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·What do you mean by "support"?
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·Does Garrabrant support the RNR command?
`
`12· · · · · · · · · MR. DIENER:· Objection.
`
`13· · · · ·A.· ·Garrabrant mentions the RNR command.· I
`
`14· ·don't know what you mean by "support."
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·I'd like to direct your attention to
`
`16· ·column 6, line 47.· It says, "In the present
`
`17· ·invention, the commands supported are SABM, DISC,
`
`18· ·TEST, I, RR, and XID."
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
