`
`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."