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
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` CASE IPR 2015-00717
`
` U.S. Patent 7,027,411
`
` _____________________________
`
` SERVICENOW, INC. )
`
` Petitioner )
`
` vs. )
`
` HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY )
`
` Patent Owner )
`
` _____________________________
`
` Videotaped Deposition of Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Washington, D.C.
`
` January 29, 2016
`
` 9:15 a.m.
`
` Reported by: Bonnie L. Russo
`
` Job No. 2221211
`
` PAGES 1 - 130
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`001
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` CASE IPR 2015-00717
`
` U.S. Patent 7,027,411
`
` _____________________________
`
` SERVICENOW, INC. )
`
` Petitioner )
`
` vs. )
`
` HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY )
`
` Patent Owner )
`
` _____________________________
`
` Videotaped Deposition of Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Washington, D.C.
`
` January 29, 2016
`
` 9:15 a.m.
`
` Reported by: Bonnie L. Russo
`
` Job No. 2221211
`
` PAGES 1 - 130
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`001
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Deposition of Daniel Menasce, Ph.D. held at:
`
` Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`
` Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
` 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`
` Washington, D.C.
`
` Pursuant to Notice, when were present on behalf
`
` of the respective parties:
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`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
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`002
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` APPEARANCES:
`
` On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
` MARK WEINSTEIN, Esq.
`
` COOLEY, LLP
`
` 3175 Hanover Street
`
` Palo Alto, California 94304
`
` 650-843-5808
`
` mweinstein@cooley.com
`
` On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` JOSEPH HAAG, Esq.
`
` WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
`
` 950 Page Mill Road
`
` Palo Alto, California 94304
`
` 650-858-6000
`
` joseph.haag@wilmerhale.com
`
` Also Present:
`
` Mikko Goodhill, Videographer
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`003
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
` EXAMINATION OF DANIEL MENASCE, Ph.D. PAGE
`
` BY MR. WEINSTEIN 6
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` (NONE)
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`004
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on
`
` record.
`
` Please note that the microphones are
`
` sensitive and can pick up whispering and
`
` private conversations. Please turn off all
`
` cell phones or place them away from the
`
` microphones as they can interfere with the
`
` deposition audio. Recording will continue
`
` until all parties agree to go off record.
`
` My name is Mikko Goodhill,
`
` representing Veritext.
`
` The date today is Friday, January
`
` 29th, 2016. And the time is approximately 9:19
`
` a.m.
`
` This deposition is being held at
`
` Wilmer Hale, located at 1875 Pennsylvania
`
` Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006, and
`
` is being taken by counsel for the petitioner.
`
` The caption of this case is
`
` ServiceNow, Inc., versus Hewlett-Packard
`
` Enterprise Company. The case is filed in the
`
` United States Patent and Trademark Office, case
`
` No. IPR 2015-00631.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`005
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` The name of the witness today is
`
` Daniel Menasce.
`
` At this time the attorneys --
`
` attorneys present in the room can identify
`
` themselves and the parties they represent.
`
` MR. HAAG: Joseph Haag from Wilmer
`
` Hale representing the patent owner,
`
` Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company.
`
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Mark Weinstein from
`
` Cooley, LLP, representing the petitioner,
`
` ServiceNow, Inc.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
`
` Our court reporter, Bonnie Russo,
`
` representing Veritext, will swear in the
`
` witness, and we can proceed.
`
` DANIEL MENASCE,
`
` being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the
`
` whole truth and nothing but the truth,
`
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
` BY MR. WEINSTEIN:
`
` Q. Good morning, sir.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Could you state your name for the
`
` record.
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`006
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` A. Daniel Alberto Menasce.
`
` Q. And are you currently employed --
`
` withdrawn.
`
` Would you prefer to be called Dr.
`
` Menasce or Mr. Menasce?
`
` A. Dr. Menasce.
`
` Q. Okay. Dr. Menasce, are you
`
` currently employed?
`
` A. I am.
`
` Q. Who's your current employer?
`
` A. George Mason University.
`
` Mr. Weinstein, I would please ask
`
` you to speak up a little bit more so I can hear
`
` you well.
`
` Q. Absolutely, yeah.
`
` A. Okay. Thank you very much.
`
` Q. No problem.
`
` Have you ever had your deposition
`
` taken before?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How many times?
`
` A. About eight to nine times.
`
` Q. Eight to nine times. Okay.
`
` When was the last time you were
`
` deposed in any matter?
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`007
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` A. Last year.
`
` Q. Last year. Okay.
`
` So I will briefly go over some of
`
` the -- the principles that govern these
`
` depositions even though you're probably
`
` familiar with them.
`
` You obviously understand this is a
`
` deposition, and you're under oath, correct?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. So everything you say here today has
`
` the same force and effect as if it were stated
`
` in -- in open court, correct?
`
` A. Yes. Correct.
`
` Q. Okay. If at any time during the
`
` deposition you don't understand a question that
`
` I'm asking, please let me know, and I can
`
` provide you with a clear question.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you taking any medication
`
` today that could affect the testimony that
`
` you're giving here today?
`
` A. No, I'm not.
`
` Q. Okay. And are you aware of any
`
` reason that you cannot give your best and most
`
` accurate testimony here today?
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 8
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`008
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` A. No. There's no reason.
`
` Q. Okay. So you said you'd been
`
` deposed eight or nine times in the past.
`
` Was that in -- in the context of
`
` expert witness engagements you had?
`
` A. Expert witness engagements. That's
`
` correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Understood.
`
` Sir, I see you have before you a
`
` copy of your declaration in this case. If at
`
` any time you need to refer to any portion of
`
` your declaration to answer a question I'm --
`
` I'm going to pro- -- ask you, feel free to do
`
` so. I'm not going to hide your declaration
`
` from you or prevent you from seeing it in any
`
` -- any way.
`
` In fact, I'm going to actually go
`
` through the paragraphs num- -- sequentially and
`
` ask you specific questions about them.
`
` Does that -- that make sense?
`
` A. It makes sense to me.
`
` Q. Okay. So with that in mind -- well,
`
` turning to your declaration -- we might as well
`
` just get right into it -- let's start with
`
` Paragraph 26 and 27 of your declaration, which
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`009
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` is on Page 12.
`
` A. I'm here.
`
` Q. Thank you, sir.
`
` So, Dr. Menasce, since the
`
` preparation of your declaration, are there any
`
` other materials that you've reviewed relevant
`
` to your opinions in this case?
`
` A. I don't think so.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I don't think so.
`
` Q. Before you prepared your
`
` declaration, you obviously reviewed the
`
` declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian, correct?
`
` A. The dec- -- yes. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you have an opportunity
`
` to review the transcript of Dr. Lavian's
`
` deposition taken in this matter?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you review that
`
` transcript before you prepared your declaration
`
` in this case?
`
` A. I don't remember.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Don't remember.
`
` Q. Could have been before; could have
`
`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
`
`Page 10
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`010
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` been after?
`
` A. Yeah. I don't -- I don't quite
`
` remember.
`
` Q. Okay. So on Paragraph 29 you say:
`
` "I am not an attorney."
`
` That's -- that's -- that's obviously
`
` a correct statement, correct?
`
` A. It is. I'm not an attorney.
`
` Q. Do you have any legal training at
`
` all?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. So the opinions you're
`
` providing in this case are in the context of a
`
` technical expert, correct?
`
` A. Tech- -- yes. I am a technical
`
` expert. Correct.
`
` Q. Okay. So the understanding of the
`
` law that you've provided was provided to you by
`
` the -- the attorneys for the patent owner in
`
` this case, right?
`
` A. Yes. They were provided by the
`
` attorneys. And I've been doing this type of
`
` work for about 13 years. So over this period,
`
` I've -- I've -- you know, I've learned about
`
` all of this legal framework, and so -- but yes,
`
`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
`
`Page 11
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`011
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` definitely the attorneys provided that to me.
`
` And -- and I -- and I understood it, and it
`
` made a lot of sense because of my experience in
`
` these type of cases.
`
` Q. Okay. Fair enough.
`
` When is the first time you did a
`
` case involving a patent infringement in which
`
` you served as an expert?
`
` A. I can look at my CV, which is here,
`
` and I can tell you exactly. I remember the
`
` first -- actually, I think it was like 13 years
`
` ago.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. But I can tell you by looking.
`
` So it was a case that started in
`
` September 2002 and ended in April of 2000 --
`
` 2003.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank --
`
` A. About 12 years -- 12, 13 years ago.
`
` Q. Thank you.
`
` Prior to your work on this matter --
`
` and by "this matter" I'm including this matter
`
` and the -- the litigation -- have you ever done
`
` any work for Hewlett-Packard?
`
` A. No. No. That was first time.
`
`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
`
`Page 12
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`012
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Q. Okay. And by "Hewlett-Packard," I'm
`
` including all of their affiliates that you're
`
` aware of.
`
` So as far as you know, you hadn't
`
` done any work for HP prior to the dispute
`
` for -- with ServiceNow, correct?
`
` A. No. You're right. That's the first
`
` time.
`
` Q. Okay. On Paragraph 34 you have a
`
` statement regarding claim construction.
`
` A. Let me take a look.
`
` Q. If you could read Paragraph 34 to
`
` yourself, and let me know when you're finished.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So -- so you understand that, in
`
` connection with a patent invalidity analysis,
`
` that the claims of the patent must be
`
` construed, correct?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. And in doing that, a court, or in
`
` this case the board, has to apply certain
`
` principles that govern how those claims should
`
` be construed, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. What is your understanding of -- of
`
`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
`
`Page 13
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`013
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` what those principles are, in your own words?
`
` MR. HAAG: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, it's exactly
`
` what I have in my -- my declaration, you know,
`
` in Paragraph 34 which you refer to, that in an
`
` inter partes review, the claims should be given
`
` the broadest reasonable interpretation in light
`
` of the specification.
`
` BY MR. WEINSTEIN:
`
` Q. Okay. Now, in coming up with that
`
` broadest reasonable interpretation, the board
`
` can rely on certain materials to decide the
`
` claim meaning, correct?
`
` A. I have no idea how the board comes
`
` up with the board's interpretation.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I have no idea what -- what -- I
`
` have no idea about what method the board uses.
`
` Q. Okay. But as far as the -- putting
`
` the board aside, do you have an understanding
`
` of the -- the legal methodology that's employed
`
` to come up with the broadest reasonable
`
` interpretation for a patent claim?
`
` A. Well, like I said before, I'm not an
`
` attorney. But my understanding is that, first
`
`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
`
`Page 14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`014
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` of all, one would look at the plain language of
`
` the claims. Then one would -- you know, one
`
` would look at the specification and -- and all
`
` of that from the point of view of a person of
`
` ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
` invention. And, if necessary, one would look
`
` at external sources as well.
`
` Q. Okay. Now, in terms of the
`
` relevance of the patent specification as
`
` compared to external sources, do you have an
`
` understanding of which one of those sources is
`
` generally more relevant than the other, if any?
`
` A. My understanding is that the patent
`
` specification is more relevant than external
`
` sources.
`
` Q. Okay. Now, in Paragraph 39 -- if
`
` you could read Paragraph 39 to yourself, and
`
` let me know when you're completed with that.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Yes, I'm done.
`
` Q. Prior to your work in this case,
`
` were you aware of the '300 patent?
`
` A. No, I wasn't.
`
` Q. Okay. And -- and next to you is a
`
` copy of the '300 patent, which is Exhibit 1001
`
`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
`
`Page 15
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`015
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` of ServiceNow's petition.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. If you could look at the list of
`
` inventors on the face of that, and let me know
`
` when you've had a chance to familiarize with
`
` that.
`
` A. Yes, I'm done.
`
` Q. Prior to your work on this case,
`
` were you familiar with any of the inventors
`
` listed on the '300 patent?
`
` A. No, I was not.
`
` Q. So were you aware of any of the work
`
` of any of those inventors?
`
` A. No, I was not.
`
` Q. Okay. Let's turn to Page 16 of your
`
` declaration and Paragraph 41.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. In Paragraph 41 there's a bullet
`
` point listing the prior art references for
`
` Ground 1 instituted by the board.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Prior to your work on this case,
`
` were you aware of the Matheny reference?
`
` A. I was not.
`
`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
`
`Page 16
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`016
`
`
`
`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
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Q. Were you aware of the Harold
`
` reference?
`
` A. No, I was not.
`
` Q. Were you aware of the Hamner
`
` reference?
`
` A. No, I wasn't.
`
` Q. Were you aware of the Pitt
`
` reference?
`
` A. No, I wasn't.
`
` Q. Let's -- let's go to Paragraph 49 of
`
` your declaration, which is on Page 19.
`
` A. Do you want me to read the
`
` paragraph?
`
` Q. Yeah. You can read the paragraph to
`
` yourself.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And let me know when you've -- when
`
` you've had a chance to familiarize yourself
`
` with it.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. So the mat- -- the external sources
`
` that you cite in this paragraph -- let me go
`
` through them one at a time.
`
` The "Microsoft Computer Dictionary"
`
` that's cited in Paragraph 49, do you see that?
`
`Page 17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`017
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Was that a reference that you
`
` located, or was it a reference that was located
`
` by counsel and provided to you?
`
` A. I'm familiar with this dictionary.
`
` I don't recall if the version that I work with
`
` in the past was that edition --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- the 5th edition. I don't
`
` remember.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. And the -- the same answer would
`
` apply to the "Random House Webster's Computer
`
` and Internet Dictionary"?
`
` A. I believe I have used that in the
`
` past, but I don't recall if that's the same
`
` edition, yeah.
`
` Q. Understood?
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. And then the Sydow reference,
`
` S-Y-D-O-W, which is referenced on the top of
`
` Page 20 -- do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Were you familiar with Sydow prior
`
`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
`
`Page 18
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`018
`
`
`
`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
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` to your work on this case?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. So was Sydow provided to you
`
` by counsel for patent owner in this case?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Prior to your work on this
`
` case, had you ever done any programming for the
`
` Apple Macintosh environment?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. Now, looking at Paragraph 51, if you
`
` could read that paragraph to yourself, and let
`
` me know when you've had a chance to fam- --
`
` familiarize yourself with it.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Okay.
`
` Q. Thank you.
`
` On top of Page 21 there is a
`
` reference to the Wang article.
`
` A. Yes, I see that.
`
` Q. In connection with the preparation
`
` of your declaration, was that an article that
`
` you identified, or -- or was it identified by
`
` counsel for you?
`
` A. I identified that -- that article.
`
` Q. Okay. So you were -- were you aware
`
`Page 19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`019
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` of the Wang article prior to your work on this
`
` case?
`
` A. No. I found it --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- when I was working on -- on this
`
` case.
`
` Q. Understood. Okay.
`
` And then Paragraph 52 I'll ask the
`
` same series of questions about the Tanenbaum
`
` reference that's cited in Paragraph 52.
`
` Was that a reference that you
`
` located in connection with your declaration, or
`
` was it provided to you by counsel?
`
` A. No. Actually, I was very familiar
`
` with this reference, actually. I -- I own that
`
` book, yeah.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Because I -- I teach operating
`
` systems regularly, so that's one of -- of the
`
` books that is very well known in the field, and
`
` it's used as a textbook.
`
` Q. Okay. So the portions of Tanenbaum
`
` cited in Paragraph 52 of your declaration, were
`
` those portions that you identified yourself?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`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
`
`Page 20
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`020
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Q. Okay. Now, just to jump back, let's
`
` talk about Paragraph 49. I want to ask you a
`
` question about a statement in -- in your
`
` declaration about of Internet systems.
`
` A. I'm sorry. 49? Yes.
`
` Q. 49, yes, Page 19.
`
` A. Yes. Okay.
`
` Q. So The second sentence says: "An
`
` event can occur at any time, i.e., it is
`
` unpredictable, and will be detected or received
`
` by a specific mechanism, such as a software
`
` listener, watcher, or by using a hardware
`
` interrupt."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Uh-huh. I do.
`
` Q. Is it your testimony that all events
`
` in computer science are unpredictable?
`
` A. Well, in general, yes, they are
`
` unpredictable. I mean the whole purpose of
`
` having events and event detection and even
`
` notification and event processing is that you
`
` don't really know when an event will happen;
`
` you -- you don't know if it will happen. But
`
` you have to be prepared in case that event
`
` happens.
`
`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
`
`Page 21
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`021
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` So when an event happens, it has to
`
` be notified. So a notification has to be
`
` generated so that it can trigger a response.
`
` And -- and that means that you have to have
`
` some mechanism that will be able to respond to
`
` a specific event.
`
` That's a very well known term in
`
` computer science, a very well known concept in
`
` computer science.
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` But my question is is there such
`
` thing as an event that occurs at a regular
`
` interval?
`
` A. Well, you -- you -- you could have
`
` maybe programmed events. But what -- even in
`
` those cases, when the event happens, even if --
`
` if it was programmed ahead of time, the
`
` notification that the event actually happened
`
` will have to be sent to the part of the system
`
` that will respond to that event.
`
` So I can give you an example of that
`
` if you want. Suppose that you set a timer to
`
` occur in five seconds. Okay? So -- and -- and
`
` the timer is one of the mechanisms within the
`
` hardware.
`
`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
`
`Page 22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`022
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` Now, when the timer goes to zero,
`
` which is, you know, at a specific time
`
` interval, after five seconds, then the op- --
`
` the -- the hardware will just set an interrupt
`
` saying that the timer expired.
`
` Now, it will take some time for the
`
` operating system to catch the fact that the
`
` timer expired. It doesn't do it immediately
`
` because the operating system is busy maybe
`
` handling other interrupts or doing other tasks.
`
` So aft- -- when the operating system is capable
`
` and able to process that timer event interrupt,
`
` it will do so.
`
` So it's not necessarily the case
`
` that it will treat that event or process that
`
` event immediately as soon as it happens. I
`
` mean the event will happen, a notification is
`
` posted, and the mechanism that treats that --
`
` that event will then process that event
`
` whenever it is available for doing that.
`
` Q. Okay. Let's -- let me put aside
`
` processing of the event and just talk about the
`
` -- the occurrence of the event.
`
` An example of a timer event, that
`
` would occur at a regular interval, correct?
`
`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
`
`Page 23
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`023
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` A. Not -- not -- not necessarily. You
`
` can just set the timer for let's say five
`
` seconds. And -- and once the timer expires,
`
` that -- that's it. It -- it's not necessary
`
` [sic] going to be reset again for another five
`
` seconds. It -- it really depends.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about --
`
` let's talk about -- are you familiar with the
`
` term "timer interrupt"?
`
` A. Yes, I am.
`
` Q. Okay. Do computers issue periodic
`
` timer interrupts that are generated by the
`
` clock?
`
` A. Well, it depends on periodic --
`
` computers do generate events that are timer
`
` interrupts but not necessarily periodic.
`
` Periodic means that it's at regular time
`
` intervals.
`
` But, for example, you know, if you
`
` have a multiprogrammed computer system, once
`
` the operating system dispatches a process, it
`
` will set a timer to say, "Well, you cannot run
`
` for more than a hundred milliseconds." But it
`
` could happen that the process will be suspended
`
` before that because it needs an IO. In -- in
`
`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
`
`Page 24
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`024
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` that case, the timer will not run to the 100
`
` millisecond period.
`
` So it's not necessarily that it is
`
` periodic in the sense that we understand
`
` periodic in computer science.
`
` Q. Do you know of any computer system
`
` that generates timer interrupts at regular
`
` timer intervals?
`
` A. Yes. There -- there could be some
`
` systems.
`
` Q. And when you say "could be," do you
`
` know of any personally?
`
` A. No. I mean I -- I -- there -- there
`
` are some realtime systems in which you have
`
` what's called periodic tasks. But these are
`
` typically systems that control critical mission
`
` systems or -- you know, for example, in -- in
`
` nuclear plant or, you know, where things have
`
` to happen at specific time periods.
`
` So -- and -- and in realtime systems
`
` you typically have hard deadlines. And in
`
` those systems it's more common to see this type
`
` of periodicity that you're talking about.
`
` Q. Let's take a -- let's take a -- a
`
` more simple example, the IBM PC personal
`
`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
`
`Page 25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`025
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` computer.
`
` You're familiar with that computer,
`
` correct?
`
` A. The -- The Apple computer?
`
` Q. The IBM PC.
`
` A. IBM PC, yes. Sure. Sure.
`
` Q. That's been around since at least
`
` the 1980s, correct?
`
` A. Yeah. Right. Right.
`
` Q. Do you know of any mechanism in the
`
` IBM PC personal computer -- withdrawn.
`
` In the IBM PC personal computer, you
`
` would agree that, prior to the filing of the
`
` patent, there were millions of them sold,
`
` correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Probably even hundreds of millions,
`
` correct?
`
` A. Yeah, I don't know the exact number,
`
` but a lot.
`
` Q. Yeah.
`
` A. Certainly a lot.
`
` Q. Do you know if the IBM PC personal
`
` computer generated a timer interrupt at a
`
` regular time interval?
`
`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
`
`Page 26
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`026
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` A. It probably did. But the question
`
` is whether those time interrupts were processed
`
` or had any meaning to the operating system. So
`
` basically all the interrupts generated by
`
` hardware are typically processed by the
`
` operating system.
`
` So the operating system may decide
`
` to just ignore specific timer interrupt because
`
` it's not relevant at that point in time or
`
` because there are some other more pressing
`
` events that need to be treated, higher priority
`
` events.
`
` Q. But you're talking about the
`
` processing of the event. I'm talking about the
`
` generation of the event in the first instance.
`
` You would agree that there are
`
` computer systems out there prior to the filing
`
` of the patent that did generate timer events at
`
` regular time intervals, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And those regular time intervals
`
` would have been predictable, correct?
`
` A. Would have been what, predictable?
`
` Q. Predictable.
`
` A. They would have been predictable in
`
`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
`
`Page 27
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`027
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` the sense that the interrupt -- if you program
`
` the interrupt that way, to happen at -- you
`
` know, at regular time intervals, you could
`
` predict that the timer would elapse at some
`
` specific time.
`
` Now, if you have -- for example, if
`
` the operating system had masked interrupts,
`
` which is -- which is one of the things that the
`
` operating system can do, it may not see that
`
` interrupt. So the -- the timer would elapse,
`
` but the operating system would just ignore it
`
` for several reasons like I mentioned before,
`
` there are some other pressing tasks of higher
`
` priority.
`
` Q. The generation -- in a system in
`
` which the hardware generates a timer interrupt
`
` at regular time intervals, the generation of
`
` the interrupt is entirely predictable, isn't
`
` it?
`
` A. In your example, yes.
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. But in -- in -- in most -- in most
`
` examples, in most common cases in computer
`
` science, events are unpredictable because
`
` that's -- that's the nature.
`
`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
`
`Page 28
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1012
`IPR2015-00631
`
`028
`
`
`
`Daniel Menasce, Ph.D.
`
` For example, in networking, events
`
` are -- are unpredictable. You know, majority
`
` of -- of events that you need to handle in
`
` computer networking are unpredictable.
`
` Q. So the majority. But -- but let me
`
` understand this.
`
` So -- so it's not your testimony
`
` that every event in computer science is
`
` unpredictable, correct?
`
` A. What I'm saying is that they a
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
