`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`GOOGLE INC., )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case No. IPR2015-00657
` v. ) (US Patent 6,286,045)
` )
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' ) Case No. IPR2015-00662
`LIQUIDATING TRUST ) (US Patent 6,014,698)
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`______________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF PETER KENT
`
` Wednesday, October 21, 2015
` Washington, D.C.
` Reported by: Lori J. Goodin, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` Realtime Systems Administrator
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`GOOG 1031
`Google Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`IPR2015-00662
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
` The deposition of PETER KENT was
`convened on Wednesday, October 21, 2015,
`commencing at 8:58 a.m., at the offices of
`
`Page 2
`
` Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
` 1100 New York Avenue
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Before Lori J. Goodin, Registered Professional
`Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter, Certified
`Realtime Reporter, Realtime Systems Administrator,
`and Notary Public in and for the District of
`Columbia.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES
`
`For Petitioner Google, Inc.:
` MICHELLE K. HOLOUBEK, Esquire
` MICHAEL V. MESSINGER, Esquire
` ZHU HE, Esquire
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` 202-371-2600
` holoubek@skgf.com
` mikem@skgf.com
` zhe@skgf.com
`
`For Petitioner Google, Inc.:
` EMILY O'BRIEN, Patent Litigation Counsel
` GOOGLE, INC.
` 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
` Mountain View, California 94043
` emilyobrien@google.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 4
`
` APPEARANCES CONTINUED
`
`For Petitioner Google, Inc.:
` MATTHIAS A. KAMBER, Esquire
` KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
` 633 Battery Street
` San Francisco, California 94111
` 415-773-6635
` mkamber@kvn.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
` GARLAND T. STEPHENS, Esquire
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
` 700 Louisiana
` Houston, Texas 77002
` 713-546-5011
` garland.stephens@weil.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
` CONTENTS
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`Mr. Stephens 6
`
`Page 5
`
` EXHIBITS
`NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 666-1003 Peter Kent's declaration
` in '698 patent, 666 IPR
` Proceeding 6
`Exhibit 1012 Angles' declaration 90
`Exhibit 2009 Williamson's material opposing 168
` Google's IPR request
`Exhibit 1008 August 1996 draft of HTTP spec 176
`Exhibit 1013 Merriman patent 195
`Exhibit 1016 Simple Hit Metering for HTTP, 201
` preliminary draft, by Mr. Leach
` and Mr. Mogul, 7/22/99
`Exhibit 2007 CGI Programming by O'Reilly 206
` Associates
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` PETER KENT,
`a witness called for examination, having been
`first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
`follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Kent.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Thank you for coming today.
` A. You are welcome.
` Q. I'm going to start with an exhibit,
`and we were just talking about this off the
`record. We are going to mark this one 666-1003,
`with a dash in between.
` (Exhibit Number 666-1003
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. The court reporter has just handed
`you Exhibit 666-1003. Do you recognize that?
` A. I do.
` Q. What is that?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. It is my declaration on the '698
`patent.
` Q. Okay. And that is the one that was
`filed in the 666 IPR proceeding; is that correct?
` A. It, probably.
` Q. Okay. You have filed more than one
`declaration for the '698 patent; is that right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And, I guess, the easiest thing for
`me is just to represent to you that that is the
`one that is associated with 666.
` A. Sure.
` Q. You don't have any reason to
`disagree with that, right?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. I notice that some parts of
`your declaration for the '698 patent in
`particular were the same and some were different,
`some parts of it?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Can you explain that?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Can you tell me what you are
`referring to?
` Q. Well, so, for example, it seems to
`me you have some common sections that talk about,
`for example, the background of the patent, the
`background of the prior art references that you
`rely on.
` Those seem to be essentially the
`same across the different declarations.
` And then you have separate sections
`that address the specific claims at issue in each
`IPR, is that a reasonable characterization of
`your declarations?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I think that is
` correct.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. And then each declaration has
`attached to it a number of charts, right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Could you explain what the reason
`for those charts is?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. To further clarify the evidence
`related to particular claims and limitations.
` Q. Okay. Now, for each claim in each
`chart, you have reproduced limitations on the
`left side of the chart and then in the same row
`you have quotations and citations and commentary;
`is that right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Is it your intention that the PTAB
`can rely on those charts as an explanation for
`your reasoning of where each limitation is found
`in the prior art in your opinion?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I guess I'm not quite
` sure what you are asking there.
` I mean, it is my declaration and it
` has information about different claims and
` responses to those claims. And that
` information is in the body of the report and
` the charts.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. But I'm just trying to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 10
`understand if all of the prior art that you are
`relying on for each limitation of each claim is
`set forth in the charts.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Are you asking whether
` I might have mentioned something in the body
` of the report and it didn't find its way into
` the chart. Is that what you are asking me?
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. No. I'm asking if all of the bases
`for your opinions about the validity of each
`claim are found in the charts.
` A. Basis of the validity.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, wouldn't that be
` the same as having something in the body but
` not in the chart? I'm not -- I'm not quite
` sure I understand the distinction.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Yes, I don't think so. I mean, for
`example, I don't think your, some of your
`experience and the like is necessarily a basis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`for your opinion.
` So, there are things at least, I
`think maybe you disagree with me, please say so
`if you do, that there are things in the body of
`your declarations which don't necessarily impact
`directly on the validity of a particular claim.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. You said
` my experience is not a basis for my
` conclusions?
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Let me withdraw that question and
`let's just turn to your charts.
` A. Okay.
` Q. If you would, sir, turn to Page 81,
`of 666-1003.
` And there is a, that is the
`beginning of the chart. I guess the chart
`actually begins on Page 80; is that right?
` A. The cover to the chart, the title is
`on 80, isn't it.
` Q. Yes. And it says Appendix A Angles
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Merriman, HTTP 1.0 chart.
` A. Correct.
` Q. And the chart in Appendix A reflects
`your opinions concerning how to map the Angles,
`Merriman and HTTP 1.0 references onto the claim,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So, the first claim which starts on
`Page 81 is Claim 17 of if '698 patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the 17.P there refers to the
`preamble of that claim; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. For the things recited in the
`Preamble of Claim 17 of the '698 patent, you have
`identified things that are in Google Exhibit 1012
`which is the Angles reference; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you have also identified or
`commented about the '698 patent itself in that
`section, correct?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 13
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I commented
` about the, I mean this is all about the '698
` patent.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Fair enough. Let me put it
`differently. The only references that you cite
`for the Preamble of Claim 17 are Exhibit 1012,
`the Angles reference, and the '698 patent itself.
`Correct?
` A. Maybe --
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That may be correct.
` Let me take a look. For the preamble I'm
` citing Angles. I think that is correct.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. So, you are not -- I'm sorry,
`go ahead.
` A. No, I was saying it is what it is.
`Whatever is in the table here, is what it is.
` Q. Could you just confirm for me that
`the only things you cite for the Preamble of
`Claim 17 are the Angles reference and the '698
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`patent itself?
` A. Skipping through here, it seems that
`way. 1001, is that the '698? Let's see if there
`is any Angles.
` Yes, it appears that way.
` Q. Okay. So then it is your opinion
`that all of the things that are recited in the
`Preamble of Claim 17 are found in the Angles
`reference; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you don't cite the knowledge of
`one of ordinary skill in the art for any of those
`parts of the preamble, correct?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you
` mean by that.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. So, for example, in some limitations
`which you will see, you say a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would know something about the
`art that would then lead them to understand that
`the route, that the things that are recited in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the claim are present in the prior art.
` A. Okay.
` Q. You don't do that in the preamble,
`correct?
` A. I tell you what, without sitting
`here reading it, I will take your word for that,
`but I haven't said that in that part of the text.
` Q. Take your time and read it and tell
`me if you are relying on the knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill in the art for anything in the
`Preamble of Claim 17 of the '698 patent.
` A. Well, wait a second. Even if I
`don't say, even if I don't specifically mention
`one skilled in the art here, the whole
`declaration is written in light of one skilled in
`the art.
` Q. I understand that.
` A. Okay, okay. Okay. I don't see an
`explicit citing of one skilled in the art.
` Q. Okay. So it is your opinion, then,
`as reflected in the chart, that everything is
`found in Angles, everything in the Preamble of
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 16
`Claim 17 of the '698 patent is found in Angles,
`correct?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what the
` chart seems to state.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. So you are not relying on,
`for example, Merriman for anything in the
`Preamble of Claim 17 for the '698 patent.
` A. Correct.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. And the same is true for the
`HTTP 1.0 specification, right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Correct. I'm not
` citing that in the preamble.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. So, when it says, "Wherein
`the banner is stored in one or more servers
`connected to the computer network."
` The banner is disclosed in Angles in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`your opinion, right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Where are you saying.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. About halfway down the preamble on
`the first page of the chart, Page 81 of your
`declaration.
` A. One or more servers connected to the
`computer network. Angles does, I think I know
`where you are going with this. And Angles does
`discuss having banners stored on a server.
` Q. Okay. And those are the banners
`that meet this recitation of banner in the claim,
`right? In your opinion?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: So, on Page 82 it
` says, "The advertisement computer may send
` the customized advertisement to the consumer
` computer."
` So, that would be a banner stored on
` a server.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 18
` Q. And that is the banner stored on the
`server of the preamble, right?
` A. Yes, the preamble, and the preamble
`says, "Distributing a banner over a network to a
`client device wherein the banner is stored in one
`or more servers connected to the computer network."
` So, where Angles discusses sending
`the customized advertisement to the consumer
`computer, then in that context that would be
`coming from the advertisement computer or another
`server it points to.
` Q. I'm sorry, another server that what
`points to?
` A. That the advertisement computer
`points to.
` Q. Okay. The only server you identify,
`though, for storing the banner in your chart is
`the server in Angles, right? The advertising
`computer?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon?
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 19
` Q. The only server you identify for the
`preamble in your chart that we are looking at
`here is the advertisement computer at Angles,
`right?
` A. Are you referring to that statement
`where it says, "The advertisement computer may
`send the customized advertisement to the consumer
`computer."
` Are you referring to that statement?
` Q. Yes. The one you identified just a
`moment ago.
` A. I would read that, I think that
`could be read two ways. I think it could mean
`the ad is sitting on the same box and is sent to
`the consumer. Or it could mean, it could be
`sitting in another box but the ad computer is
`defining, is sending it, sending it from itself,
`it is sending it from that box, it is sending it
`from that box. I think that is a broad
`statement.
` Q. Okay. Where in that preamble --
`excuse me, preamble row of Appendix A of 666-1003
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`exhibit, do you identify another server, other
`than the advertising computer?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Just show me where it is.
` A. Where in the preamble itself of
`the --
` Q. In the row, corresponding to the
`preamble in your chart, in your declaration, in
`666-1003, where do you identify another server?
` A. Where do I --
` Q. Besides the advertising computer.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I fully
` understand the question. I mean, we have,
` so, I have the preamble here.
` The preamble says that it could come
` from the banner stored in one or more servers
` connected to the computer network. And we
` have Angles, and I say that Angles, you know,
` I refer to the advertisement computer may be
` sending something. So that could be coming,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` so, the advertising computer is a server
` connected to the computer network, so that is
` mentioned right there.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. Nothing else? Are you
`finished your answer?
` A. Unless you have another question.
` Q. Well, I just was asking if you
`finished the answer to that question.
` A. Yes, I think, if that answers your
`question, then I have finished the answer.
` Q. Okay. One other question, I don't
`want to mislead you. I do see you refer to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art recognizing
`that an HTML document served by a web server and
`transferred using the HTTP protocol is a web
`page. Do you see that, on Page 83?
` A. I might have missed that as I have
`skipped that -- let me see. 82, 83. What am I
`doing?
` Q. It is about halfway down the page,
`just before the counting display?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 22
` A. Oh, a POSA. I missed that as I was
`skipping through, okay.
` Q. So is it fair to say then that for
`the preamble, it is your opinion as expressed in
`your declaration that the things that are recited
`in the Preamble of Claim 17 of the '698 patent
`are found in Angles, and the knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art that an HTML
`document served by a web server and transferred
`using the HTTP protocol is a web page?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That was a long
` question. Sorry. There were two parts, the
` first part was does Angles cover the
` preamble.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. I'm just trying to understand the
`basis for your opinion as you have expressed it
`in your declaration.
` A. Uh-huh, okay.
` Q. And it is, and that basis is that
`everything recited in the Preamble of Claim 17 of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 23
`the '698 patent is found either in Angles, or in
`that mention of the knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art about halfway down
`Page 83; is that right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I guess I don't
` understand the distinction.
` One skilled in the art knows that an
` HTML document served by a web server is a web
` page. That is just, that is kind of stating
` the obvious.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. So, let me maybe give you a little
`background about what I'm trying to do here
`because maybe it will help with you understanding
`my questions and hopefully speed things up a bit.
` You've expressed the opinion in your
`declaration that Claim 17 is obvious in light of
`Angles, Merriman and HTTP 1.0 in light of
`knowledge of person of ordinary skill in the art,
`right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 24
` THE WITNESS: I have stated in here
` that Angles covers, we are talking about, now
` you have expanded it to Merriman and HTTP.
` But, we were talking in the preamble, we were
` just talking about Angles.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Yes, that's right. So, let me just
`back up, and I just want, I'm not going to ask
`you a question, I'm going to try to tell you what
`I'm going to do.
` I'm going to go through the claims
`and find out for each limitation and preamble,
`whether your opinion is that that limitation is
`found entirely in Angles, entirely in Merriman,
`entirely in HTTP 1.0 or if it is in the
`combination of those things, which portion comes
`from which. That is what I would like to do.
` So, you sometimes mention only one
`thing and those I think are easier.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And sometimes you mention two
`things, and that is where we are going to have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`to, I think, tease it apart a bit more.
` But in the first instance I would
`just like to find out for each limitation what
`reference, or, what knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art you are relying on as
`disclosing or showing that that particular
`limitation or preamble was known.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection,
` argumentative.
` MR. STEPHENS: Understood. It
` wasn't a question, even.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. So is it fair to say, then,
`that for the preamble, you are relying on Angles
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
`in the art described in the last sentence before
`Counting Display on Page 83?
` A. So, I hope this isn't too
`long-winded.
` Obviously we have two things going
`on here. We have the technical knowledge, which
`is why I am here, and we have the legal
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 26
`maneuverings, the legal technicalities. So, if I
`look at Angles, I see it all there.
` However, it is my understanding that
`everything has to be stated very explicitly. And
`Angles, I guess, I don't recall without looking
`at it, but doesn't necessarily use the term web
`page. And, therefore, we have to say from a
`legal standpoint, I mean a person skilled in the
`art would never think of this because it is
`obviously in Angles, but from a legal standpoint
`we then have to say ah, but, Angles, uses these
`words and these words one skilled in the art
`would know mean a web page. Am I correct so far?
` Q. I, I don't think I could say whether
`you are correct or not. It is your declaration.
` A. Okay. So, no, I mean, in my sort of
`assessment of the legal issues versus the
`technical issues. I think, that is the way I
`read it.
` And, so, we have this statement.
`Web pages are in Angles, quite clearly from a
`technical standpoint, but from a legal standpoint
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 27
`perhaps they are not, and we have to actually say
`when Angles uses the term an HTML document served
`by a web server transferred using HTTP, that is a
`web page.
` So, so, the preamble is covered by
`Angles, and we've got this little legal caveat
`saying, okay, if we don't see the words web pages
`inside Angles, one skilled in the art would know
`they're there.
` Q. Okay. Thank you. Now let's go to
`Limitation 17.1A which starts at the very bottom
`of Page 85 of Exhibit 666-1003.
` A. Mixed up here.
` Q. And for Element 17.1A I only see
`references to Angles; is that correct?
` A. Let me look again. Yes, it appears
`that way.
` Q. Okay. So, the first banner requests
`signal from the device to a server requesting
`that a banner be served to the client device, in
`your opinion is all found in Angles.
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then 17.1B beginning on Page 87
`of your declaration in Exhibit 666-1003,
`references Angles again, and some knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, 87, yes.
` Correct.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. And you are not relying on
`Merriman or HTTP 1.0 for anything in
`Limitation 17.1B. Right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That seems correct.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. And then 17.2, I see
`references to Angles and to Merriman, and to
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art. Right?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: We've got Angles,
` we've got Merriman, we have 2, and 3.
` Okay.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Is that right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. So, it is your opinion, then,
`that everything in 17.2 is found in the
`combination of Angles, Merriman and the knowledge
`of one of ordinary skill in the art; is that
`right?
` A. Yes.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. And then 17.3, I see Angles, and
`Merriman, and HTTP 1.0 in a reference to the
`understanding of a person of skill in the art; is
`that right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That, that's correct.
` Excuse me.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. And then the last limitation,
`17.4 on Page 96, you rely on just Angles,
`correct?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. So, let's go back, I would
`like to go back to the claim now and parse it a
`little bit more finely.
` For 17.1P, the preamble, you
`reproduce Figure 4 from Angles on Page 85, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you label the parts of that
`figure that correspond to various things recited
`in the preamble; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. So, the server there is the server
`of the preamble, right?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Google, Inc. v. At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Peter Kent
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. So, is that where the banner is
`stored?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Angles allows the
` banner to be stored in multiple places.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. And those places are the
`server or the Advertising Storage Medium 44; is
`that right?
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Though, well, without
` checking, you know, without reading the
` patent again, it is a server, I think, and
` the advertising storage medium on the
` consumer computer.
`BY MR. STEPHENS:
` Q. Okay. So, for the preamble, which
`recites a banner is stored in one or more server
`computers, excuse me, one or more servers
`
`www.Di