10/21/2015
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
