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
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` - - - -
`
` SERVICENOW, INC.,
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
` - - - -
`
` DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D.,
`
`a witness, called by the Petitioner for examination,
`
`in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, taken by and before JoAnn M. Brown, RMR,
`
`CRR, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for
`
`the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at the Doubletree
`
`by Hilton, 500 Mansfield Avenue, Pittsburgh,
`
`Pennsylvania, on Friday, January 22, 2016,
`
`commencing at 9:59 a.m.
`
`PAGES 1 - 63
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`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
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` - - - -
`
` SERVICENOW, INC.,
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
` - - - -
`
` DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D.,
`
`a witness, called by the Petitioner for examination,
`
`in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, taken by and before JoAnn M. Brown, RMR,
`
`CRR, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for
`
`the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at the Doubletree
`
`by Hilton, 500 Mansfield Avenue, Pittsburgh,
`
`Pennsylvania, on Friday, January 22, 2016,
`
`commencing at 9:59 a.m.
`
`PAGES 1 - 63
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`001
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
` F O R T H E P E T I T I O N E R :
`
`C O O L E Y L L P
`
`A n d r e w M a c e , E s q .
`
`a m a c e @ c o o l e y . c o m
`
`3 1 7 5 H a n o v e r S t r e e t
`
`P a l o A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 3 0 4
`
`P 6 5 0 - 8 4 3 - 5 8 0 8
`
`F 6 5 0 - 8 4 9 - 7 4 0 0
`
` F O R T H E P A T E N T O W N E R :
`
`W I L M E R C U T L E R P I C K E R I N G H A L E A N D D O R R L L P
`
`M o n i c a G r e w a l , E s q .
`
`m o n i c a . g r e w a l @ w i l m e r h a l e . c o m
`
`6 0 S t a t e S t r e e t
`
`B o s t o n , M a s s a c h u s e t t s 0 2 1 0 9
`
`P 6 1 7 - 5 2 6 - 6 2 2 3
`
`F 6 1 7 - 5 2 6 - 5 0 0 0
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`002
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` EXAMINATION INDEX
`
`MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D.
`
` BY MR. MACE 4
`
` (No Deposition Exhibits were marked.)
`
` (Previously marked exhibits attached for reference.)
`
`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 3
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`003
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` - - - -
`
` MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D.,
`
` having been duly sworn,
`
` was examined and testified as follows:
`
` - - - -
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` - - - -
`
`BY MR. MACE:
`
`Q. All right. Good morning, Dr. Shamos.
`
`A. Good morning.
`
`Q. Could you please state your full name for the
`
` record, please?
`
`A. Michael Ian, I-A-N, Shamos, S-H-A-M-O-S.
`
`Q. Can you describe your educational background
`
` for me?
`
`A. How much time do you have?
`
`Q. Well, let's just cover the formal education.
`
`A. All right. So I think the relevant part
`
` actually starts in high school when I was
`
` first exposed to computers as a weekend
`
` student at Columbia University, so that would
`
` be in 1962. I wanted to study computers, but
`
` at the time there was no field called computer
`
` science. The computer was a tool that was
`
` used by other disciplines. So I couldn't
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`004
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` major in computer science, so, as an
`
` undergraduate, I majored in physics, spent a
`
` lot of time at the university computer center,
`
` and then immediately upon graduation, I
`
` started working for IBM, which was kind of the
`
` dream job for somebody who was interested in
`
` computers. I spent two years at IBM as a
`
` programmer in the manufacturing plant that
`
` makes semiconductors. I was involved in
`
` quality assurance, so there was a production
`
` line. As the semiconductors came off the
`
` production line, they were subjected to 200
`
` different electrical tests in real time, and
`
` those tests, of course, were used to determine
`
` whether the module that had been manufactured
`
` was suitable for shipping, but also in the
`
` manufacturing line, if the percentage of
`
` defective product changes, that can indicate
`
` something about the manufacturing process
`
` having gone awry. So, in addition, to the
`
` manufacturing people being interested in
`
` shipping good product, the quality people were
`
` very interested in detecting problems with the
`
` manufacturing line. So I wrote the software
`
` that analyzed the electrical tests to try to
`
`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 5
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`005
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` determine whether there was a correlation
`
` between the test results and something in the
`
` manufacturing process. Fascinating.
`
` I did that for two years until the
`
` Vietnam War interceded and I had to go, so I
`
` became a commissioned officer in the U.S.
`
` Public Health Service in Bethesda Station in
`
` Bethesda, Maryland. I was responsible for a
`
` large information system run by the National
`
` Cancer Institute that received test results on
`
` cancer chemotherapy experiments from all over
`
` the world, and, innately, there was a huge
`
` computer run to determine whether anybody had
`
` found anything in the world that might have
`
` some efficacy against cancer. They tested
`
` everything, I mean everything on earth, and so
`
` I was responsible for the maintenance of that
`
` computer system. I did that for two years.
`
` By that time, there was a field
`
` called computer science. I went to Yale
`
` University Graduate School to get a Ph.D. in
`
` computer science, stayed there for three
`
` years, and then was hired at Carnegie Mellon
`
` University.
`
` In the meantime, every September
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`006
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` starting in 1952, I was in school, and that
`
` extended all the way to 1981. There was never
`
` a time when I wasn't in school. So, when I
`
` got to Carnegie Mellon, I went to Duquesne Law
`
` School at night, got a law degree, and then
`
` took the Patent Bar immediately on graduation,
`
` and there were a few extra degrees thrown in
`
` there while I was working, but that's
`
` basically it.
`
`Q. Okay. Great. Have you been deposed before?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Roughly, how many times have you been deposed?
`
`A. I count it by number of cases in which I've
`
` been deposed. Sometimes I get deposed more
`
` than once in a case. I think this is in case
`
` 82.
`
`Q. Do you understand that you are under oath to
`
` tell the truth?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Is there any reason that you can't provide
`
` complete and accurate testimony today?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. If you don't understand a question I ask,
`
` you'll let me know. All right?
`
`A. If I realize I don't understand it, 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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`007
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Q. Have you reviewed any ServiceNow source code?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. What did you do to prepare for your deposition
`
` here today?
`
`A. I reviewed materials that were filed in the
`
` IPR, and I met with Ms. Grewal yesterday for
`
` about six hours.
`
`Q. Did you do anything else?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. You prepared a Declaration for this matter,
`
` right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And you'll understand if I refer to the '411
`
` patent?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And the opinions in your Declaration relate to
`
` the '411 patent, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Can you tell me, roughly, how much time you
`
` spent preparing that Declaration?
`
`A. Oh, I'm not sure that I can tell you that
`
` broken out. I think the total amount of time
`
` I've spent on this IPR matter is about 50
`
` hours. I would say the majority of it would
`
` be on the Declaration, so maybe 40, maybe a
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`008
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` little less.
`
`Q. All right. I'm going to hand you documents
`
` that have been previously marked as
`
` ServiceNow's Exhibit 1001 and HP 2004.
`
`A. Right. So those are the exhibit numbers in
`
` the IPR.
`
`Q. And Exhibit 2004 is the Declaration you
`
` prepared in this IPR, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Exhibit 1001 is the '411 patent, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Let's turn to Claim 1 of the '411 patent. Do
`
` you have it?
`
`A. I do. I can actually make it bigger on my own
`
` screen so I can see it better, but, yeah.
`
`Q. Okay. Now, Claim 1 recites four steps,
`
` correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Okay. And I think you refer to the first step
`
` as step (a), is that right?
`
`A. I would normally do that, yes.
`
`Q. And step (a) begins creating a list of
`
` existing tuples, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And the second step, which you referred to as
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`009
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` step (b), begins creating a new list of a
`
` plurality of tuples, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And step (c) recites, in part, receiving new
`
` tuples list, is that correct?
`
` And then the last step, step (d),
`
` recites comparing the list of existing tuples
`
` with the new tuples list to identify changes
`
` to the topology, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And it's your opinion that Claim 1 recites
`
` three lists, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Okay. And those three lists are the list of
`
` existing tuples in step (a), the new list of
`
` tuples in step (b), and new tuples list in
`
` step (c), correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
` MS. GREWAL: Objection, form.
`
`Q. So I just want to understand your mapping of
`
` those three lists, so if we could turn to your
`
` Declaration, Exhibit 2004, at paragraph 53.
`
` It's page 19. Do you have it?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And am I correct that the -- what you call the
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`010
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` first list, the list of existing tuples --
`
` well, strike that.
`
` Paragraph 53 begins: "More
`
` specifically, the topology converter 340
`
` retrieves node information of the topology
`
` currently stored in a topology database 350
`
` and converts the topology into a list of
`
` existing tuples (first list)." Do you see
`
` that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Do I understand correctly that it's your
`
` opinion that the list of existing tuples,
`
` which you refer to as the first list,
`
` corresponds in the '411 patent to tuples
`
` retrieved from topology database 350?
`
` MS. GREWAL: Objection, form.
`
`A. I don't think that the topology converter
`
` actually retrieves tuples. I think it
`
` retrieves node information and creates tuples.
`
`Q. Okay. So what is it that you contend
`
` corresponds to the list of existing tuples in
`
` the '411 patent?
`
`A. Oh, it's the list that's created by the
`
` topology converter when it retrieves the node
`
` information.
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`011
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Q. Okay. So the claimed list of existing tuples
`
` corresponds to the tuples created by the
`
` topology converter when it retrieves the node
`
` information stored in the topology database
`
` 350, correct?
`
`A. I missed the significance of the words
`
` corresponds to. Could you repeat what you're
`
` asking and what corresponds to what? I'm
`
` trying to get the difference between
`
` corresponds to and is the same as.
`
`Q. Okay. So I'll repeat the question. The
`
` claimed list of -- strike that.
`
` The claimed list of existing tuples
`
` corresponds to the tuples created by the
`
` topology converter when it retrieves the node
`
` information stored in topology database 350,
`
` correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And the new list -- well, strike that.
`
` Paragraph 54 reads, in part: The
`
` tuple manager 300 gathers the data by
`
` accessing forwarding tables and other sources
`
` of information about the nodes to determine,
`
` e.g., their physical address, interface
`
` information, and the port from which they
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`012
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` "hear" other devices. Based on this
`
` information, the tuple manager 300 builds a
`
` new list of a plurality of tuples (second
`
` list) and stores these tuples in the "neighbor
`
` data" database 310. Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Do I understand your opinion correctly that
`
` the claimed new list of tuples --
`
`A. There is no such thing. There's a new list of
`
` a plurality of tuples. Now, later on, it's
`
` referred to as the antecedent of new list of
`
` tuples, but the thing that's actually created
`
` is a new list of a plurality of tuples.
`
`Q. Okay. Fair enough.
`
` So do I understand your opinion
`
` correctly that the new list of a plurality of
`
` tuples that's recited in step (b) of Claim 1
`
` corresponds in the '411 patent to the tuples
`
` that are stored in neighbor data database 310?
`
`A. Well, when you say correspond to, so there's a
`
` claim, and then there's an embodiment of the
`
` claims that's disclosed in the patent. If
`
` we're trying to map the claims onto the
`
` disclosed embodiment, then, yes, those
`
` correspond.
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`013
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` On the other hand, one could
`
` implement Claim 1 in many, many different
`
` ways, for example, it didn't have a tuples
`
` manager or it didn't have a connection
`
` calculator. So it's not a hard and fast
`
` correspondence. That's just the
`
` correspondence between the disclosed
`
` embodiment and the claim.
`
`Q. All right. Let's turn to paragraph 55, and
`
` paragraph 55 reads, in part: The connection
`
` calculator 320 processes the data in the
`
` neighbor data database 310 to determine the
`
` new network topology. The connection
`
` calculator 320 processes the tuple data to
`
` create a new tuples list (third list).
`
` So do I understand your opinion
`
` correctly that the new tuples list recited in
`
` step (c) corresponds to the list of tuples
`
` created by the connection calculator?
`
`A. Yes, understanding that that's a
`
` correspondence between the language of Claim 1
`
` and a particular disclosed embodiment.
`
`Q. Can you turn with me to paragraph 95 of your
`
` Declaration, please. Do you have it?
`
`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 14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`014
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Q. And paragraph 95 reads, in part: Under the
`
` proper claim constructions, the prior art
`
` relied upon by the Petitioner fails to
`
` disclose several limitations, to wit: (a)
`
` neither Jones nor Tonelli discloses receiving
`
` a third list: "receiving new tuples list that
`
` represent new nodal connections," and (b)
`
` because neither Jones nor Tonelli discloses
`
` that third list, neither Jones nor Tonelli
`
` discloses "comparing the list of existing
`
` tuples with the new tuples list to identify
`
` changes to the topology." Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So do I understand your Declaration correctly
`
` that the -- all that you assert is missing
`
` from the cite of prior art is steps (c) and
`
` (d)?
`
`A. You mean of Claim 1?
`
`Q. Correct.
`
`A. Well, I can look through my Declaration. I
`
` don't recall having asserted anything else
`
` that would be missing.
`
`Q. Okay. And the two bases here --
`
`A. Well, I mean, again, I haven't gone through my
`
` report. I don't see tuples in Jones and
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`015
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` Tonelli. I see data, I see information, but I
`
` don't see tuples.
`
`Q. Now, the two bases here that you list here in
`
` paragraph 95 that you say Jones and Tonelli
`
` failed to disclose depend on Claim 1 being
`
` construed to require the new tuples list in
`
` step (c) to be different from the new
`
` tuples -- strike that.
`
` The two bases that you list here in
`
` paragraph 95 that you say Jones and Tonelli
`
` failed to disclose depend on Claim 1 being
`
` construed to require that the "new tuples
`
` list" in step (c) be different from the new
`
` list of a plurality of tuples in step (b),
`
` correct?
`
` MS. GREWAL: Objection, form.
`
`A. Well, it certainly would help to have that
`
` claim construction. It may not be essential.
`
` For example, if Jones and Tonelli do
`
` not disclose tuples, then none of the steps of
`
` Claim 1 would be disclosed in Jones and
`
` Tonelli, but if the construction is obtained
`
` that the new tuples list in step (c) is
`
` different from the lists disclosed in steps
`
` (a) and (b), then that would kind of ice
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`016
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` things.
`
`Q. Okay. Well, assuming that Jones and Tonelli
`
` both disclose tuples as claims, does your
`
` opinion that neither Jones nor Tonelli
`
` disclose steps (c) and (d) depend on Claim 1
`
` being construed to require the new tuples list
`
` in step (c) be different from the new list of
`
` a plurality of tuples in step (b)?
`
`A. I don't think so. I just said that one has to
`
` try to find tuples in Jones and Tonelli, and I
`
` don't think anybody has done that. In fact,
`
` it's not just tuples, it's a list of tuples
`
` that has to be found.
`
`Q. Okay. Move to strike as non-responsive.
`
` Assuming that Jones and Tonelli both
`
` disclose tuples as claimed, does your opinion
`
` that neither Jones nor Tonelli disclose steps
`
` (c) and (d) in Claim 1 depend on Claim 1 being
`
` construed to require the new tuples list in
`
` step (c) be different from the new list of a
`
` plurality of tuples in step (b)?
`
`A. No, because merely finding tuples in Jones and
`
` Tonelli is not enough. One must find the
`
` required lists of tuples in Jones and Tonelli.
`
`Q. Okay. Well, assuming that Jones and Tonelli
`
`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 17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`017
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` both disclosed the required list of tuples as
`
` claims, does your opinion that neither Jones
`
` nor Tonelli disclose steps (c) and (d) in
`
` Claim 1 depend on Claim 1 being construed to
`
` require the new tuples list in step (c) be
`
` different from the new list of a plurality of
`
` tuples in step (b)?
`
`A. Okay, first, I want to make it clear you're
`
` asking a hypothetical premises of which I do
`
` not agree with, but given those premises, the
`
` answer is still no, because the third step,
`
` receiving new tuples list that represent new
`
` nodal connections, I don't see that in Jones
`
` and Tonelli. Whatever correspondence has
`
` attempted to be made between something in
`
` Jones or Tonelli and the new tuples list, it
`
` certainly doesn't represent new nodal
`
` connections.
`
`Q. What's your understanding of the phrase new
`
` nodal connections in step (c) of Claim 1?
`
`A. So I think that there is a definition in the
`
` patent. Let's look for nodal connection. I
`
` think it's informative to begin with the
`
` Abstract. I think the first two sentences. A
`
` method and system are disclosed for mapping
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`018
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` the topology of a network having
`
` interconnected nodes by identifying changes in
`
` the network and updating a stored network
`
` topology based on the changes. The nodal
`
` connections are represented by data tuples
`
` that store information such as a host
`
` identifier, a connector interface, and a port
`
` specification for each connection.
`
` So I think that's pretty good at
`
` explaining what a nodal connection is. A
`
` nodal connection is there are two nodes,
`
` they're connected, but there's additional
`
` information about the nature of the connection
`
` as listed in those three fields, host
`
` identifier, connector interface, and port
`
` specification.
`
` So, when we're talking about new
`
` nodal connections, which I think was the
`
` question, yes, receiving -- we're looking at
`
` step 1.(c), receiving new tuples list that
`
` represent new nodal connections. So new nodal
`
` connections would be nodal connections that
`
` did not appear in the list of existing tuples.
`
`Q. Okay. Is it your contention that each of the
`
` tuples in the new tuples list under step (c)
`
`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 19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`019
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` must represent a new nodal connection?
`
`A. I haven't thought about that. I think it has
`
` to do with the issue of could there be some
`
` extra stuff in there that doesn't represent a
`
` new nodal connection but is, for some reason,
`
` thought to represent a new nodal connection.
`
` I haven't given that any thought.
`
`Q. Okay. So sitting here right now, you have no
`
` opinion one way or the other whether each of
`
` the tuples in the new tuples list of step (c)
`
` must represent a new nodal connection?
`
`A. What I'm talking about is when you read the
`
` patent, you learn that the topology of the
`
` network is constantly changing, and the tuples
`
` manager goes out and asks nodes on the network
`
` about their status, and it can't interrogate
`
` all the nodes simultaneously, there's always
`
` some time delay, and so what happens is that
`
` inconsistent information can be obtained that
`
` is impossible to resolve, and it is
`
` conceivable that while the new tuples list is
`
` intended to represent new nodal connections,
`
` something may occur during the time that the
`
` network interrogation is going on that might
`
` cause a tuple to be in there that isn't a new
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`020
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` tuple, and I don't think the presence of a
`
` small amount of noise of that form somehow
`
` negates the new tuples list being a new tuples
`
` list that represent new nodal connections. So
`
` the issue is do 100 percent of them have to
`
` represent new nodal connections or is 99
`
` percent enough? I don't have guidance or any
`
` spec on that. I just haven't considered it.
`
`Q. Okay. Dr. Shamos, what, in the plain language
`
` of Claim 1, if anything, forbids the "new
`
` tuples list" in step (c) from being satisfied
`
` by the new list of a plurality of tuples in
`
` step (b)?
`
`A. Well, a couple of things: One is that if that
`
` were so, then one ought to be able to put the
`
` word the before new tuples list. If the
`
` antecedent basis were really in step 1.(b),
`
` then you could say receiving the new tuples
`
` list that represent new nodal connections, but
`
` there is no antecedent basis for that because
`
` the new list of a plurality of tuples that's
`
` recited in step 1.(b) don't represent new
`
` nodal connections necessarily. Furthermore,
`
` the language with which that phrase is
`
` introduced in 1.(b) does not use the words
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`021
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` that represent new nodal connections. That's
`
` one thing.
`
` Another -- I mean, just look at the
`
` logic of it. The first list is the tuples
`
` from a prior time. The list in 1.(b) is
`
` tuples at a current time. Well, the ones at a
`
` current time, the vast majority of them may
`
` not be new, they may just be existing
`
` connections, and so this list that represents
`
` new nodal connections is clearly a different
`
` list from the first two.
`
`Q. Okay. But you don't dispute that the new list
`
` of a plurality of tuples could include new
`
` nodal connections, correct?
`
`A. Oh, sure. Sure it can.
`
`Q. Okay. So the new list of a plurality of
`
` tuples can include new nodal connections,
`
` right?
`
`A. Yeah, you just don't know that they're new.
`
` They're there, they're sub rosa, but at the
`
` time you create that list, you have no idea if
`
` they're new or not.
`
`Q. Okay. So, in step (c), how do you know that
`
` the new tuples list has tuples that represent
`
` new nodal connections?
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`022
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`A. Because it says so.
`
`Q. Okay. But it's the next step that compares
`
` the existing tuples to the new tuples list,
`
` correct?
`
`A. Yeah, but there's a purpose stated for that,
`
` and that's to identify changes to the
`
` topology, and changes to the topology are not
`
` represented by tuples, they're represented
`
` differently in the topodb.
`
`Q. Okay. And it's your opinion that the new
`
` tuples list, step (c), can be satisfied by the
`
` list of tuples created by the connection
`
` calculator, correct?
`
`A. I think I have statements to that effect in my
`
` report. Let me find them. Sorry, my
`
` Declaration I meant.
`
` I have a subsection VII C. called
`
` The Connection Calculator Creates the Third
`
` List (New Tuples List that represent new nodal
`
` connections). That begins on page 20.
`
` And then on page 18, I say: A
`
` connection calculator 320 processes data in
`
` the neighbor data database 310 to create a
`
` third list of tuples. And I'm sure there's
`
` more, because, in fact, section VII C.
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`023
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` beginning on page 20 talks about that, but,
`
` again, that's the correspondence between the
`
` claim language and a particular disclosed
`
` embodiment.
`
`Q. The '411 patent discloses a number of phases
`
` that the connection calculator carries out,
`
` correct?
`
`A. Yes
`
`Q. Okay. So if we turn to Figure 10 of the '411
`
` patent, is it your understanding that the
`
` phases listed in Figure 10 are carried out by
`
` the connection calculator.
`
`A. I think they are. Let me just take a look.
`
` Column 6, line 65 says: Figure 10
`
` shows a flow chart of the process of the
`
` connection calculator 320, as shown generally
`
` in the reduction step 906 of the method shown
`
` in Figure 8.
`
` So, yes, according to the
`
` specification, Figure 10 is a flow chart of
`
` what the connection calculator is doing.
`
`Q. In any of those phases identified in Figure 10
`
` that are carried out by the connection
`
` calculator, is there any determination made
`
` that a tuple represents a new nodal
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`024
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` connection?
`
` MS. GREWAL: Objection, form.
`
`A. There's a lot to read, so I'm going to search
`
` in the EDF of the patent for new nodal.
`
` There's a general description of the
`
` process in the Abstract, and I don't know if
`
` it's necessary to read most of the Abstract
`
` into the record, but it begins with the
`
` sentence about eight lines down from the top:
`
` A topology converter accesses the topology
`
` database and converts the existing topology
`
` into a list of current tuples. Then all the
`
` rest is relevant, but the last sentence: The
`
` topology converter also searches for new
`
` conflict link tuples in the existing tuples.
`
` The topology converter updates the topology
`
` database with the new topology.
`
` So what it's doing is taking what's
`
` in the topology database and updating it with
`
` what's new, and it can only do that if it
`
` identifies what's new or if it has been
`
` identified for it, let's say, by the
`
` connection calculator what's new.
`
`Q. Okay, but where in the '411 patent does it
`
` disclose that the connection calculator
`
`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. 1008
`IPR2015-00717
`
`025
`
`
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` determines what's new as opposed to the
`
` topology converter?
`
` MS. GREWAL: Objection, form.
`
`A. I'm hunting around, and the reason I'm hunting
`
` is that this did not arise in my rebuttal to
`
` Jones and Tonelli, so I haven't considered
`
` this before, so I'm looking.
`
` In column 12, line 7: Figure 19
`
` shows a flow chart for the discard duplicates
`
` phase 936 of the topology converter 340. For
`
` each tuple in the new tuples (nt) 600, the
`
` topology converter looks for 602 an exact
`
` match in the current tuples stored in the
`
` topodb.
`
` And so the topology converter is
`
` operating on this new tuples 600. I was not
`
` able to find any other r
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
