`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________
`
` APPLE INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` VIRNETX INC.
` Patent Owner
` _______________
` Case No. IPR2015-01009
` Patent No. 8,843,643 B2
`
` Case No. IPR2015-01010
` Patent No. 8,843,643 B2
` _______________
`
` Volume 1
` DEPOSITION OF ROBERTO TAMASSIA
` Washington, D.C.
` Thursday, January 21, 2016
`
`Reported by: John L. Harmonson, RPR
`Job No. 101959
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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 1 of 159
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2016
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01010
`
`
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 2
`
` January 21, 2016
` 8:31 a.m.
`
` Deposition of ROBERTO TAMASSIA, held at the
`offices of Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street,
`N.W., Washington, D.C., before John L. Harmonson,
`a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
`Public of the District of Columbia, who
`officiated in administering the oath to the
`witness.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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 2 of 159
`
`
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`On Behalf of Petitioner, Apple Inc.:
` SIDLEY AUSTIN
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: THOMAS BROUGHAN, ESQ.
` SAMUEL DILLON, ESQ.
`
`On Behalf of Patent Owner, VirnetX Inc.:
` PAUL HASTINGS
` 875 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: JOSEPH PALYS, ESQ.
` DANIEL ZEILBERGER, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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 3 of 159
`
`
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
`--------------------------------------------------
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` 9:09 a.m.
`--------------------------------------------------
` Whereupon,
` ROBERTO TAMASSIA,
` after having been first duly sworn or affirmed,
` was examined and did testify under oath as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:31:00
` Q. Good morning. 08:31:01
` A. Good morning. 08:31:01
` Q. Can you please state your name and 08:31:03
` spell it for the record. 08:31:05
` A. Yes. Roberto Tamassia, R-o-b-e-r-t-o, 08:31:06
` T-a-m-a-s-s-i-a. 08:31:15
` MR. ZEILBERGER: I'm handing the 08:31:28
` witness what has been previously marked as 08:31:29
` Exhibit 1003. 08:31:32
` THE WITNESS: Thank you. 08:31:35
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:31:36
` Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 1003? 08:31:38
` A. Yes, I do. 08:31:41
` Q. What is Exhibit 1003? 08:31:42
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 4 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 5
` A. It is my declaration. 08:31:44
` Q. Do you know what proceedings your 08:31:50
` declaration is associated with? 08:31:53
` A. Yes. IPR2015-1009 and 1010. 08:31:55
` Q. And you understand you're here today 08:32:02
` to provide testimony in those two proceedings, 08:32:04
` IPR2015-01009 and IPR2015-01010? 08:32:09
` A. Yes, that's right. 08:32:13
` Q. And if you turn to page 123 of your 08:32:15
` declaration, is your signature located there? 08:32:20
` A. Yes, it is. 08:32:25
` Q. That is your signature? 08:32:28
` A. It is my signature, yes. 08:32:29
` Q. Do you understand that you're under 08:32:37
` oath today? 08:32:39
` A. I do. 08:32:40
` Q. And if at any time today if any of my 08:32:42
` questions are unclear to you, please let me know, 08:32:45
` otherwise I'll assume you've understood. Okay? 08:32:47
` A. Okay. 08:32:52
` Q. Do you have any questions before we 08:32:52
` get started? 08:32:53
` A. No. 08:32:55
` Q. Is there any reason you can't testify 08:32:56
` completely and accurately today? 08:32:58
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 5 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 6
` A. I cannot think of any such reason. 08:33:00
` Q. Did you spend any time preparing for 08:33:11
` today's deposition? 08:33:13
` A. Yes. 08:33:14
` Q. When did you begin to prepare? 08:33:16
` A. Last weekend. 08:33:18
` Q. How much time did you spend preparing? 08:33:20
` A. About 14, 15 hours. 08:33:22
` Q. Do you recall who you prepared with, 08:33:29
` if anyone? 08:33:30
` A. Yes. I prepared only with counsel. 08:33:31
` Q. Just counsel? 08:33:38
` A. Yes, just counsel. 08:33:40
` Q. Do you recall the names? 08:33:42
` A. Yes, I do. They are Scott Border, 08:33:44
` Herman Webley and Tom Broughan and Sam Dillon 08:33:49
` were here. 08:33:56
` Q. Did you review any documents in your 08:33:57
` preparation? 08:33:58
` A. Yes. 08:34:00
` Q. Which documents? 08:34:00
` A. I reviewed my declaration, the '643 08:34:01
` patent, and I also reviewed some of the exhibits 08:34:06
` that I cite in my declaration. 08:34:13
` Q. Do you recall which ones? 08:34:16
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 6 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 7
` A. Yes. What I reviewed includes the 08:34:18
` Microsoft Windows 2000 Kit, Microsoft Internet 08:34:23
` Explorer 5 Kit, and the book by Yeager. 08:34:31
` Q. Are those the only exhibits that you 08:34:40
` reviewed? 08:34:42
` A. I think they are the main exhibits. I 08:34:47
` may have taken a look at the Elgamal patent. 08:34:49
` Q. Did you bring anything with you today 08:35:07
` to help you testify? 08:35:08
` A. No, I did not bring anything to help 08:35:13
` me testify today. 08:35:15
` Q. Can you turn to Paragraph 84 of your 08:35:35
` declaration, please. 08:35:38
` A. Yes. Sorry, I got page 84. You want 08:35:48
` Paragraph 84? 08:35:53
` Q. Paragraph 84. It's page 29. 08:35:54
` A. Yes, I have it. 08:35:58
` Q. In that paragraph you state that the 08:35:59
` RFC development and publication process itself is 08:36:03
` described in an RFC, RFC 2026, Exhibit 1020, 08:36:06
` dated October 1996. Is that right? 08:36:13
` A. Yes, that's right. 08:36:17
` Q. So it's your view that RFC 2026 08:36:19
` describes the RFC development and publication 08:36:23
` process as of October 1996, correct? 08:36:28
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 7 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 8
` A. Yes, that is right. 08:36:32
` MR. ZEILBERGER: I'm handing the 08:37:17
` witness what has been previously marked as 08:37:19
` Exhibit 1024. 08:37:23
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:37:28
` Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 1024? 08:37:28
` A. I do recognize it. This is the RFC 08:37:43
` that addresses the domain name system. It's one 08:37:46
` of the two main RFCs about DNS. 08:37:53
` Q. Do you know which RFC Exhibit 1024 is? 08:37:58
` A. 1034. 08:38:02
` Q. RFC 1034? 08:38:03
` A. Yes. 08:38:05
` Q. Have you reviewed this exhibit before? 08:38:08
` A. Yes, I'm familiar with this RFC. 08:38:12
` Q. Is there a date on the top right 08:38:17
` corner of page 1 of RFC 1034? 08:38:19
` A. Yes. On the top right corner is 08:38:25
` November 1987. 08:38:27
` Q. So the processes described in RFC 2026 08:38:31
` would not apply to RFC 1034, right? 08:38:35
` A. It is my understanding that the RFC 08:38:39
` publication process has remained substantially 08:38:44
` similar since RFCs have been published. And so 08:38:48
` the main aspects of the publication which were 08:38:54
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 8 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 9
` described in RFCs that preceded RFC 2026 did also 08:38:58
` apply to the time around 1987 when 1034 was 08:39:04
` published. 08:39:11
` Q. Do you have any personal knowledge 08:39:16
` that the RFC publication process has remained 08:39:17
` substantially similar since RFCs have been 08:39:23
` published? 08:39:27
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:39:31
` THE WITNESS: My understanding comes 08:39:42
` from knowing at the time how RFCs were 08:39:45
` basically time stamped and posted. And also 08:39:50
` at the time when new versions, changes were 08:39:58
` deemed to be published, then the process of 08:40:05
` posting a new RFC with a new time stamp 08:40:12
` pointing back to the RFCs that were replaced 08:40:16
` was applied. So for example, 1034 states 08:40:20
` that it obsoletes 882, 883 and 973. 08:40:24
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:40:36
` Q. So when you say "obsoletes," what do 08:40:36
` you mean? 08:40:40
` A. It means essentially replaces. It 08:40:41
` means that those that are denoted as being 08:40:44
` obsolete are considered no longer the latest 08:40:48
` version of the standard. 08:40:54
` Q. And would that process of obsoletion, 08:41:17
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 9 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 10
` that would happen when a significant change has 08:41:25
` occurred? 08:41:31
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:41:32
` THE WITNESS: Are you making a 08:41:38
` statement or asking me a question? 08:41:39
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:41:41
` Q. I'm asking you. 08:41:41
` A. My understanding is that as the 08:42:14
` Internet community, developers and users, comes 08:42:18
` up with new ideas, they are discussed and 08:42:25
` periodically these result in updating the 08:42:29
` standards. So once they become more accepted, 08:42:34
` then new RFCs are posted with the new changes. 08:42:38
` And I point in Paragraph 88 of my 08:42:50
` declaration that other than what would be, for 08:42:56
` example, fixing -- it says other than a minor 08:43:00
` typographical error, then the RFCs are published 08:43:07
` with a different number. 08:43:12
` Q. All right. So if there is a 08:43:15
` substantive change, as you say in Paragraph 88, a 08:43:17
` new RFC will be released. Is that right? 08:43:22
` A. That's right. That's what I say in 08:43:25
` Paragraph 88 of my declaration. 08:43:27
` MR. ZEILBERGER: I'm handing the 08:43:58
` witness what has been previously marked as 08:43:59
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 10 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 11
` Exhibit 1020. 08:44:02
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:44:11
` Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 1020? 08:44:11
` A. Yes. So this is the RFC that 08:44:54
` describes the IETF publication process for 08:45:00
` Internet standards. 08:45:12
` Q. And in the top right corner of page 1 08:45:22
` of Exhibit 1020 it says "October 1996," right? 08:45:28
` A. That's right. 08:45:32
` Q. And on the top left corner it says 08:45:33
` "Obsoletes 1602," right? 08:45:35
` A. Yes. 08:45:41
` Q. So you would agree that there was a 08:45:42
` substantive change in RFC 2026 from RFC 1602, 08:45:44
` right? 08:45:53
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; foundation. 08:45:55
` Relevance. 08:45:58
` THE WITNESS: What I will agree to is 08:46:05
` that "it obsoletes" means it replaces. It 08:46:06
` means that changes other than minor that is 08:46:10
` somewhere in this RFC, there is a change 08:46:17
` that is substantive. However, I understand 08:46:20
` that from the point of view of what they've 08:46:24
` covered, which is open dissemination and 08:46:28
` keeping the versions as posted and only 08:46:35
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 11 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 12
` updating them with new numbers, that part of 08:46:38
` the process remained the same. 08:46:44
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:46:45
` Q. What is your understanding based on? 08:46:46
` A. My understanding is based on my 08:46:48
` knowledge at the time of the operation of IETF 08:46:50
` and how users and developers were looking at RFCs 08:46:53
` for guidance and relying on the integrity of the 08:47:02
` RFC process. 08:47:16
` Q. So your knowledge is based on your 08:47:23
` personal involvement in those processes? 08:47:26
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:47:30
` THE WITNESS: My knowledge is based on 08:47:31
` my personal understanding as a user of RFCs 08:47:32
` and as someone who has met and interacted 08:47:40
` with authors of RFCs. 08:47:47
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:48:00
` Q. Sorry, you said your knowledge is 08:48:01
` based on my personal understanding as a user of 08:48:04
` RFCs and as someone who has met and interacted 08:48:09
` with other RFCs. What do you mean by "met and 08:48:14
` interacted with other RFCs"? 08:48:17
` A. I said met and interacted with other 08:48:20
` RFC authors. I see. Sorry. Does not make sense 08:48:23
` to me, the RFCs. 08:48:39
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 12 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 13
` MR. BROUGHAN: Clarify the transcript. 08:48:48
` You said met and interacted with RFC -- 08:48:50
` THE WITNESS: Authors, with other RFC 08:48:58
` authors. Authors, not others. 08:48:58
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:49:09
` Q. But you weren't personally involved in 08:49:10
` the release of any RFCs, correct? 08:49:14
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:49:19
` THE WITNESS: I was not personally 08:49:21
` involved in the IETF internal process. I 08:49:22
` was not a member of an RFC committee that 08:49:29
` will decide when and how RFCs will be posted 08:49:34
` on the web. But I always relied on the time 08:49:38
` stamps on the posted documents, and I always 08:49:43
` relied on the fact that any time there will 08:49:47
` be any substantive changes, the document 08:49:51
` will get a new number and the new version 08:49:55
` will point back to the previous version 08:49:58
` denoting it as obsolete. 08:50:00
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:50:04
` Q. You never authored any RFCs, right? 08:50:04
` A. I have not authored RFCs. 08:50:07
` Q. Do you have any knowledge on what is 08:51:41
` contained in RFC 1602? 08:51:44
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:51:48
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 13 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 14
` Relevance. 08:51:49
` THE WITNESS: My understanding is that 08:51:55
` 1602 is the predecessor RFC of 2026. 08:51:57
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:52:07
` Q. Do you have any knowledge on the 08:52:08
` substance of RFC 1602? 08:52:11
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:52:19
` Relevance. 08:52:20
` THE WITNESS: I have not reviewed 08:52:46
` 1602, as it was not part of the scope of my 08:52:48
` work. However, I don't remember at the time 08:52:55
` any discussion in the Internet community 08:53:01
` about major changes to the process. So I 08:53:05
` will believe that the description of 1602 is 08:53:11
` similar, but I will not -- sitting here 08:53:18
` right now, I will not know how to point to 08:53:21
` the differences between 2026 and 1602. 08:53:24
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:53:51
` Q. Do you recall all of the discussions 08:53:51
` relating to RFCs between November 1987 and 08:53:58
` October 1996? 08:54:02
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:54:04
` Relevance. 08:54:05
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Strike that. 08:54:16
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:54:35
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 14 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 15
` Q. Do you recall whether there were any 08:54:36
` discussions as to changes to the RFC process 08:54:49
` between November 1987 and October 1996? 08:54:51
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:55:01
` Relevance. 08:55:02
` THE WITNESS: I don't remember 08:55:05
` specific discussions. 08:55:06
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:55:10
` Q. Would you agree that there could have 08:55:10
` been discussions? 08:55:12
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:55:14
` Relevance. 08:55:15
` THE WITNESS: I would agree that it is 08:55:27
` a dynamic and fast evolving field, the 08:55:32
` Internet and Internet standards. There 08:55:38
` would be all sorts of discussions including 08:55:40
` discussions about the role of IETF and its 08:55:42
` governance. 08:55:54
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:56:11
` Q. You wouldn't rule out that there could 08:56:11
` have been changes to the RFC release process 08:56:14
` between November 1987 and October 1996, right? 08:56:17
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; relevance. 08:56:24
` THE WITNESS: I would not rule out the 08:56:50
` possibility of some changes having occurred. 08:56:52
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 15 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 16
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:57:09
` Q. So just to clarify, you said you would 08:57:10
` not rule out the possibility of some changes 08:57:13
` having occurred? 08:57:16
` A. Right. 08:57:17
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; foundation. 08:57:18
` Form. 08:57:19
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:57:54
` Q. You just don't know whether there were 08:57:54
` changes to the RFC process between November 1987 08:57:57
` and October 1996? 08:58:04
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:58:07
` Relevance. 08:58:08
` THE WITNESS: My understanding is that 08:58:23
` some of the fundamental principles of open 08:58:29
` publication, broad distribution, time 08:58:31
` stamping, obsoleting versions with new 08:58:37
` numbers, my understanding is that that 08:58:41
` process remains -- that these principles 08:58:46
` remain throughout. 08:58:49
` What may or may not have changed could 08:58:50
` be small details in the process and 08:58:53
` protocol. Maybe small changes in the type 08:58:57
` setting standards like types of headers and 08:59:08
` footers, or other small details. 08:59:11
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 16 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 17
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 08:59:19
` Q. Are you changing your testimony that 08:59:19
` you have in Paragraph 88 of your declaration 08:59:24
` where you say that "if it becomes necessary to 08:59:26
` make a substantive change, ergo, other than a 08:59:28
` minor typical typographical error, the RFC will 08:59:34
` be republished with a different number"? 08:59:39
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 08:59:43
` THE WITNESS: No, I'm not changing my 08:59:44
` testimony. The way I understood your 08:59:45
` question is you asked me whether the process 08:59:49
` from November 1987 and October 1996, whether 08:59:51
` it had changed or whether there were 08:59:56
` discussions on how to change it and what was 08:59:58
` my personal understanding of that. 09:00:02
` Paragraph 88 describes one aspect of 09:00:05
` the RFC publication process, which is one of 09:00:07
` the principles of substantive change means 09:00:11
` renumbering and obsoleting previous 09:00:15
` versions. What I covered are these and 09:00:19
` other general principles of the process. 09:00:22
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:00:24
` Q. Let me clarify. 09:00:24
` A. Okay. 09:00:26
` Q. So you don't know whether the 09:00:30
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 17 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 18
` processes described in RFC 2026 would have 09:00:33
` applied back in November 1987, right? 09:00:39
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; relevance. 09:00:45
` Form. 09:00:46
` THE WITNESS: So it is my 09:01:02
` understanding that the main principles of 09:01:03
` time stamping, revisions, open publication 09:01:07
` and distribution have been similar 09:01:13
` throughout. So they remain substantially 09:01:17
` the same. I don't know as I sit here right 09:01:21
` now whether some details of the process 09:01:27
` beyond these main principles changed or not. 09:01:33
` If I look at 2026, obsoleting 1602, 09:01:45
` clearly some details, some aspect did 09:01:56
` change, and one would have to look at when 09:02:00
` 1602 was published to make a determination. 09:02:08
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:02:11
` Q. You just couldn't know without looking 09:02:11
` at RFC 1602? 09:02:13
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 09:02:15
` Relevance. 09:02:16
` THE WITNESS: So I could look at 1602 09:03:33
` to make a determination of when it was 09:03:37
` published. It's possible that RFC numbers 09:03:42
` are assigned with increasing numbers as time 09:03:50
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 18 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 19
` goes by, and so it's possible that 1602 was 09:03:54
` published in between 1034 and 2026. 09:03:59
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:04:30
` Q. So are you saying that RFC 2026 may 09:04:31
` have been released before RFC 1034? 09:04:35
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; foundation. 09:04:41
` Relevance. 09:04:43
` THE WITNESS: No. Absolutely I'm not 09:04:44
` saying that. The time stamps show that 2026 09:04:46
` is after 1034. 09:04:53
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:04:56
` Q. So RFC 2026 could not have applied to 09:04:56
` RFC 1034? 09:05:00
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 09:05:01
` Relevance. 09:05:03
` THE WITNESS: As I previously 09:05:05
` mentioned, it's been my understanding as a 09:05:06
` user of RFCs that several aspects of the 09:05:11
` process, the fundamental principles have 09:05:17
` remained unchanged throughout the years, 09:05:21
` including, as I mentioned before, time 09:05:27
` stamping of RFCs, open publication and broad 09:05:32
` distribution on the Internet and changes 09:05:38
` denoted by creating new RFCs that point back 09:05:46
` to the previous version or versions. 09:05:52
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 19 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 20
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:05:58
` Q. Would you agree that the details of 09:05:58
` how time stamping, distribution and changes to 09:06:07
` RFCs are implemented may have changed prior to 09:06:18
` RFC 2026? 09:06:23
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; form. 09:06:26
` Relevance. 09:06:27
` THE WITNESS: I don't know whether the 09:08:00
` details about what you mention, which is 09:08:03
` time stamping and posting, changed. What I 09:08:08
` understand is that the substance of being 09:08:14
` able to rely on wide and broad availability 09:08:19
` of an RFC as of the date of the RFC, that 09:08:27
` definitely remained unchanged based on my 09:08:31
` understanding of how the process works. 09:08:35
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:10:03
` Q. When is the first time that you 09:10:03
` reviewed RFC 2026? 09:10:07
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; relevance. 09:10:12
` THE WITNESS: My review of the RFCs 09:11:17
` started about one year ago. But my 09:11:22
` understanding of the principles that are 09:11:25
` described in the RFCs and the RFC 09:11:28
` publication process dates back much before 09:11:33
` that. 09:11:39
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 20 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 21
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:12:19
` Q. When is the first time that you 09:12:19
` reviewed an RFC? 09:12:21
` MR. BROUGHAN: Objection; relevance. 09:12:24
` THE WITNESS: I remember reviewing 09:13:15
` RFCs in the '90s. 09:13:17
` MR. ZEILBERGER: I'm handing the 09:14:08
` witness what's been previously marked as 09:14:09
` Exhibit 1001. 09:14:12
` THE WITNESS: Thanks. 09:14:19
` BY MR. ZEILBERGER: 09:14:19
` Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 1001? 09:14:20
` A. Yes. It is the patent that I have 09:14:23
` reviewed as part of the scope of my work and that 09:14:28
` is mentioned in my declaration. 09:14:33
` Q. What's the patent number that you're 09:14:36
` referring to? 09:14:37
` A. 8,843,643. 09:14:38
` Q. Is it okay if I refer to this as the 09:14:43
` '643 patent? 09:14:46
` A. Absolutely. 09:14:47
` Q. And you'll understand what I mean? 09:14:48
` A. Right. I refer to it myself as the 09:14:50
` '643 patent in my declaration. 09:14:56
` Q. Did you review the entire '643 patent 09:15:02
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 21 of 159
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dr. Roberto Tamassia
`
`Page 22
` before forming your opinions in your declaration? 09:15:04
` A. I did review it, and I focused on the 0