178
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`180
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`D13-mtg-r 0;: NEW JERSEY
`___
`NET2PHONE, INC.
`Plaintifl,
`
`_x
`
`v.
`
`EBAY, |NC., SKYPE TECHNOLOGIES, S.A.,
`SKYPE INC" and JOHN DOES 1'10’
`Delendants.
`____________________"X
`
`September 10. 2007
`2:11 p.m.
`Volume 2
`
`Videotaped deposition or SHANE MATTAWAY,
`
`pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiffs,
`at 500 Brickell Key Drive, Miami, Florida,
`beiore Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
`Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
`Reporter and Notary Public within and
`for the State of Florida.
`
`179
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
`Anomeys for Plaimm
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Wa5I""9‘°"> DC 20°05
`BY: NICHOLAS J. BOYLE, ESQ. and
`KEVINHARDYIESQ
`-and-
`
`ELLIOT ROTHSTEIN, ESO., In-house counsel, IDT.
`
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`Attorneys for the Defendants
`1800 AVe"“e °I "'9 SW5
`Suite 900
`
`L°SAngeleS,CA 90067
`By; ALAN HE|NR1(;H, Esq
`
`l N D E X
`Continued Examination by Mr. Heinrich
`Examination by Mr Boyle
`
`--
`
`180
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`6
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`3
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`2:
`21
`22
`
`:2
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`7
`6
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`3
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`15
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`E X H I B I T S
`DESCRIPTION
`(Mattaway Exhibit 4 for
`Identification, US Patent
`5-108-7°49
`
`PAGE
`180
`
`(Mattaway Exhibit 5 for
`
`180
`
`:3’1::3e::'):;°:]’_"‘:"' U: Tales‘
`SIKYPIE N2FIS0(:Jr2I90I3a1((eJs‘thr::gh 290904 )
`'
`214
`
`(Mattaway Exhibit 6 for
`Identification, US Patent
`6,131,121.)
`
`(Mattaway Exhibit 7 tor
`Identification, Source Code,
`Bates stamped CBS 836 - 695.) - retained
`
`259
`
`(Mattaway Exhibit 8 tor
`
`263
`
`Ide’IIIII°3II°"» Ma"3‘”aY ”°Ie5 °"
`°”5'"°‘°“°‘ “°"°'°P”‘_°"‘» Ba‘°‘°‘ 5“‘”“|°°"
`CBS 54 ‘ 55') ‘ 'e’“a'"e°
`
`181
`
`(This is the beginning of Volume 2.)
`
`(Thereupon, the two documents were marked
`_
`_
`by the court reporter for Identification as
`Mattaway Exhibits 4 and 5.)
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: we are on the record.
`
`CONTINUED EXAMINATION
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q welcome back, M, Mattaway
`
`A" why "'3" ‘’°“'
`Q.
`I'm going to now show you what I have had
`marked as Mattaway Exhibit 4, which is US Patent No.
`6106704‘
`d|'
`I
`'
`t
`h
`htl
`,
`,
`,an masogoing os owyouw a
`have had marked as Exhibit No. 5, which is the file
`history for US Patent No. 6,108,704, and bearing the
`
`Bates numbers SKYPE-N2P 00290310 through 290904.
`MR BOYLE '30 Y0“ h3Ve C°Pte5'-’
`THE WITNESS:
`I knew to work out before I
`
`came here.
`I do have a oopy of the
`MR. HEINRICH:
`704 patent, but I did not bring copies.
`
`MR. BOYLE: Eight point tom.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q. So first, starting with the 704 patent,
`
`is this a United States patent that you are named as
`an inventor on?
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 178 — 181
`
`Page 1 of 29
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1011
`
`

`
`A. So it says.
`Q. Do you recognize this as the '704 patent
`where you are named as the co-inventor?
`A.
`I see my name.
`It says "Point to point
`lntemet Protocol."
`
`Q. And you reviewed this patent in
`preparation for your deposition?
`A.
`I think I did, yeah.
`0. And you are familiar with the subject
`matter of this patent?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, vague.
`THE WITNESS: To the extent that I'm not a
`
`patent attorney, yes.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`I would like to call your attention to the
`Q.
`file history now, we will go back to the '704 patent
`in a few minutes. But if you could tum to Page
`290672, which is about two—thirds of the way through
`that stack.
`
`In particular, I would like to turn your
`attention to the two—page document that starts at
`that page, 290672, and then goes on to the next
`page, 290673.
`Do you recognize this as a declaration
`that you submitted to the United States Patent
`
`Office?
`A. No.
`
`Q. Well, let’s turn to Page 290673. Do you
`recognize your signature on that page?
`A. Yes. There it is.
`
`Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that you
`signed this document?
`A. No. You asked me ifl recognized it. No,
`I didn't recognize it.
`Q. And by your signature, you were declaring
`that all of the statements in this declaration were
`
`of your own knowledge and true, and that all
`statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true, and that further, these
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful
`false statements and the like were punishable by
`fine and imprisonment?
`MR. BOYLE:
`I was going to object to the
`form because that isn't exactly what it says.
`THE WITNESS: Obviously, the last
`paragraph here says, ''I hereby declare all
`statements made herein are true," and I
`obviously signed it. So then I believed them
`to be true.
`
`_.
`
`gcooaxiosm-tswm
`
`_. _k
`_. l\.)
`_. w
`_. A
`_. 01
`_. O’)
`_. st
`_. ®
`_. (D
`l\.)O
`l\.)_.
`l\.)l\.)
`l\.)w
`l\.)A
`l\.)01
`
`_.
`
`acooasimmbwm
`
`_. _k
`_. l\.)
`_. w
`_. A
`_. 01
`_. 01
`_. st
`16
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`162
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`184
`
`_.
`
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`163
`
`Q. So you signed this, the declaration, you
`submitted this to the United States Patent Office
`
`signing it under penalty of perjury?
`A. Apparently so.
`0. So I would like to direct your attention
`to the third paragraph --
`A. Paragraph 3.
`Q.
`-- when you refer to the conception of the
`inventive subject matter. Do you see that?
`A. Yeah.
`
`Q. What specific inventive subject matter
`were you referring to there?
`A.
`|don't know. What are we talking about?
`You are referencing this point-to-point protocol?
`Q. So I will again repeat that this is from
`the file history of --
`A. This patent.
`Q.
`-- the '704 patent.
`MR. BOYLE: To be fair, you have given him
`several hundred pages, and you are asking him
`about one single page in the middle of that.
`MR. HEINRICH:
`I'm asking about a
`declaration he signed and submitted to the
`patent office.
`
`MR. BOYLE: That is in the middle of a
`
`stack of papers.
`THE WITNESS:
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`It seems true to me, No. 3.
`
`Q. Okay. So what was the inventive subject
`matter that you were referring to?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, asked and answered.
`THE WITNESS: You mean that this is
`
`referring to?
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. Yes. That you are referring to in your
`declaration to the patent office.
`A.
`It says, "After a number of weeks of the
`conception of the inventive subject matter," and
`this is apparently referring to the point-to-point
`Internet protocol patent, which according to you, is
`Patent No. 6,106,704, if all of this ties together,
`then it has to deal with the content of this patent.
`Q. So could you explain to me, in your own
`understanding —
`A. Right.
`0.
`-- what the inventive subject matter is of
`the '704 patent?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, asked and answered.
`THE WITNESS: Well, the patent sort of
`
`gcooaxiosm-tswm
`
`_k _k
`_k l\.)
`_k w
`_k A
`_k 01
`_k 0')
`_k st
`16
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`_.
`
`3<oo=~io'><.n-rswro
`
`_k _k
`_k l\.)
`_k w
`_k A
`_k 01
`_k 01
`_k st
`_k ®
`_k to
`l\.)O
`l\.)_k
`l\.)l\.)
`l\.)w
`24
`25
`
`165
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 182 -185
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`
`_.
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`6
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`16
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`6
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`16
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`I'm not a patent attorney,
`speaks for itself.
`and asking me to give you my interpretation
`is -- you know, you can read it yourself and
`see precisely what the content and the concept
`and the purpose of this -- the claims of this
`patent are. Why are you asking me to give you
`my opinion of it?
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. Do you know what the inventive subject
`matter is of the '704 patent?
`A. Yes, in an overall 10,000-foot
`understanding, yeah.
`Q. Could you please explain that to me?
`A.
`I will read it to you.
`"Abstract: A point-to-point lnlemet
`protocol. Exchanges Internet protocol addresses
`between processed units to establish a
`point-to-point communication link between the
`processing units through the lntemet.
`"A first point-to-point lntemet protocol
`includes Step A, storing in a database respective IP
`address of a set of processing units that have
`online status with respect to the Internet; B,
`transmitting a query from a first processing unit to
`a connection sewer to determine the online status
`
`of the second processing unit, and retrieve the IP
`address of the second unit from the database using
`the connection server in response to the termination
`of a positive online status of the second processing
`unit for establishing a point-to-point
`communications link."
`
`And I don't need to read any further, but
`that is the gist of this patent.
`Q. Do you have any understanding of what the
`inventive subject matter is of the '704 patent
`without reading, say, from the abstract of the
`patent?
`A. Well, yes, certainly. As, you know, its
`co-inventor, of course, I do.
`Q. Could you tell me what your understanding
`Is of the inventive subject matter of the '704
`patent without reading something that is on the page
`here?
`
`I have explained that to you in your prior
`A.
`inquires and questions to me as to how the
`connection server worked, what implementations we
`used.
`
`This is just basically an overview or a —
`the claims on the mechanisms involved or the
`
`methodologies involved in establishing that
`
`166
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`166
`
`point-to-point connection through a connection
`server. That is really what it is. Step by step.
`No different than what I have already told you.
`Q. Well, I didn't ask you about the "704
`patent this morning.
`A. No, but this is basically a consolidation
`of everything we talked about so far this morning,
`almost everything anyway.
`0. Who conceived -- well, let's turn to the
`claims. Why don't you take a look at claim 1.
`A. Which is?
`
`Q. Which is on Page 329.
`A. 329. Claim 1. Okay.
`Q. And if you could just read that to
`yourself.
`A. Okay.
`Q. Are you an inventor of claim 1?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, calls for a legal
`conclusion.
`THE WITNESS: Am I the inventor.
`
`What do you mean by truly your definition
`of inventor? Is it the person who implements
`it? The person who conceives of it? What are
`you talking about?
`
`_.
`
`gomximmswm
`
`_k _k
`_k M
`_k w
`_k A
`_k or
`_k <7)
`_k \l
`_k ®
`_k (D
`MO
`M_.
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`Mor
`
`167
`
`169
`
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. Let's start with conception. Did you
`conceive of claim 1?
`
`MR. BOYLE: Objection. Calls for a legal
`conclusion.
`
`In part, yes, and in part,
`THE WITNESS:
`I would have to say that Glenn, when he
`no.
`said to me, you know — you know, ''I have an
`idea for establishing the point to point," way
`back before, you know, we started actually the
`company, but using the POP server is what is
`embodied in 1, that implementation.
`My contribution thereafler would have
`been, you know, discussions with Glenn at that
`time and thereafter that, you know, we may --
`we probably ended up using another mechanism
`for the connection sewer because, you know,
`email is pretty darn slow, and our requirements
`need to be realtime.
`
`So in answer to your question, am I the
`conceiver of 1? As far as the connection
`
`service process, no. Am I the conceiver of
`literally a voice over IP phone system that
`does point to point? I would have to say yes.
`My contribution to 1 is, you know,
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 186 — 189
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`
`190
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`192
`
`_.
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`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
`
`conversations with Glenn pertaining to
`alternative mechanisms to implement the
`connection services. And that is, you know,
`that is, lguess, my answer. As well as I can
`give you one.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q. So is there a particular element of
`claim 1 that you can direct me to and say, okay, I
`contributed to this particular element of claim 1?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, calls for a legal
`conclusion.
`THE WITNESS: Well, all of claim 1 I
`contributed to, other than, as I said — I
`would say the conception of how to get -- the
`conception of the oonnection service process in
`claim 1 was Glenn's because he said, "Look, I
`have an idea about how to get the point to
`point."
`Subsequent to that, I contributed to
`enhancing that oonnection service portion of
`claim 1. But all in all, claim 1 pretty much
`embodies how you establish a point-to-point
`connection via a connection server as a lookup
`mechanism.
`And again, I believe I was the co-inventor
`
`of that, as well, and its, you know, final
`embodiment.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q. So you stated that you oontnbuted to
`enhancing the connection service portion of claim 1.
`And keeping the focus on claim 1, what
`particular elements here would you say that you
`contributed to in terms of enhancing?
`MR. BOYLE: This is exactly the same
`question. Asked and answered.
`THE WITNESS:
`I agree, I answered the
`question.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q.
`I guess I really don't understand your
`answer, then.
`What In particular, what elements here
`would you say that you contributed to?
`MR. BOYLE: Same objection.
`THE WITNESS: Why don't you point out each
`element and lwill tell you.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q. We can do that.
`
`A. Okay.
`Q. So did you contribute to the conception of
`the program code for transmitting to the server a
`
`_.
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`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
`
`network protocol address received by the first
`process following connection to the computer
`network?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, vague, and calls
`for a legal conclusion.
`THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know what
`you are afler here.
`I think I answered your
`question.
`I mean, claim 1 describes two processes,
`establishing a point-to-point connection
`through a connection sewer process where one
`makes an inquiry for the IP address of the
`other, and then once received, makes a point to
`point.
`At the outset I have told you, when I
`first met Glenn, he said, "I have a way of
`doing the point to point in my mind." Hence,
`the POP3 mechanism for the connection server.
`Subsequent to that there was no question
`that there was discussions between Glenn and I
`prior to even starting ltel that that mechanism
`may not suit us because of its time
`constraints, and we may need another mechanism.
`So with that said, I would tell you that
`the original conceiver of the connection
`
`service mechanism was Glenn via the POP server,
`and subsequent manifestations of the connection
`server implementations were co-conceived by
`Glenn and I.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q. Why don't you take a look at claim 10? II
`you could read that to yourself.
`A. Okay.
`Q. Are you an inventor of claim 10?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, calls for a legal
`conclusion.
`THE WITNESS: Um, you know, I guess I
`would have to say, you know, in this -- it is
`sort of multi-part. Okay? Because the first
`part reiterates claim 1 in a way, establishing
`a point to point through a connection server,
`and then you are dealing with points A, B and
`C, which relates a point-to-point connection to
`a oommunication line embodied in the user
`intertace. And that being the case, yes, I'm
`the inventor of that. Okay?
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`If you could turn to claim 32 and read
`Q.
`that to yourself.
`A. Okay. Okay.
`
`191
`
`193
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 190 — 193
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`
`_.
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`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
`
`Q. Are you an inventor of claim 32?
`MR. BOYLE: Same objection.
`THE WITNESS: Claim 32 pertains to
`maintaining the map or the table that
`associates the identifier ol a WebPhone client
`
`to its IP address, which is a connection
`service process.
`It is sort of an it—goes—without—saying
`kind ol thing that the connection service, no
`matter how it is implemented, has that table.
`Because that is what you are doing, you are
`doing a lookup.
`I give you the identifier, you
`give me the IP address.
`So at the end of the day, I would have to
`say, no, this was part oi Glenn's initial, you
`know, connection service mechanism, because,
`you know, there had to be —— actually, let me
`think about this a second. Let me retract that
`
`momentarily.
`Actually, I have to tell you that 32 is my
`invention. And it is going to be both.
`lwill
`tell you why, because when we were discussing
`alternatives to the POP server and using a
`proprietary connection server, this is an
`obvious thing, we had to have a table that had
`
`the identifier and the IP address.
`
`So I would have to say that Glenn and I
`both in our discussions, you know, said, okay,
`well, Iet’s -- this is how we are going to have
`to do it. So I would say co-inventor.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. Are there any documents of any sort that
`would help you identify the particular date in which
`you oo-conceived claim 32?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection.
`THE WITNESS: None that I know or.
`
`I
`
`mean, it is —— this is like —— no, none that I
`know oi that would answer your question as
`to -- as to evidence as to who oonceived it or
`
`I don't know any of that.
`at what time.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. Did you at any point write it down and
`say, "| just came up with a nifiy idea," write it in
`a journal entry or a lab notebook or something like
`that?
`
`A. Not to sound Ilippant, but -- and granted
`it got — it was issued a patent, so it is unique,
`but this concept of maintaining a lookup table is,
`I'm sorry to say, obvious.
`I mean, it is an obvious
`thing.
`
`194
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`196
`
`_.
`
`<-5<OCD\IO’)(J1A(.-Ilx.)
`
`E3
`Z?
`I;
`_k 01
`_k <7)
`_k \I
`_k co
`_k (D
`I\.)O
`I\.)_.
`I\.)I\.)
`I\.)w
`I\.)A
`I\.)01
`
`_.
`
`3<oco\io'><.n.i>wiu
`
`_k _k
`_k I\.)
`_k w
`_k A
`_k 01
`_k <7)
`_k \I
`_k co
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`The fact that we have, you know, put it
`into implementation in this paradigm, in this
`specific application is what makes it unique, and
`hence, obviously, the patent clerk saw fit to issue
`us a patent in that regard.
`But the overall concept of, you know, I
`want your phone number, I need your name, I need an
`identifier to link it to your phone number or any
`other kind of table where here is an identifier,
`give me a parameter related to it, that goes back
`through antiquity.
`So this is just an implementation is
`what — in this application is what is unique.
`0. You were familiar with the concept oi
`lookup tables for a longtime, right, before you —
`A.
`It is standard computer science, standard
`anything. You know, I mean, there is a table for
`everything. You know.
`Q. So the concept of a lookup table is
`basically, it is the same concept, regardless of
`what particular data happens to be in the lookup
`table; right?
`A. A lookup table is a lookup table.
`Q.
`It doesn't matter what the particular
`content of the lookup table is; right?
`
`A. Well, that is what makes it unique,
`though, and what application it is involved in.
`You know, the concept ol a lookup table,
`yeah, has been around, but it you are applying it to
`some new technology or a new — you know, a new
`program, you know, then, okay, you are unique in
`that regard.
`I mean, I would like to give you an
`example oft the top of my head of things that are
`obvious around the world that need to be patented
`because they are specifically applied to unique
`applications, then, you know, I would give it to
`you. But I think you get what I'm saying.
`Q. So you think the tact that one ol the
`parameters in the lookup table happen to be IP
`addresses is what made your invention unique in your
`opinion?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, mischaracterizes
`his testimony.
`THE WITNESS: No, I'm going to tell you
`what made this unique, okay? And I gave you
`the example when we first started. The POTS
`environment for looking up a phone number is a
`lookup table. You call 411, you get
`information, they look it up in a lookup table,
`
`195
`
`197
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 194 -197
`
`Page 5 of 29
`
`

`
`198
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`200
`
`201
`
`initially, when we first started out and used this
`patent attorney to secure some of the concepts, when
`we hired Bruce Jobsi, I sat down with Bruce and I
`said, "Here is the design." I went over the design
`with Bruce.
`
`l'mjust going to repeat my
`MR. BOYLE:
`caution Irom earlier about conversations with
`
`your attorney.
`THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
`I did go over with him the concepts ol the
`design, for him to make determinations as to
`what to put in the patent and how to revise the
`patent. That is, you know.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. Were you involved subsequently in, say,
`reviewing responses to the patent office?
`A.
`I don't believe so, other than maybe Bruce
`came and talked to me and asked me questions, and I
`probably asked him.
`0. Do you recall specifically Bruce asking
`you questions for responses to the patent office?
`MR. BOYLE:
`I'm going to caution you again
`with respect to attorney—client communications.
`THE WITNESS: Yeah, nothing -- I can't
`recall specific occasions.
`I mean, I can tell
`
`you that there were occasions when he came and
`said, "Hi, Shane, I have got some questions for
`you here. Can you help me out?"
`And, you know, I would explain to him what
`I could explain and left it in his domain to do
`what he does, and that is to file the patent.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`I would like you to review the description
`Q.
`in the '704 patent briefly.
`My question for you is whether there is
`any disclosure in the '704 patent of using multiple
`connection sewers for the connection service?
`
`MR. BOYLE: Just to be clear, you want him
`to read the entire thing?
`MR. HEINRICH: Well, he reviewed it
`already, so --
`I don't know where you are
`MR. BOYLE:
`making that representation from. Do you want
`him to --
`
`MR. HEINRICH: From his testimony.
`THE WITNESS: A review isn't a perusal. A
`review is more of a scan. Perusing is complete
`detailed read.
`
`I have not done a complete detailed read.
`So it you have a section in here you are
`
`_.
`
`8<OO=\IO’)<J1—t>(.ul\.)
`
`E3
`Z?
`I;
`
`G _
`
`k 0')
`_k \I
`_k on
`_k (D
`MO
`M_.
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`_.
`
`gwmximmswm
`
`_k _k
`_k M
`_k w
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`199
`
`_.
`
`gomximmswm
`
`_.
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. 01
`_. O’)
`_. \I
`_. on
`_. IO
`MO
`M _.
`MM
`23
`24
`25
`
`_.
`
`gwmximmswm
`
`_. _k
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. 01
`_. 01
`_. \I
`_. on
`_. IO
`MO
`M_k
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`M01
`
`they take your name, and they return to you
`your phone number. Okay?
`However, there is a paradigm shift from
`going from POTS to voice over IP in that you
`have to do a lookup because the phone number is
`not fixed. The IP address is more than likely
`dynamically assigned to the WebPhone or
`lntemet telephone; hence, by virtue of that
`paradigm shift into voice over IP, the lookup
`has to occur and not an option. So that is one
`unique part ol it. And the fact that you are
`looking up an IP address, a telephone number
`equivalent, as opposed to some other parameters
`is also unique and specific to this
`application.
`So I'm sure the patent examiner saw this
`and said, yeah, this is a unique application of
`the age-old concept of a table lookup system,
`and granted us the patent. Because it is
`applicable to this specific application.
`Otherwise, why would he have given us the
`patent?
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. He could have made a mistake; right?
`A. Unlikely.
`
`Q. Why do you think that is unlikely?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, argumentative.
`THE WITNESS: Well, I have to answer that.
`If this, all ol this, I don't know how many
`pages here, but I can tell you by weight, you
`know, you are looking at 20 pounds ol paper
`here, you know, it this is all of the
`documentation that went back and forth for the
`
`examiner to approve this patent, saying check
`this out, we don't like this, put this in
`another way or explain this, then a lot of time
`went into this patent in terms ol
`communications between us and the examiner.
`
`So it is not like something he made a real
`quick decision over, it looks like he spent a
`great deal of time before he made his decision;
`hence, my conclusion that he probably did not
`make a mistake.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. Were you involved in the communications
`between NetSpeak and the patent office during the
`prosecution ol the '704 patent?
`A. My involvement in issuing these patents is
`when we hired Bruce Jobsi to become our patent
`attomey, and at thatjuncture, I believe Glenn
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 198 — 201
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`
`202
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`204
`
`205
`
`THE WITNESS: Well, you know, it is
`interesting, because if you look at -- the
`first thing I see is on Page 290325, come down
`to Line 18, where it says, "The connection
`server 26 includes a processor, a timer for
`generating time stamps, and memory such as a
`database for storing."
`Then it says, "For example, email Intemet
`IP addresses of logged-in calls in an exemplary
`embodiment."
`
`So basically they are saying, for example,
`the connection server could be a — may be a
`Spark 5 processor or a Spark 20 processor from
`Sun, having a central CPU, and running UNIX,
`maintaining a timer, hard drive, fixed dn've,
`dynamic random access memory, storing,
`database, keyword display and other things,
`database, SQL database like such as Oracle, or
`it could be a POP server.
`I mean, I'm giving
`you other example embodiments.
`Well, here is interesting. 38 -- let’s
`start at 35. Orjust start at 33, for clarity
`of explanation, let's start at the embodiment
`of the disclosed point-to-point Intemet
`protocol. And system number 10 is presented as
`
`having individual functional blocks which may
`include functional blocks labeled as processor,
`processing unit. The functions represented by
`these blocks may be provided through the use of
`either shared or dedicated hardware, including
`but not limited to hardware capable of
`executing the software.
`It
`Clarity of individual processors.
`says, for example, the functions of each of the
`processors and processing units presented
`herein may be provided by a shared processor or
`a plurality of individual processors.
`It says you can have multiple computers.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Is this referring specifically to the
`Q.
`connection server?
`
`I haven't gone back to the
`I don't know.
`A.
`diagrams.
`I mean, I am just reading this.
`0. You can feel free, please, to consult the
`diagrams.
`Is there a question pending?
`MR. BOYLE:
`THE WITNESS: Well, I'm still trying to
`answer his first question to see where, you
`know --
`
`MR. BOYLE: But I'm asking him, is there a
`
`_.
`
`3Looo\ro'><.nAcuM
`
`E3
`Z?
`I;
`
`G 6
`
`3
`Zr‘
`65
`
`G M
`
`O
`M_.
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`M01
`
`_.
`
`3<ooo\ro'><.nAwrx:
`
`E3
`Z?
`_k A
`_k 01
`_k <7)
`_k \l
`_k on
`_k (.0
`MO
`M_k
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`M01
`
`203
`
`_.
`
`3zooo\ro'><.nA<.uix:
`
`_.
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. 01
`_. <7)
`_. \l
`_. on
`_. (.0
`MO
`M _.
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`M01
`
`_.
`
`3<ooo\ro'><.nAwrx:
`
`_.
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. 01
`_. <7)
`_. \l
`_. on
`_. L0
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`referring to, I would appreciate it if you
`would point it out.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. Well, let me back up with a preliminary
`question.
`Sitting here right now, are you aware of
`any passage or disclosure in the 704 patent that
`talks about an embodiment using multiple connection
`sewers?
`
`MR. BOYLE: Argumentative.
`THE WITNESS:
`I would presume, I'm just
`saying I would presume that there is some
`language in here that says a connection server
`may exist as a standalone system or a
`distributed system or a set of multiple
`computers.
`I mean, that is just —— that would
`go without saying.
`You want me to spend the time and grope
`through here to see if I can find where it says
`that, that is fine. Why don't you point me in
`a direction here, and I will see if I can find
`exactly where it is.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. Well, I don't think it says that, sol
`can't point you to any passage. But if you are
`
`aware of a passage, I'd like you to point me to
`that.
`
`I will tell you what, why don't you tell
`A.
`me where it says it isn't more than one oomputer
`system?
`Q.
`I'm asking the question that I already
`asked. So if you can point me to a passage from the
`704 patent that says a connection server may exist
`as a standalone system or distributed system.
`A. Where does it say that?
`Q.
`I'm asking you.
`MR. BOYLE: Counselor, you are arguing
`with the witness, and --
`MR. HEINRICH:
`I'm asking the question.
`MR. BOYLE:
`-- the question isjust
`improper and unfair. Either you can spend your
`deposition time waiting for him to read this or
`you shouldn't be asking that question.
`It is
`improper.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`0. Please take your time, Mr. Maftaway.
`MR. BOYLE: Just to be clear, he's asking
`you to read the entire patent.
`THE WITNESS:
`I know.
`
`MR. BOYLE: From Page 1.
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 202 — 205
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`
`_.
`
`3<oo=\io'>oi-tsozrx:
`
`_. _k
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. U1
`_. <7)
`_. \l
`_. on
`_. (D
`MO
`M_.
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`MU’!
`
`_.
`
`3<oo:i\io'>oi-tswrx:
`
`_. _k
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. U1
`_. <7)
`_. \l
`_. on
`_. no
`NO
`M_k
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`Mor
`
`question pending?
`It is my same question he's
`MR. HEINRICH:
`still trying to answer, as hejust said.
`MR. BOYLE: Can you read back the
`question?
`(Thereupon, the requested portion was read
`back by the reporter as above reoorded.)
`THE WITNESS: This crap, I have to read
`it. Let's see if it is at the beginning here.
`I can't, from my looking -- looking over
`this thing, I don't see where it discusses the
`connection server as being one, only one, more
`than one.
`It is just using this connection
`server in the example ol the embodiment.
`So it doesn't imply one only, nor does it,
`Irom what I have read, nor does it say anything
`about more than one. So it seems to me pretty
`general.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. The example that is given uses a single
`connection sewer; correct?
`A. Well, yeah.
`It also uses a single phone.
`Two phones, does that mean there is not more than
`one phone in existence? It is an example.
`0. Actually, it talks about more than one
`
`phone, right, a caller and a callee?
`A. So all there are are two WebPhones on the
`
`planet then, in this NetSpeak program?
`0. Let me just —
`MR. BOYLE: Don't interrupt his answers.
`You are starting to do it again.
`You can finish.
`
`I mean, come on, the example
`THE WITNESS:
`here uses two phones, one oonnection sewer.
`And it I use your logic for your argument
`saying, well, there is only one oonnection
`server here in this patent, then I would have
`to say there is only two WebPhones in this
`patent, the caller and the callee. Now, that
`makes sense?
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`I'm just asking the question.
`Q.
`A. Well, I'm answering your question.
`I can only go by what one would deduce
`Irom the diagrams and deduce from the information
`provided. The fact that I can't find in this
`document where it says, "Only one connection sewer
`exists or multiple connection sewers may exist,"
`sort of implies to me it was left open and it can be
`any which way that you want. That is what I get
`
`206
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`208
`
`_.
`
`Irom it.
`
`207
`
`Q. Does the 704 patent disclose any kind ol
`configuration where one connection sewer would have
`a parent connection sewer?
`MR. BOYLE:
`I'm sorry. Hold on. What was
`the first part of the question? I just missed
`that. The '704 patent. Was there a missing
`word?
`
`It is in my question that
`
`MR. HEINRICH:
`you interrupted.
`So let me just ask it again.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. Does the 704 patent disclose any
`configuration where one connection sewer has a
`parent connection sewer?
`A. The answer is no, this patent does not
`describe NetSpeak's sewer architecture. There is
`another patent that does that.
`Q. Does this patent describe NetSpeak's
`sewer architecture as of September 25th, 1995?
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, vague.
`THE WITNESS: This patent is dated
`August 22nd, 2000, and it is explicitly a
`It is
`point-to-point Internet protocol patent.
`not a connection sewer or NetSpeak sewer
`
`architecture patent. So this is being very
`specific as to what its claims are.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. And the date I was using there, Iwas
`referring to the filing date, September 25th,
`1995 --
`
`A. Okay.
`Q.
`-- is the date on which this patent was
`filed.
`
`A. Okay.
`Q. So my question is: Does the '704 patent
`refiect NetSpeak's sewer architecture as of
`September 25th, 1995?
`A. No, it doesn't.
`It is not in there.
`MR. BOYLE:
`I object to the question as
`vague.
`THE WITNESS: Sorry.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`
`Q. Does the 704 patent disclose a
`distributed hierarchical database of IP addresses?
`
`It doesn't go into the
`A. No, it doesn't.
`connection sewer architecture.
`It describes the
`connection sewer insofar as how it is used to
`
`establish a point-to-point communication, which is
`what this specific patent is dealing with.
`
`8<O®\lO’)U1A(.-)I\.)
`
`_k _k
`_k M
`_k w
`_k A
`_k or
`_k <7)
`_k \l
`_k on
`_k (D
`MO
`M_.
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`MU’!
`
`_.
`
`3<oo:i\io'>oi-bwrx:
`
`_k _k
`_k M
`_k w
`_k A
`_k or
`_k <7)
`_k \l
`_k on
`_k no
`NO
`M_k
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`Mor
`
`209
`
`Ebay_Net2Phone
`
`Page 206 — 209
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`
`210
`
`Mattaway, Shane v. 2 9/10/2007 9:00:00 AM
`212
`
`_.
`
`5‘<or:o\io'><:i4>cuix:
`
`_. _k
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. O1
`_. O’)
`_. \l
`_. co
`_. no
`NO
`M_.
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`M01
`
`_.
`
`gomximmswm
`
`_. _k
`_. M
`_. w
`_. A
`_. O1
`_. 01
`_. \l
`_. co
`_. no
`NO
`M_k
`MM
`Mw
`MA
`M01
`
`Q. The connection server approach that is
`described in the '704 patent was the best way that
`you and your colleagues at NetSpeak knew how to use
`a oonnection sewer as of September 25th, 1995;
`correct?
`
`MR. BOYLE: Objection, calls for a legal
`conclusion.
`It is also argumentative.
`THE WITNESS:
`I won't even answer that
`
`one. That is silly.
`BY MR. HEINRICH:
`Q. You have to answer that.
`
`It is a ridiculous question.
`A. No, ldon't.
`I mean, it was the best way. What is "best"?
`Define "best way."
`0. You do