`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`1
`
`·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`·3· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · ·CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · Case IPR2016-00309
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent 7,224,688
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, Ph.D.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · ·San Francisco, California
`
`18· · · · · · · · · ·Tuesday, January 17, 2017
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Volume I
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· REPORTED BY:
`
`23· REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR No. 12546
`
`24· JOB NO. 549251
`
`25· PAGES 1 - 133
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`1
`
`ARISTA 1021
`Arista v. Cisco
`IPR2016-00309
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`2
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`·2
`
`·3· For the Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · ·STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
`
`·5· · · ·BY:· DANIEL BLOCK
`
`·6· · · ·BY:· LORI GORDON
`
`·7· · · ·Attorneys at Law
`
`·8· · · ·1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`·9· · · ·Washington, DC 20005
`
`10· · · ·(202) 371-2600
`
`11· · · ·dblock@skgf.com
`
`12· · · ·lgordon@skgf.com
`
`13· and
`
`14· · · ·KIRKLAND & ELLIS
`
`15· · · ·BY:· ERIC CHENG
`
`16· · · ·Attorney at Law
`
`17· · · ·3330 Hillview Avenue
`
`18· · · ·Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`19· · · ·(650) 859-7046
`
`20· · · ·eric.cheng@kirkland.com
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25· /////
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`3
`
`·1· · · · · · · · APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (cont'd)
`
`·2
`
`·3· For the Patent Owner:
`
`·4· · · ·FISH & RICHARDSON
`
`·5· · · ·BY:· LAUREN A. DEGNAN
`
`·6· · · ·BY:· RALPH A. PHILLIPS (via telephone)
`
`·7· · · ·Attorneys at Law
`
`·8· · · ·1425 K Street, NW
`
`·9· · · ·Washington, DC 20065
`
`10· · · ·(202) 626-6392
`
`11· · · ·degnan@fr.com
`
`12· · · ·rphillips@fr.com
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
`
`·2· DEPONENT· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`
`·3· KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, PH.D.· · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`· · VOLUME I
`·4
`
`·5· BY MS. DEGNAN· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
`
`·9· NUMBER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION
`
`11
`
`12· Exhibit 1001· ·US Patent 7,224,668;· · · · · · · ·29
`
`13
`
`14· Exhibit 1002· ·Declaration of Bill Lin;· · · · · ·13
`
`15
`
`16· Exhibit 1005· ·US Patent 6,460, 146, 7 Pages;· · 116
`
`17
`
`18· Exhibit 1009· ·CoreBuilder 3500 Implementation· · 89
`
`19· · · · · · · · ·Guide, Release 3.0, 592 Pages;
`
`20
`
`21· Exhibit 2003· ·Declaration of Dr. Kevin C.· · · · ·6
`
`22· · · · · · · · ·Almeroth in Support of Patent
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·Owner Response;
`
`24
`
`25· /////
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`5
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`·2· NUMBER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3
`
`·4· Exhibit CX-221· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 68
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25· /////
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`6
`
`·1· · ·San Francisco, California, Tuesday, January 17, 2017
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9:06 a.m.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, Ph.D.
`
`·6· having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
`·7· testified as follows:
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`10· BY MS. DEGNAN:
`
`11· · · ·Q.· ·Good morning, Dr. Almeroth.· I am
`
`12· Lauren Degnan and I represent Arista.· On the phone we
`
`13· have Ralph Phillips from our Washington, DC office.
`
`14· · · · · · Excuse me.· I'm getting over a cold so
`
`15· hopefully it won't affect you.· But if you can't hear
`
`16· me, just let me know.
`
`17· · · · · · (Exhibit 2003 was marked for identification by
`
`18· the court reporter and is attached hereto.)
`
`19· · · · · · MS. DEGNAN:· I'm going to start by handing
`
`20· you a copy of your declaration, Exhibit 2003, just so
`
`21· you have it.
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Thank you.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· So we are going to talk
`
`24· about the level of ordinary skill in the art.· That's
`
`25· found on page 39 -- excuse me -- paragraph 39 of your
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`7
`
`·1· declaration, in case you want to turn to it.· You don't
`
`·2· have to.
`
`·3· · · ·A.· ·Okay.
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·You understand that when evaluating the level
`
`·5· of ordinary skill in the art, you must use the date of
`
`·6· invention, correct?
`
`·7· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
`
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·And what was the date of invention you used
`
`·9· in connection with the declaration that's Exhibit 2003?
`
`10· · · ·A.· ·So what it says here is that it's September
`
`11· to November 2002.· But what I will also say is that
`
`12· it's basically that same level of skill in the art.
`
`13· There really aren't any differences as you go back
`
`14· earlier to 1998, for example.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· ·You have a range for the date of invention.
`
`16· · · · · · Can you pin it down more specifically?
`
`17· · · ·A.· ·No.· I certainly have opinions with respect
`
`18· to Moberg, but in terms of a specific date for purposes
`
`19· of this IPR, I haven't offered opinions around a
`
`20· specific date of conception, or anything more than
`
`21· what's in the direction.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· ·So if the board determines that there has to
`
`23· be a specific date of invention, would you agree that
`
`24· your declaration, given a range, is insufficient?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`8
`
`·1· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I am not really sure I
`
`·2· understand the question, and I don't know how specific
`
`·3· the board would have to be.· I mean, I think that the
`
`·4· declaration speaks for itself with respect to my
`
`·5· opinions as they relate to particular references, so
`
`·6· I -- it would be hard for me to say what would be the
`
`·7· outcome or what would be necessary, given some
`
`·8· presumption about what the board would decide was
`
`·9· necessary.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· But sitting here today, you
`
`11· can't give a specific date of invention, other than
`
`12· this range, September through November 2002, correct?
`
`13· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Asked and answered.
`
`14· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Well, so first of all, I think
`
`15· that with respect to the date that is here, as I
`
`16· testified to earlier, it is -- it is based on, I
`
`17· believe, when the filing date of the patent was.· But
`
`18· as I talk about in the discussion on Moberg and the
`
`19· fact that -- that I believe that there are Cisco
`
`20· references that demonstrate that the inventors were in
`
`21· possession of -- of the invention, that it's an earlier
`
`22· conception date than even what it is listed here.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· So the conception date is
`
`24· earlier, but the invention date is the filing date; is
`
`25· that your opinion?
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`9
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·2· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I think now you are getting
`
`·3· into specific terms about filing date and invention
`
`·4· date that, I think, have a legal meaning to them. I
`
`·5· think that really I have offered the opinions that I
`
`·6· have in the declaration.· And to the extent that they
`
`·7· are useful for arguing when a conception date was or an
`
`·8· invention date, I think that's sort of the legal aspect
`
`·9· of how my opinions might be used.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Fair enough.
`
`11· · · · · · But I'm afraid -- just so that we can have a
`
`12· clear record -- what's the invention date you used in
`
`13· formulating your opinions?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Asked and answered.
`
`15· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I believe it's described in
`
`16· the declaration.· I think you asked earlier about the
`
`17· level of ordinary skill in the art and it's -- as it is
`
`18· described in 39, but also as I've just testified to,
`
`19· that it's the same basic level of skill in the art as
`
`20· it relates to -- a conception date or a date of
`
`21· invention that would be sufficient to get behind the
`
`22· Moberg reference.· So I think we can look at that
`
`23· patent and what the date is, but I think that that's
`
`24· described elsewhere in the declaration.
`
`25· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· I'm sorry.· I didn't get
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`10
`
`·1· your -- my question is quite narrow.
`
`·2· · · · · · What is the date of invention you used in
`
`·3· formulating your opinions?
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Outside the scope.
`
`·5· Asked and answered.
`
`·6· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I think that I have answered
`
`·7· that question.· I -- I don't know that it's a specific
`
`·8· date.· I think what I offered is the opinions that are
`
`·9· included in the declaration as it relates to what a
`
`10· person of ordinary skill in the art is, and then with
`
`11· respect to the Moberg reference.· And that's contained
`
`12· in a different part of the declaration.· So we can
`
`13· certainly look at that, but I don't know that -- that
`
`14· there's an actual specific day that is identified.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· You have not identified a
`
`16· date of invention; is that what you are saying?
`
`17· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`18· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· No, that's not what I am
`
`19· saying.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· What is the date of
`
`21· invention you used to render your opinions?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Just give me a date.· It can
`
`24· be a range, but please give me a date.
`
`25· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Argumentative.
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`11
`
`·1· Scope.· Asked and answered.
`
`·2· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I am not sure that I can give
`
`·3· you a specific day.· I think I have answered your
`
`·4· question several times.· I think I have gone through
`
`·5· what's described, at least in paragraph 39, as it
`
`·6· relates to a person of skill in the art.
`
`·7· · · · · · I have also referenced the section that talks
`
`·8· about Moberg, and those are the opinions that I have
`
`·9· offered in this declaration.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· I didn't hear a date in your
`
`11· answer.
`
`12· · · · · · What is the date of invention you used?
`
`13· Please, just give me a date.
`
`14· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Asked and answered.
`
`15· Argumentative.· Scope.
`
`16· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I think I have answered that
`
`17· question.· You are -- you are asking it again.· It
`
`18· would be the same answer I have given before you have
`
`19· asked it.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Please give me a date.· You
`
`21· have not given me a specific date.· I'm entitled to
`
`22· one.
`
`23· · · · · · What is the date of invention you used in
`
`24· rendering your opinions?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Asked and answered.
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`12
`
`·1· Time to move on.
`
`·2· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I am not sure you're -- well,
`
`·3· I won't comment on whether or not you are entitled to a
`
`·4· specific date.· I think I have included the opinions in
`
`·5· the declaration.· And I am not sure what else to say
`
`·6· other than the answers to the -- the various ways you
`
`·7· have asked the same question over the last several
`
`·8· minutes.
`
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Sir, we can move on if you
`
`10· will just give me a simple straight answer.
`
`11· · · · · · What is date you used in formulating the
`
`12· opinions in your declaration?
`
`13· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Asked and answered.
`
`14· Scope.· Argumentative.
`
`15· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· It will be the same answer I
`
`16· have given to you before.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Which is?
`
`18· · · ·A.· ·With respect to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`19· the art, what's identified here in paragraph 39 is the
`
`20· September to November 2002 time frame.· But with
`
`21· respect to a person of ordinary skill in the art, it
`
`22· would be the same as you go back to dates that are
`
`23· earlier, including in the 1998 time frame.
`
`24· Potentially, even earlier than that.
`
`25· · · · · · With respect to the Moberg reference, I will
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`13
`
`·1· point you to that specific paragraph, so that it is
`
`·2· clear for the record.· And that is discussed in
`
`·3· paragraph 95 and also references Exhibit 2047.
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·What is the field you use in determining the
`
`·5· skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`·6· · · ·A.· ·Let's see.· The end of paragraph 41 describes
`
`·7· network devices.· I think that that is generally
`
`·8· accurate.
`
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·Have you reviewed Dr. Lin's description of a
`
`10· person of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`11· · · ·A.· ·Have, I...
`
`12· · · ·Q.· ·Reviewed Dr. Lin's description of a person of
`
`13· ordinary skill in the art?
`
`14· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· ·Just in case you need a reference, it's at
`
`16· paragraph 9 of Exhibit 1002.
`
`17· · · · · · (Exhibit 1002 was marked for identification by
`
`18· the court reporter and is attached hereto.)
`
`19· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Do you agree with Dr. Lin's
`
`20· description of a person of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`21· · · ·A.· ·It is fairly complex.· I don't know that I
`
`22· really spent some time looking at it in order to agree
`
`23· or disagree with it.
`
`24· · · · · · Certainly what I can say is, it doesn't
`
`25· really -- if I were to apply his level of skill in the
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`14
`
`·1· art, it doesn't change any of the opinions that I have
`
`·2· in my declaration.· But if I were to -- to sit here and
`
`·3· look at it or to give some time to thinking about all
`
`·4· of the nuances he's expressed there, there might be
`
`·5· some aspects of it that I disagree with.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·What knowledge about actual routers and their
`
`·7· components would a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`·8· have?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· ·I am not sure I understand the question. I
`
`10· mean, how -- how specific do you -- do you want to get?
`
`11· · · · · · I mean, it is my understanding that it's
`
`12· really a person -- sort of a hypothetical person.
`
`13· If -- if you are asking about whether or not they would
`
`14· possess certain knowledge, I can potentially try and
`
`15· answer that question, but I don't know that I can give
`
`16· you a -- a complete list of -- of all of the specific
`
`17· knowledge that they would need.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· Well, give me a less than
`
`19· complete list.
`
`20· · · · · · Describe something that a person of ordinary
`
`21· skill in the art would know about routers.
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`23· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I mean, it's such a -- it's
`
`24· such a broad question.· Something general, sort of what
`
`25· the -- maybe the basic functions of what a router is or
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`15
`
`·1· was at that time frame.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· What are they?
`
`·3· · · ·A.· ·What are what?
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·The basic functions of what a router was at
`
`·5· that time.
`
`·6· · · ·A.· ·I mean, it depends, right.· It -- I mean,
`
`·7· I don't -- again, I'm very hesitant to try and give you
`
`·8· some sort of complete assessment of what a person of
`
`·9· skill in the art would have understood or not.· I mean,
`
`10· at this level of detail, I haven't really tried to --
`
`11· to identify anything specific.
`
`12· · · · · · I mean, routers, generally, route packets.
`
`13· They can forward packets.· They can run routing
`
`14· protocols.· I mean, the list sort of goes on.· And I am
`
`15· not sure how complete you want it to potentially be.
`
`16· · · ·Q.· ·Would a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`17· know that prior art routers had multiple physical
`
`18· network interface ports?
`
`19· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`20· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I mean, generally speaking, it
`
`21· is possible that they do.· I mean, I think that part of
`
`22· the exercise here is to look at what Dr. Lin and Arista
`
`23· have said with respect to the particular prior art
`
`24· references that have been instituted.
`
`25· · · · · · Beyond that, in terms of actual specifics
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`16
`
`·1· about routers and what was known, I think there was
`
`·2· certainly basic concepts.· But I am not sure I can go
`
`·3· through an exhaustive list and describe what those
`
`·4· would be.
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Would a person of ordinary
`
`·6· skill in the art know that prior art routers had a
`
`·7· switching fabric that switched packets from one port to
`
`·8· another?
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`10· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I don't know that they would
`
`11· have or not.· I mean, that's fairly specific
`
`12· information.· So it depends on if you are suggesting
`
`13· that that was contained in a particular reference or
`
`14· that there's some evidence that a person of skill in
`
`15· the art would have known that information, certainly
`
`16· they might have.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Would a person of ordinary
`
`18· skill in the art know that prior art routers had a
`
`19· control brain -- excuse me -- a control plane?
`
`20· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`21· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I certainly think a person of
`
`22· skill in the art would have understated -- or
`
`23· understood that there were certain processes beyond
`
`24· routing and forwarding that they would have known
`
`25· about.
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`17
`
`·1· · · · · · Whether or not they would have understood at
`
`·2· a granularity that there was a control plane versus a
`
`·3· data plane or a fast path versus a slow path, certainly
`
`·4· they might have.· It might be described in the
`
`·5· background of, for example, the '668 patent, but I --
`
`·6· it is sort of tough to answer that question without
`
`·7· looking at some specific document at a particular time
`
`·8· frame using one particular definition for a person of
`
`·9· skill in the art.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· So a person with
`
`11· approximately two years of related experience in the
`
`12· field of network devices, in your opinion, may -- but
`
`13· may not -- know that routers had a control plane?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Mischaracterizes.
`
`15· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I think in terms of asking
`
`16· about a specific person, they may or may not know.
`
`17· Generally, for a hypothetical person, as I sit here
`
`18· now, I certainly don't see a reason why they wouldn't
`
`19· know.· But, again, I think as to what the specific
`
`20· information or details that a person of skill in the
`
`21· art would have -- I mean, it really depends.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Under your definition of a
`
`23· person of ordinary skill in the art, would that person
`
`24· understand that ACLs could be configured on physical
`
`25· ports?
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`18
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`·2· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Again, I think you are getting
`
`·3· into a level of specificity that to the extent you
`
`·4· wanted to establish that that was information a person
`
`·5· of skill in the art would have, potentially there's
`
`·6· background reference that Dr. Lin would rely on or want
`
`·7· to point to, but it would depend.
`
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Using your definition of a
`
`·9· hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with
`
`10· approximately two years of related experience in the
`
`11· field of network devices, is it your opinion that such
`
`12· a person would not know that ACLs can be configured on
`
`13· physical port interfaces?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Mischaracterizes.
`
`15· Scope.
`
`16· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· No, that's not what I am
`
`17· saying.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· So that such a person would
`
`19· know that ACLs can be configured on physical ports,
`
`20· right?
`
`21· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`22· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· No, that's not quite what I am
`
`23· saying either.· I am simply saying that if you want to
`
`24· point to a particular function, usually what I would
`
`25· try and do is justify that a person of skill in the art
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`19
`
`·1· would have that information based on some document or
`
`·2· textbook.
`
`·3· · · · · · But sort of sitting here right now, as to a
`
`·4· particular date and what that level would be and what
`
`·5· that experience would be, as you go through a list of
`
`·6· specific topics certainly it might be the case.· But
`
`·7· I -- I would think that to the extent that it was
`
`·8· relevant, there would be some discussion in -- in the
`
`·9· declaration either from Dr. Lin or myself.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Would you agree with me that
`
`11· ACLs are a port service?
`
`12· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`13· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I am not sure the context that
`
`14· you are asking the question.· If you are asking about a
`
`15· particular claim in the '668 patent, or not considering
`
`16· what the claims or the technology of the patent or the
`
`17· context of the patent is about, it is hard.· You would
`
`18· have to give me some more specific context.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Well, in the context of the
`
`20· '668 patent, generally, are ACLs a port service?
`
`21· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`22· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I don't know that I disagree
`
`23· that they are not or -- I don't know that I have
`
`24· offered the opinion that they are not port services. I
`
`25· think the declaration speaks for itself as to whether
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`20
`
`·1· or not they could be port services.
`
`·2· · · · · · I mean, I don't see a reason they couldn't
`
`·3· be.· But it depends on what you really mean by port
`
`·4· services, if you are talking about a particular
`
`·5· limitation or some disclosure in the '668 patent.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· I mean what port service
`
`·7· means in the context of the '668 patent.
`
`·8· · · · · · So with that clarification, you would agree
`
`·9· that ACLs are port services, right?
`
`10· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.· Asked and
`
`11· answered.
`
`12· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Again, I think if there's some
`
`13· disclosure in the '668 patent that points to that, I
`
`14· don't know that I have taken a position one way or the
`
`15· other whether or not ACLs are port services.
`
`16· · · · · · If you want to point me to some portion of
`
`17· the declaration, I -- I don't really believe I have
`
`18· taken a position one way or the other.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· If your declaration says
`
`20· that you consider ACLs to be port services, you stand
`
`21· by that, right?
`
`22· · · ·A.· ·I do.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·And you would also agree that quality of
`
`24· service is a port service, correct?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`21
`
`·1· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Again, if there is somewhere
`
`·2· in the declaration that says that quality of service is
`
`·3· a port service, then I would stand by that opinion.· If
`
`·4· there's some part of the declaration that suggests that
`
`·5· or is confusing about that point, I can certainly --
`
`·6· you can point me to it and I can certainly clarify.
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Well, you spent a fair
`
`·8· amount of time studying the '668 patent, correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· ·I did.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·And you have an understanding of what quality
`
`11· of service is, right?
`
`12· · · ·A.· ·Generally, I do.
`
`13· · · ·Q.· ·And you understand what port services are in
`
`14· the context of the '668 patent, correct?
`
`15· · · ·A.· ·Generally.· Even though I have studied the
`
`16· '668 patent and, in particular, with respect to the
`
`17· opinions I have offered in the declaration, I think
`
`18· that it contains opinions of -- as to why a particular
`
`19· prior art references don't disclose particular
`
`20· features, that didn't really require me to have an
`
`21· exhaustive description or scope for the claims or
`
`22· definitions of terms.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·Well, given all the analysis you have done,
`
`24· tell me, do you believe quality of service is a port
`
`25· service within the meaning of the '668 patent?
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`22
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.· Asked and
`
`·2· answered.
`
`·3· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Well, you'd have to point me
`
`·4· to where in the '668 patent you are referring to
`
`·5· quality of service.· There are different types of
`
`·6· quality of service.· They can be implemented in
`
`·7· different ways.· Depending on how quality of service is
`
`·8· specifically described, it certainly might qualify as a
`
`·9· port service.· And there are potentially types of
`
`10· quality of service that wouldn't quality as port
`
`11· services.· So even in the context of the '668 patent,
`
`12· that's not specific enough to be able to answer your
`
`13· question.
`
`14· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· What types of quality of
`
`15· services do not qualify as port services within the
`
`16· meaning of the '668 patent?
`
`17· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`18· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I don't know that there are
`
`19· particular types that don't qualify.· Again, your
`
`20· question is so vague as to context, or what particular
`
`21· claim or a description within the '668 patent, that
`
`22· there isn't really a proper context for being able to
`
`23· say what types of quality of service are or are not
`
`24· port services.
`
`25· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Well, in your previous
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`23
`
`·1· answer you indicated that some quality of service might
`
`·2· not qualify as port services.
`
`·3· · · · · · What did you mean by that?· Give me an
`
`·4· example, please.
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`·6· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I don't know that I give you a
`
`·7· specific example -- or maybe I can.
`
`·8· · · · · · If it's a type of quality of service for
`
`·9· which it is not a port service, then it's not a port
`
`10· service.· I mean, you are asking me to posit a
`
`11· hypothetical and then give you an example that doesn't
`
`12· meet potentially a particular limitation or definition,
`
`13· when you haven't really said what that system is, what
`
`14· the definition is, what the context is.· I mean, your
`
`15· question is really too vague to answer.
`
`16· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· I'm asking for clarification
`
`17· of one of your answers, Dr. Almeroth.· When you said
`
`18· quality of service, some kinds might not qualify as a
`
`19· port service.
`
`20· · · · · · Please explain what specifically you meant by
`
`21· that.
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`23· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Yeah, sure.· You can have port
`
`24· services -- or you can have quality of service that's
`
`25· not a port service, if it's not implemented as a port
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`24
`
`·1· service.· I mean, you could have quality of service
`
`·2· that's implemented somewhere or doesn't have the
`
`·3· characteristics of a port services as required by the
`
`·4· claims, and it doesn't meet the requirements of the
`
`·5· claim, then -- for example, claim 1 -- then it wouldn't
`
`·6· be a port service whether -- how you implement quality
`
`·7· of service or not.
`
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· How would you implement it
`
`·9· in a way that makes it not a port service?
`
`10· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Hypothetical.
`
`11· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I mean, you're pretty far
`
`12· outside the scope of what my declaration is.· I haven't
`
`13· really tried to undertake developing an example of a
`
`14· system that doesn't meet the requirements of the claim
`
`15· with respect to what a quality of service is and how
`
`16· you could implement it such that it's not a port
`
`17· service.
`
`18· · · · · · I mean, it is -- that's pretty far afield of
`
`19· anything I have -- I have really focused on in my
`
`20· declaration.
`
`21· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· Well, in the answer you gave
`
`22· to my question, you had something in mind when you said
`
`23· quality of service would not be implemented as a port
`
`24· service.
`
`25· · · · · · What did you mean by that?
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Mischaracterizes.
`
`·2· Scope.
`
`·3· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· Yeah, that's not what I said.
`
`·4· · · · · · Basically, what I was testifying to is that
`
`·5· it's not necessarily the case that quality of service
`
`·6· must be a port service.· That there could be ways of
`
`·7· implementing quality of service such that it's not
`
`·8· part -- it's not a port service.
`
`·9· · · · · · I don't know, again, that I can sit here and
`
`10· give you what a specific implementation might be.· But
`
`11· certainly we could look at a particular claim.· We
`
`12· could look at the requirements of that claim vis-a-vis
`
`13· port services and try and understand whether a
`
`14· particular implementation would meet that limitation or
`
`15· not.
`
`16· · · · · · Of course, that exercise is -- is, again,
`
`17· pretty far afield of what's in the declaration and
`
`18· anything I really needed to do to offer the opinions
`
`19· that are in the declaration.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· ·(By Ms. Degnan)· In your opinion, port
`
`21· service has a plain and ordinary meaning, correct?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BLOCK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`23· · · · · · THE DEPONENT:· I haven't really offered an
`
`24· opinion with respect to claim construction.· Certainly,
`
`25· as I describe in the declaration, I have used the --
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORTU.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479-2484(877) 479-2484
`
`YVer1f
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`January 17, 2017January 17, 2017
`
`26
`
`·1· the ordinary meaning in light of the claims and -- and
`
`·2· I'll sort of defer to what -- to what I say in the
`
`·3· declaration, sinc
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
