`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