`
`DROPBOX EX. 1034
`
`DROPBOX EX. 1034
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Transcript of Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Dropbox v. Synchronoss Technologies
`
`Alderson Reporting
`1-800-367-3376
`info@aldersonreporting.com
` http://www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Reference Number: 69604
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` DROPBOX, INC.
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` Case No. IPR2016-00850
`
` Case No. IPR2016-00851
`
` DEPOSITION OF ARTHUR M. KELLER, Ph.D.
`
` Palo Alto, California
`
` Monday, April 3, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`
`JANIS JENNINGS, CSR, CLR, CCRR
`
`Job No. 69604
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
` DEPOSITION OF ARTHUR M. KELLER, Ph.D.,
`
`taken on behalf of the Petitioner, at Dentons US LLP,
`
`1530 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto,, California, beginning
`
`at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 3, 2017, before Janis
`
`Jennings, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 3942, CLR,
`
`CCRR.
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` FOR PETITIONER:
`
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`
` BY: DAVID M. KRINSKY, ESQ.
`
` CHRIS GEYER, ESQ.
`
` 725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` 202.434.5000
`
` dkrinsky@wc.com
`
` cgeyer@wc.com
`
` FOR PATENT PATENT OWNER:
`
` DENTONS US LLP
`
` BY: SCOTT W. CUMMINGS, ESQ.
`
` 1900 K Street, NW
`
` Washington, D.C. 20006-1102
`
` 202.496.7323
`
` scott.cummings@dentons.com
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`
`ARTHUR M. KELLER, Ph.D.
`
` BY MR. KRINSKY 7, 312
`
` BY MR. GEYER 220
`
` BY MR. CUMMINGS 303
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1033 Page 28 - Diagram w/markings 334
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`DROPBOX
`
`Exhibit 1001 US Patent 6,671,757 218
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Azer Bestavros, Ph.D. 213
`
`Exhibit 1003 High-Latency Low-Bandwidth Windowing 30
`
` in the Jupiter Collaboration System;
`
` (Nichols reference)
`
`Exhibit 1006 Disconnected Operation in the Coda 141
`
` File System; (Kistler reference)
`
`Exhibit 1007 Efficient Distributed Backup with 220
`
` Delta Compression; (Burns reference)
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 6
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`DROPBOX
`
`Exhibit 1012 Operation-based Update Propagation 258
`
` in a Mobile File System;
`
` (Lee Reference)
`
`Exhibit 1020 An Algorithm for Differential File 31
`
` Comparison; (Hunt/McIlroy reference)
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`SYNCHRONOSS
`
`Exhibit 2002 Curriculum Vitae Arthur M. Keller 123
`
`Exhibit 2008 Declaration of Arthur M. Keller, 9
`
` Ph.D.
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 7
`
` PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2017;
`
` 10:00 A.M.
`
` ARTHUR M. KELLER, Ph.D.,
`
` The witness herein, was sworn and
`
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Keller.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. My name is David Krinsky. I am from
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C., and we
`
`represent the petitioner, Dropbox. I'm here with my
`
`colleague, Chris Geyer, also with Williams &
`
`Connolly.
`
` Have you been deposed before?
`
` A. Yes, I have.
`
` Q. About how many times?
`
` A. I don't know exactly.
`
` Q. Several times?
`
` A. Yeah, at least.
`
` Q. So you know essentially how this works. I
`
`ask you questions. You're obligated to answer my
`
`questions to the best of your ability, even if your
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
`counsel objects.
`
` Is there any reason you can't testify fully
`
`and truthfully today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Are you under the influence of any
`
`medication that would interfere with your ability to
`
`testify?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. You're not under the influence of alcohol
`
`or anything?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. A term that has come up a fair amount in
`
`this proceeding is "differencing." Do you have an
`
`understanding what "differencing" means in the art?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: So are you asking -- in terms
`
`of differencing, are you asking in general or in the
`
`context of the patent?
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. Well, let me begin by in general. What
`
`does "differencing" mean, in general?
`
` A. "Differencing" in general in the context of
`
`computer science in terms of when you would take
`
`differences of data or files, it is the
`
`comparison --
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` (Interruption in proceedings.)
`
` THE WITNESS: It is the comparison of two
`
`files, two collections of data to see the
`
`differences between them.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. And you asked me to clarify earlier whether
`
`I was asking in general or in the context of the
`
`patent. Does the term have a different meaning in
`
`the context of the patent?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, in the context of the
`
`patent, I talk about that in my report, so I'd be
`
`happy to explain what I talked about in my report.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. Okay. Do you need your report to answer
`
`that question?
`
` A. Well, there's a lot of stuff going on, and
`
`I wrote the report a while ago, so it would be
`
`helpful if you're asking the questions in context of
`
`my -- of this case to have the report.
`
` Q. All right. That's fine.
`
` I'm going to hand you what's previously
`
`been marked Exhibit 2008. Is this the report to
`
`which you're referring, Doctor?
`
` A. It appears to be.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 10
`
`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. And you prepared two different declarations
`
`for this proceeding; correct?
`
` A. I believe that's correct. Actually, the
`
`proceeding has two different cases, so there were
`
`two sets of declarations.
`
` Q. I see. Do they differ substantively?
`
` A. The first set of declarations differs
`
`somewhat from the second set of declarations.
`
` Q. All right. Within a set do the
`
`declarations differ substantively?
`
` A. Other than the case number, I think that
`
`they're pretty much the same.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, let me know if you need any
`
`other declarations besides this one. But I've
`
`handed you the declaration that accompanied patent
`
`owner's response, which, perhaps overly casually, I
`
`think it was the primary declaration in this case.
`
`So will that help you answer my questions for the
`
`time being?
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. Okay. So to repeat my question: How does
`
`the meaning of the term "differencing" in the art
`
`differ, if at all, from the meaning of the term
`
`"differencing" in the context of the '757 patent?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I talk about what
`
`"differencing" means here. I'm trying to -- so
`
`there's a couple of different things that are -- I'm
`
`sorry. I'm using "different" in a different sense.
`
` So there is the concept of difference
`
`information where difference is used in the term of
`
`difference information where we have -- the Board
`
`construed this as information that comprises only
`
`the changes to one system's data which had occurred
`
`on that system and instructions for implementing
`
`those changes.
`
` So that describes "difference" in the
`
`context of difference information.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. So just so the record is clear, were you
`
`reading from paragraph 38?
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. And the construction of "difference
`
`information" in paragraph 38 is the one that you
`
`applied in this proceeding?
`
` A. The construction -- yes, the construction
`
`of "difference information" I applied is the one
`
`that the Board construed in this proceeding.
`
` Q. And, in your opinion, that's the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` A. I agreed with the Board here.
`
` Q. Do you agree with the Board that that's the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of "difference
`
`information"?
`
` A. That is the Board's reasonable
`
`interpretation of "difference information,"
`
`information being the content here of the -- so
`
`that's basically the Board's reasonable
`
`interpretation of the phrase "difference
`
`information."
`
` Q. Okay. And following along with the
`
`paragraph 39, a difference transaction is one or
`
`more pieces of difference information communicated
`
`together. Is that term as used in the '757 patent?
`
` A. Excuse me. What's the question?
`
` Q. The question is: In your opinion, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of "difference
`
`transaction" as used in the '757 patent is one or
`
`more pieces of difference information communicated
`
`together; correct?
`
` A. I have adopted the Board's construction in
`
`this case.
`
` Q. And, in your opinion, that is the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of "difference
`
`transaction" as to this patent?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
` A. I don't disagree with the Board. I think
`
`that the Board has a reasonable assessment of the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
`
` Q. You don't think the term needs to be
`
`broader, is my point.
`
` A. No, I don't -- I don't disagree with the
`
`Board.
`
` Q. Okay. On either difference information or
`
`difference transaction?
`
` A. No, I don't.
`
` Q. Let's talk about difference transaction
`
`generator. Here, I believe, you have applied your
`
`own definition; correct?
`
` A. My understanding is that the Board did not
`
`construe this phrase, and I believe it is helpful to
`
`construe it.
`
` Q. Okay. What is your definition of
`
`"difference transaction generator"?
`
` A. So I define this, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the
`
`specification of the '757 patent, as being software
`
`that compares a current state of the data to a
`
`previous state of the data to generate difference
`
`information and then places the difference
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
`information into a difference transaction.
`
` Q. So you would disagree that a difference
`
`transaction generator is anything that generates
`
`difference transactions?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The notion of the difference
`
`transaction generator is the idea that the
`
`difference transaction -- we have to talk about the
`
`generation as the process of the difference
`
`transaction, and the context of the patent indicates
`
`that the difference transaction generator is
`
`generating difference transaction by comparing the
`
`previous state to the current state of the data.
`
`That's consistent with the patent specification.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. So, in your opinion, if one or more pieces
`
`of difference information communicated together --
`
`that is, a difference transaction -- are generated
`
`in some way other than by comparing current data to
`
`a previous state of the data, that would not be
`
`performed by a difference transaction generator?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: My understanding of the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation is that the
`
`difference transaction generator here in the patent
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
`compares the current state of the data to the
`
`previous state of data, that that's consistent with
`
`the patent in terms of the description of the claims
`
`as in the context and on the basis of the patent
`
`itself and the specification as well as the
`
`prosecution history, the file history. So based on
`
`those, I would understand difference transaction
`
`generator to be this kind of software.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. And I think that answered my question, but
`
`your answers are a little long. And obviously you
`
`need to answer the questions however you deem
`
`appropriate, but I want to go through this very
`
`slowly and precisely, because I think these are some
`
`important issues that arise in the context of some
`
`of the prior art that we will talk about today.
`
` So just to be very precise, your view is
`
`that it would be an unreasonably broad
`
`interpretation of "difference transaction generator"
`
`if that term encompassed software that generated
`
`difference transactions in some way other than
`
`comparing the current state of the data to a
`
`previous state of the data?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
`Relevance.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: So what I have determined it
`
`as the broadest reasonable interpretation, has
`
`software that compares the current state of the data
`
`to the previous state of the data to generate
`
`difference information and then places that
`
`difference information into difference transaction.
`
`I think that this is what I would interpret as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. And so a broader interpretation that would
`
`encompass the generation of difference transactions
`
`by other means would be unreasonable, in your
`
`opinion?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
`Relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I did not define that as a --
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation. I defined
`
`this one, and so this is -- this is my opinion on
`
`that regard in terms of what the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation is. So I think that the description
`
`in terms of -- if you look at the patent claim --
`
`for example, claim 1 -- we have -- the idea is that
`
`there's a copy of the previous -- that -- so we have
`
`the sync engine comprising -- in element (e) a sync
`
`engine comprising a data interface, a copy of the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
`previous state of data and a difference transaction
`
`generator, so the difference transaction generator
`
`uses the previous set of the data.
`
` And in terms of understanding the nature of
`
`difference as described here, that -- the difference
`
`transaction generator would be -- would use the
`
`current state of data and the previous state of
`
`data, comparing the two and then generating the
`
`difference information.
`
` In terms of the difference information,
`
`this description in paragraph 38 talks about the
`
`results of the difference transaction generator, and
`
`when you talk about the content, those are the
`
`changes to data. When we are talking about how you
`
`create that content, how you create the difference
`
`information, then you need to understand how that is
`
`generated, and the generation is by comparing the
`
`previous state of data. And in claim 16 the
`
`previous set of data is -- is in there in claim 24.
`
`The previous set of data is in there.
`
` And so in all of these cases, we have the
`
`previous set of data, which we are then comparing to
`
`the current set of data -- state of the data. And
`
`so this is talking about the generation process, the
`
`"how," while the difference information is talking
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
`about the "what." So we need to make a distinction.
`
`We are talking about the "how." Then we're talking
`
`about how we create that, which is through this
`
`comparison process. In 38 in A and B we are simply
`
`talking about the "what," and therefore the "what"
`
`is independent of how it was created.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. In your opinion, a definition of difference
`
`transaction generator that does not include the
`
`"how" you just described would be unreasonably
`
`broad?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
`Relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, in my description I
`
`talked about what I thought the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, and in the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation it is software that compares the
`
`current state of the data to the previous state of
`
`the data, so I think that those -- that that is part
`
`of the broadest reasonable interpretation of how --
`
`how difference information is generated.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. In rendering that opinion, what was your
`
`understanding of the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the phrase "broadest reasonable
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
`interpretation"?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: My understanding of the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation is that it is
`
`a -- broadest reasonable interpretation is an
`
`interpretation that is consistent with the
`
`specification. You first look at the claims, and
`
`then from looking at the claims -- the claim itself,
`
`each claim that contains that phrase, and then you
`
`look at the specification. And then you look at the
`
`prosecution history, and it is an interpretation
`
`consistent with that that is based on the
`
`understanding of what is in the patent
`
`specification. And so in that case my understanding
`
`is what I apply for the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in terms of a definition of
`
`difference transaction generator.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. And you know in these Board proceedings the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation is applied, and
`
`do you understand that the term "broadest" means
`
`that upon consideration of all of those sources of
`
`information you're supposed to apply the
`
`interpretation that is as broad as possible and
`
`still remaining reasonable and still remaining
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
`consistent with those various sources?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I think that the phrase
`
`is "broadest reasonable interpretation," so it must
`
`be appropriately broad, and it has to be reasonable.
`
`And I think that what is reasonable in terms of
`
`difference transaction generator is that it is based
`
`on a comparison, and that is consistent with the
`
`notion of the differencing operation as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and cited by a
`
`paper that was -- explained in a paper that was
`
`cited by -- as part of the petition in this case.
`
`And so I would understand that the -- that the
`
`difference transaction generator would be based on
`
`that notion of differencing, which is well-known in
`
`the state -- in the art.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. You said difference transaction generator
`
`is based on the notion of differencing, which is
`
`well-known in the state of art. Can you just
`
`explain what you meant by that?
`
` A. Yes. So the term "difference transaction
`
`generator" embodies data differencing. And
`
`"differencing" in a number of conjugations of this
`
`word is a term of art, and differencing involves the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
`comparison of data to derive or generate
`
`differences.
`
` So, for example, this paper by Hunt and
`
`McIlroy, M-c-I-l-r-o-y, An Algorithm for
`
`Differential File Comparison, which is
`
`Exhibit 1020 -- it was from 1976 -- discussed the
`
`generation of difference information by comparing
`
`two files. I talked about how Dr. Bestavros agrees
`
`with this in his paragraph 34. He also in paragraph
`
`35 of his opening declaration talked about comparing
`
`two files to "compute the difference between the two
`
`files." Also it is on page 27 of Exhibit -- 26 of
`
`Exhibit 1007. I don't have that in front of me.
`
` And so it's clear that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of "difference" as used in the
`
`specification of the patent and the term "a
`
`difference transaction generator" in the claims
`
`would be understood as involving the comparison of
`
`data to derive and generate differences between
`
`them.
`
` So because we are using the term
`
`"generator" here, then that implicates the manner in
`
`which a difference information that is in the
`
`difference transaction is created or derived, and
`
`the specification of the patent consistently uses
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
`this notion of generating difference information by
`
`a comparison of data to a previous state set of
`
`data.
`
` For example, this specification describes
`
`difference information as a product of extraction.
`
`This extraction is performed by a differencing
`
`transmitter or differencing synchronizer, and then
`
`the differencing synchronizer, described as a delta
`
`module -- one that creates comparison; delta module
`
`or differencing engine -- the delta module or
`
`differencing engine is consistently disclosed as
`
`generating differences through comparison.
`
` So I can go on through this, but it's
`
`pretty clear from this and the other descriptions
`
`that I have here that the notion of a difference
`
`transaction generator would involve the generation
`
`through the comparison of the current state of data
`
`to a previous state of data to generate difference
`
`information and then placing that difference
`
`information into a difference transaction.
`
` Q. I would just like to make an observation
`
`that I think smoke is starting to come out of the
`
`court reporter's fingers, so please try to answer
`
`slowly. I understand -- I think there's a certain
`
`urge to read from your declaration. I understood
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
`that to be, at least in part, what you were doing,
`
`reading or paraphrasing, and I think you speed up
`
`when you do that. So if you for everyone's sake
`
`could slow down a little.
`
` And if all you want to do is read into the
`
`record what's in your declaration, this is going to
`
`be a very long day, so you can just always refer to
`
`a paragraph and tell me you've explained it. I have
`
`it in front of me.
`
` A. Well, I appreciate that. It makes it
`
`easier to have the context of what I say in my
`
`deposition transcript, and I'm trying to make sure
`
`you get your full questions in terms of the amount
`
`of time allotted to you. But I can certainly
`
`accommodate to the needs of the court reporter by
`
`slowing down.
`
` Q. Okay. I'm sure she appreciates that, and I
`
`appreciate that as well.
`
` I do want to turn to the Exhibit 1020
`
`paper, and I'm pleased that we're on the same
`
`wavelength, and it's next here in my stack. But
`
`before I do that, I just want to discuss the claim
`
`language briefly.
`
` You've quoted the language of the
`
`independent claims at pages 13 just through the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
`beginning of page 15 of your report?
`
` A. Yes. 13 through 15, yes, sir.
`
` Q. So just to be clear about the relationship
`
`between the difference transaction generator and the
`
`copy of a previous state of said data, let's focus
`
`first on claim 1.
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. Claim 1 includes the limitation wherein
`
`each said sync engine comprises, among other things,
`
`a copy of a previous state of said data and a
`
`difference transaction generator. Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. It's your opinion that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires that
`
`the difference transaction generator use the copy of
`
`a previous state of said data in order to generate
`
`difference transactions?
`
` A. Yes. What I've said is that the -- that
`
`the difference transaction generator compares a
`
`current state of the data to a previous state of the
`
`data to generate difference information, and then
`
`places the difference information into a difference
`
`transaction, so the difference transaction generator
`
`would use the previous state of -- a copy of the
`
`previous state of the data to generate the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 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
`
`difference information.
`
` Q. Okay. And in this context the difference
`
`transaction generator is a piece of software; is
`
`that right?
`
` A. Yes, the difference transaction generator
`
`is a piece of software.
`
` Q. So if a sync engine doesn't have code that
`
`uses a copy of a previous state of said data, your
`
`view is that it does not meet the limitations of
`
`claim 1?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I am not evaluating what it
`
`takes to infringe claim 1. My task here is to look
`
`at particular claims and see what -- and look at the
`
`prior art and figure out places where the prior art
`
`did not satisfy claim 1, so that was not the
`
`assessment that I did.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. Well, I'm not asking about infringement
`
`here. I mean, this is an issue where I believe you
`
`have opined with respect to the Nichols' reference.
`
` In your view, it's not just that the sync
`
`engine has to have -- well, let me withdraw that
`
`question and start from the beginning.
`
` In order for Dropbox to establish that
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
`Nichols anticipates claim 1, in your view, we have
`
`to show not only that Nichols includes a copy of a
`
`previous state of said data, but also that it has a
`
`difference transaction generator that uses that copy
`
`of a previous state of said data?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Objection. Relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: In order for Nichols to be
`
`prior art, it has to satisfy each of the claim
`
`elements here, so it has to satisfy all -- for
`
`claim 1, all of the seven elements here described.
`
`And in terms of difference transaction generator, it
`
`has to satisfy the requirement for having a
`
`difference transaction generator.
`
` The difference transaction generator, as I
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art consistent with the specification of the '757
`
`patent as being software that compares a current
`
`state of the data to a previous state of the data to
`
`generate difference information and then places the
`
`difference information into a difference
`
`transaction.
`
` So it would have to satisfy all of the
`
`requirements of this, and if Nichols did not satisfy
`
`at least one of the requirements of claim 1, then it
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Arthur M. Keller Ph.D.
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
`wouldn't be prior art.
`
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
` Q. And likewise claim 16 requires differencing
`
`code that includes both a copy of a previous state
`
`of said data and a difference transaction generator.
`
`Do you see that? Actually, there's two different
`
`differencing codes.
`
` A. Are you looking at D and E?
`
` Q. Yes, sir.
`
` A. What happens here is that it says wherein
`
`the first or second differencing code includes a
`
`first or second sync engine having a first or second
`
`data interface, a first or second copy of the
`
`previous state of said data, and the first or second
`
`difference transaction generator.
`
` Q. And that difference transaction generator
`
`in this claim as well needs to use that copy of the
`
`previous state of said data in order to generate
`
`difference transactions?
`
` A. That difference transaction gener
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
