TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________________
` )
`FACEBOOK, INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
`vs. ) No. IPR2016-01156
` ) IPR2016-01157
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC, ) IPR2016-01158
` ) IPR2016-01159
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`______________________________)
` )
`AND RELATED ACTIONS. )
`______________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
` Palo Alto, California
` Wednesday, March 8, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`CATHERINE A. RYAN, RMR, CRR
`CSR No. 8239
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 1
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 4
`
`1 INDEX
`2 WITNESS EXAMINATION
`3 TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
`4 BY MR. HAREL 7
`
`5 6
`
` EXHIBITS
`7 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGES
`8 Exhibit 1 "Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in 8
`9 Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`10 Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,458,245";
`11 98 pages
`12
`13 Exhibit 2 "United States Patent, Marks, Patent 15
`14 No.: US 8,458,245 B1, Date of Patent:
`15 Jun. 4, 2013"; 37 pages
`16
`17 Exhibit 3 "United States Patent, Roseman, Patent 15
`18 No.: US 6,608,636 B1, Date of Patent:
`19 Aug. 19, 2003"; 33 pages
`20
`21 Exhibit 4 "Computer, The Road to Software 96
`22 Maturity, January 1995"; 6 pages
`23
`24 Exhibit 5 "Chapter 12: People Connection"; 28 118
`25 pages
`
`Page 2
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`34
`
`______________________________
` )
`5 FACEBOOK, INC., )
` )
`6 Petitioner, )
` )
`7 vs. ) No. IPR2016-01156
` ) IPR2016-01157
`8 WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC, ) IPR2016-01158
` ) IPR2016-01159
`9 Patent Owner. )
` )
`10 ______________________________)
` )
`11 AND RELATED ACTIONS. )
`______________________________)
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16 Videotaped deposition of TAL LAVIAN,
`17 Ph.D., taken on behalf of the Patent Owner,
`18 at 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California,
`19 beginning at 10:05 a.m. and ending at 4:52 p.m.,
`20 on Wednesday, March 8, 2017, before CATHERINE A.
`21 RYAN, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 8239.
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 EXHIBITS (Continued)
`2 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGES
`3 Exhibit 6 "Chapter 3: Online Help & the 118
`4 Members"; 30 pages
`
`5 6
`
`Exhibit 7 "The Official America Online for 118
`7 Macintosh Membership Kit & Tour Guide,
`8 Second Edition"; 61 pages
`9
`10 Exhibit 8 "Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in 133
`11 Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`12 Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,407,356";
`13 108 pages
`14
`15 Exhibit 9 "ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 30, 134
`16 Number 3, March 1995"; 11 pages
`17
`18 Exhibit 10 "Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in 155
`19 Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`20 Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657";
`21 96 pages
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`
`2 3
`
`For Petitioner Facebook, Inc.:
`4 COOLEY LLP
` BY: ANDREW MACE
`5 YUAN LIANG
` Attorneys at Law
`6 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`7 (650) 843-5808
` (650) 849-7400 Fax
`8 amace@cooley.com
`9
`10 For Patent Owner:
`11 BROWN RUDNICK
` BY: SHAHAR HAREL
`12 Attorney at Law
` Seven Times Square
`13 New York, New York 10036
` (212) 209-4800
`14 (212) 209-4801 Fax
` sharel@brownrudnick.com
`
`15
`16 For Microsoft, Inc.:
`17 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
` BY: TODD M. SIEGEL
`18 Attorney at Law
` One World Trade Center
`19 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
` Portland, Oregon 97204
`20 (503) 595-5300
` (503) 473-0918 Fax
`21 todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`22
`23 Also Present:
`24 QUINCY WONG, Videographer, Veritext
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 2
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 A Thirty, thirty-five, approximately. I
`2 don't know.
`3 Q So you're familiar with how this works.
`4 I'll just go over it at a high level. The most
`5 important thing is that we get a clear record. So I
`6 ask that you speak audibly and provide oral answers
`7 as opposed to shaking or nodding your head.
`8 It's important that we don't talk over
`9 each other, and so listen until I finish, and I'll
`10 give you the same courtesy.
`11 If at any time you don't understand a
`12 question, just ask me to rephrase it. If you do
`13 answer, I'm going to assume that you understood my
`14 question.
`15 Is that okay?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q And is there anything such as prescription
`18 drugs or anything like that that would prevent you
`19 from testifying honestly today?
`20 A No.
`21 MR. HAREL: I'll mark Exhibit 1.
`22 (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification
`23 by the court reporter.)
`24 MR. HAREL: And for the record, this is
`25 your declaration in the 1156 IPR, which is with
`
`1 Palo Alto, California; Wednesday, March 8, 2017
`2 10:05 a.m.
`
`3 4
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`5 on the record at 10:05 a.m. on March 8th, 2017.
`6 This is the video-recorded deposition of Tal Lavian.
`7 My name is Quincy Wong, here with our court
`8 reporter, Catherine Ryan. We are here from Veritext
`9 Legal Solutions. This deposition is being held at
`10 3175 Hanover Street in Palo Alto, California. The
`11 caption of this case is Microsoft Corporation versus
`12 Windy City Innovations, case numbers IPR2016-01156,
`13 -01157, -01158, -01159.
`14 Please note that audio and video recording
`15 will take place unless all parties agree to go off
`16 the record. Microphones are sensitive and may pick
`17 up whispers, private conversations, and cellular
`18 interference.
`19 I am not authorized to administer an oath.
`20 I am not related to any party in this action, nor am
`21 I financially interested in the outcome in any way.
`22 If there are any objections to proceeding,
`23 please state them at the time of your appearance,
`24 beginning with the noticing attorney. Will counsel
`25 please identify yourselves and state whom you
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 represent.
`2 MR. HAREL: Shahar Harel on behalf of the
`3 patent owner, Windy City Innovations, LLC.
`4 MR. MACE: Andrew Mace with Cooley for the
`5 petitioner, Facebook, and with me is Yuan Liang.
`6 And just for the record, I'd like to note
`7 that the caption should be Facebook versus Windy
`8 City, not Microsoft.
`9 MR. SIEGEL: I am Todd Siegel from
`10 Klarquist, and I do represent Microsoft.
`11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. The witness
`12 will be sworn, and counsel may begin the
`13 examination.
`14 TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.,
`15 having been administered an oath, was examined and
`16 testified as follows:
`17 EXAMINATION
`18 BY MR. HAREL:
`19 Q Good morning, Dr. Lavian.
`20 A Lavian.
`21 Q Lavian.
`22 A Good morning.
`23 Q Have you been deposed before?
`24 A Yes.
`25 Q Approximately how many times?
`
`1 respect to the '245 patent.
`2 Q Do you see it?
`3 A Yes.
`4 Q Okay. We start at the back, Exhibit A,
`5 which is your curriculum vitae. So this is pages 83
`6 to 98.
`7 Do you see that?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Okay. And is this a fair and accurate
`10 summary of your professional accomplishments up 'til
`11 the present date?
`12 A That's my resumé. It's fair, yes.
`13 Q Okay. You list a Ph.D.
`14 What was the -- what was your thesis title
`15 for your Ph.D.?
`16 A The thesis title? I don't remember the
`17 exact title, but it was network communication,
`18 telecommunication related to Cray computing. I
`19 don't remember the exact title.
`20 Q And what year was that?
`21 A 2006.
`22 Q And who was your advisor?
`23 A Professor Randy Katz.
`24 Q And could you spell that for the court
`25 reporter.
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 3
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 A Katz, K-a-t-z.
`2 Q Okay. And your master's in science from
`3 Tel Aviv University, what year was that?
`4 A I think 1996. I don't remember the exact
`5 date. Yes.
`6 Q And your bachelor's ...?
`7 A Computer science. Math and computer
`8 science.
`9 Q The year?
`10 A Year. Around 1996, 1997. About 30 years
`11 ago.
`12 Q '86 you mean?
`13 A '86, yes. Sorry.
`14 Q Okay. Now, you say that you've been an
`15 expert witness in numerous U.S. PTO PTAB
`16 proceedings.
`17 Do you see that?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q Approximately how many would you say?
`20 A Twenty-five, plus, minus. Maybe a little
`21 bit more.
`22 Q And were these typically on behalf of the
`23 patent owner? petitioner? Can you give me a
`24 breakdown?
`25 A On PTAB I believe that most of them are on
`
`1 A Hmm? Can you please repeat the question?
`2 Q How many times, to the best of your
`3 ability to remember, have you testified in a federal
`4 court in relation to your patent expert services?
`5 A In federal court I didn't testify.
`6 Q Have you testified at the ITC?
`7 A Yes.
`8 Q How many times?
`9 A One time.
`10 Q And today you are an expert on behalf of
`11 Facebook, correct?
`12 A Yes.
`13 Q Other than these petitions on behalf of
`14 Facebook against Windy City Innovations, have you
`15 performed expert patent work on behalf of Facebook
`16 before?
`17 A Yes.
`18 Q Approximately how many times?
`19 A I don't remember. I believe about 20,
`20 plus, minus.
`21 Q Okay. And these were -- any of the cases
`22 that you worked on behalf of Facebook where Facebook
`23 was asserting its own patents?
`24 A No.
`25 Q So it was always defending Facebook
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 behalf of the petitioner.
`2 Q Would you say over 20 were on behalf of
`3 the petitioner?
`4 A I don't know. Approximately. I don't
`5 know exactly.
`6 Q Okay. And you list over 30 cases in the
`7 federal courts in the ITC.
`8 Do you know the breakdown there?
`9 A No, not on top of my head.
`10 Q Okay. Do you have any sense as to whether
`11 it's more on behalf of a patent owner or somebody
`12 defending against a claim of patent infringement?
`13 A I was on both sides. I don't know.
`14 Q And you -- you can't say which one is
`15 more? It's --
`16 A I think more on the -- the defendants.
`17 Q Okay. And the work that you've done in
`18 the federal courts in the ITC, did it relate to
`19 patent validity? patent infringement? both? Which
`20 -- which ones would you typically do?
`21 A I worked on infringement. I worked on
`22 validity. I worked on both sides, yes.
`23 Q Okay. And how many times have you
`24 testified at court in a trial? And here I'm
`25 referring to federal court.
`
`1 against charges of patent infringement?
`2 A I'm not a lawyer. I'm not defending
`3 anyone. I'm providing my expert services.
`4 Q Okay. Let me restate.
`5 All your work on behalf of Facebook was
`6 either determining that somebody else's patent was
`7 invalid or determining that Facebook did not
`8 infringe somebody else's patent; is that correct?
`9 A Yes.
`10 Q Okay. And I noticed in your declaration
`11 you list that you're being compensated at $400 per
`12 hour; is that correct?
`13 A Yes.
`14 Q And is that your -- still your current
`15 rate that you're being compensated?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q And is that your standard rate in general
`18 for --
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q -- patent expert services?
`21 At the bottom of page 83 you list
`22 different clients of yours including Cisco, Juniper,
`23 HP, Ericsson, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, and Apple.
`24 Do you see that?
`25 A Yes.
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 4
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 14
`1 Q Those cases that you worked on behalf of
`2 those clients that I just listed -- were -- were any
`3 of them where you provided expert opinion as to any
`4 of those clients asserting any of their patents or
`5 was it in cases where those clients were defending
`6 against charges of patent infringement?
`7 A First you say that I -- cases of patent
`8 related -- involved. It's not that they are my
`9 client, and I doubt that I work for -- always with
`10 them.
`11 Q Oh.
`12 A I worked with Cisco and against Cisco. I
`13 worked with Microsoft and against Microsoft. The
`14 case of Samsung, I was against Samsung. So it's
`15 mixed.
`16 Q Okay. And Juniper, were you working on
`17 behalf of Juniper or against Juniper or was it
`18 mixed?
`19 A Juniper, I remember a case that I worked
`20 on IPR for -- for Juniper. I believe that I worked
`21 on a different case -- federal case many years ago.
`22 It was seven or eight years ago, but I don't
`23 remember the details. I'm not sure.
`24 Q And HP -- do you recall if you've worked
`25 for them, against them or a mixture?
`
`Page 16
`
`1 Q Okay. When was the first time you've
`2 encountered the Roseman patent?
`3 A About nine months ago, plus, minus.
`4 Q You hadn't seen it before?
`5 A No.
`6 Q Okay. And beyond the Roseman patent, are
`7 you familiar with any implementations that NCR, the
`8 assignee of the patent, actually implemented or
`9 publicly released?
`10 A Not on the top of my head. Not that I
`11 know.
`12 Q Okay. So can you explain to -- first of
`13 all, why don't you just give a high-level one
`14 paragraph summary of what you think Roseman
`15 discloses.
`16 A Roseman discloses a server-based virtual
`17 conferencing.
`18 Q In the Roseman system in order for a user
`19 to access a conference room a user would need a key;
`20 is that correct?
`21 A Yes.
`22 Q And what information does the key -- let
`23 me restart.
`24 What information is associated with a
`25 specific key?
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 A I don't remember the details. I think at
`2 HP I was for them and against them. I'm not sure
`3 about the detail. Different cases.
`4 Q And same question but with respect to
`5 Ericsson.
`6 A Ericsson, I was for Ericsson.
`7 Q And Google?
`8 A Google, I was in a case for Google and a
`9 case against Google -- cases.
`10 Q Okay. And Apple?
`11 A Apple, I was in a case for Apple and I was
`12 in cases against Apple.
`13 MR. HAREL: Let me give you Exhibit 2,
`14 which is the '245 patent.
`15 (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification
`16 by the court reporter.)
`17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`18 MR. HAREL: And let me give you Exhibit 3,
`19 which is the Roseman patent, the '636 patent.
`20 (Exhibit 3 was marked for identification
`21 by the court reporter.)
`22 BY MR. HAREL:
`23 Q And I want you to look at those and tell
`24 me if you recognize them.
`25 A Yes.
`
`1 A The information that is associated with
`2 the key is information about the user, about his
`3 identity and other information related to the
`4 meeting room.
`5 Q Anything else?
`6 A Basically, it's information about the
`7 identity -- about the identity of the user and the
`8 room itself. If you want, I can go into detail and
`9 read it carefully to find anything else.
`10 Q So -- okay. Let me -- let's start with
`11 that first.
`12 When you say the identity of the user,
`13 it's the identity of the user who is permitted to
`14 go -- to enter a specific meeting room, correct?
`15 A That's one example, yes.
`16 Q It would never contain an identity of a
`17 person who is not allowed to go into a meeting room;
`18 is that correct?
`19 A I'm not sure I understand the question.
`20 Q A key wouldn't -- does Roseman disclose a
`21 key that -- that has -- that is associated with the
`22 identity of a person who is not allowed to enter a
`23 specific meeting room?
`24 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`25 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that I
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 5
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 18
`
`1 understand the question. The key is dedicated and
`2 is passed to a specific user, and user holding a
`3 key. How can you have a key that it's -- I'm not
`4 sure I understand your question.
`5 MR. HAREL: So let's -- maybe we should
`6 start over. I didn't mean to ask a trick question.
`7 Q The -- the key is associated, first of
`8 all, with a specific meeting room, correct?
`9 A The key has information about the meeting
`10 room, yes.
`11 Q And -- and Roseman doesn't disclose a key
`12 being associated with more than one meeting room,
`13 does it?
`14 A No. I disagree.
`15 Q It shows one specific key being associated
`16 with multiple rooms?
`17 A Yes.
`18 Q Where is that?
`19 A The key -- the hallway is a meeting room.
`20 The room itself is a meeting room. A committee room
`21 is another meeting room, and child room is another
`22 meeting room. Immediately you can see with one key
`23 can serve four different meeting rooms.
`24 Q Where is that in the Roseman reference?
`25 A That the key can be more than one room?
`
`Page 20
`1 continuation from line 30: "Entering a room. When
`2 a person wants to go to a room, he first enters
`3 through the hallway. The hallway itself is
`4 recognized as a room of rooms."
`5 Continuation the same line -- line 31:
`6 "The user display shows an image of the hallways
`7 with various room -- various doors to room. Each
`8 one of them is a separate conference room. The user
`9 entry point into the hallway may set a different
`10 location, such as the end of the hallway or specific
`11 location with other frequency visited."
`12 The -- the patent gave quite a bit of
`13 examples of this.
`14 Q It's your opinion that the Roseman patent
`15 discloses that a person must have a key to go
`16 through a hallway?
`17 A I'm not sure. I need to check. The
`18 hallway itself is a conference room. It might be
`19 that it will be open to the public. I'm not sure.
`20 I need to check.
`21 Q But let me ask you this question: Is
`22 there -- where in Roseman does it disclose that the
`23 same key can give access to more than -- to -- let
`24 me restart.
`25 A key is only needed where there is a lock
`
`Page 19
`
`1 Q Yeah.
`2 A For example, in paragraph -- in column 10,
`3 paragraph -- starting on line 18 I am reading.
`4 Start the quotation: "Rooms may also have doors --
`5 doors to committee room or child rooms. Each child
`6 room is created in the same way as the parent room
`7 and may have unique attributes, door locks, color,
`8 tools. A child room is dependent on the parent room
`9 for access."
`10 Basically, end quotation between paragraph
`11 -- column 10 between line 18 to about 22 --
`12 Q And --
`13 A -- and --
`14 Q Go ahead.
`15 A Continuation discussion about the other
`16 room with the same key and hallway in the same key.
`17 Q Where else are you pointing to? Can
`18 you --
`19 A The same par- -- the same paragraph,
`20 column 10, starting from line 18 until about line 30
`21 or 29.
`22 Q And is there anything else in Roseman that
`23 you point to for support for the idea that a key can
`24 be associated with more than one room?
`25 A Yes, at many places. For example,
`
`Page 21
`1 somewhere in the system in Roseman, correct?
`2 A A key is needed --
`3 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`4 THE WITNESS: -- in order to enter to a
`5 room or to subgroup or a subcommittee that you don't
`6 have a lock on subcommittee group.
`7 BY MR. HAREL:
`8 Q Let's say there is a room -- there's a
`9 conference room and a certain number of people were
`10 invited to that room and were given keys to that
`11 conference room. After those users came into that
`12 room, the -- the person who initiated the conference
`13 decides to have a -- a child room. At that point
`14 who has access to the child room from the people
`15 that were initially invited to the parent room?
`16 A It depends.
`17 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`18 BY MR. HAREL:
`19 Q Depends on what?
`20 A It depends on what specific information
`21 you are provided. I'm not sure I understand the
`22 question. There are many different ways to do it.
`23 Q So the person who is -- who initiated the
`24 first meeting in the parent conference room and then
`25 that same person who initiates the -- the meeting in
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 6
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 22
`1 the child conference room, it's at his discretion
`2 who's invited to go to the child room, correct?
`3 A That's one example that he can perform,
`4 yes.
`5 Q And he can set it such that -- okay.
`6 And if he were to allow only one other
`7 person besides himself to go to the child conference
`8 room, would that person get a new key to the child
`9 conference room or would their original key still
`10 work with the child conference room?
`11 A It depends on what he did. I am not sure
`12 that I understand the question. More likely the
`13 natural way is to get permission only to the same --
`14 to -- it's to a limited number of users, but it
`15 depends on him, and I'm not sure I understand what
`16 exactly he did.
`17 Q If he created a child -- well, what are
`18 his possibilities in -- let's say he -- he wants to
`19 create a child conference room for himself and one
`20 other person.
`21 What options does he have to implement
`22 that as disclosed in Roseman?
`23 A He can create a child room and add people
`24 to this child room.
`25 Q Can he create a child room with a separate
`
`Page 23
`1 key from the key to the parent conference room?
`2 A I am not sure. I need to check this. I
`3 am not sure if this is possible.
`4 Q Okay. Please check and let me though what
`5 the answer is.
`6 A It may take time to go through what all
`7 the option is. I didn't consider this, and I don't
`8 know. I think it's -- I don't know.
`9 Q Okay. Let's put that on hold for now.
`10 Let me ask you this question: Can the
`11 initiator of the first parent -- the first
`12 conference room, which we'll call the parent
`13 conference room -- when he creates a subconference
`14 room, which we'll call a child conference room, can
`15 he set it up such that the key to the subconference
`16 room is the same key to the parent conference room?
`17 A It seems to me it is a possibility, yes.
`18 Q Okay. So a key must be associated with at
`19 least one room; is that correct?
`20 A Must be associate?
`21 Q Assume that a key exists in the Roseman
`22 scenario. That key must be associated with at least
`23 one room; is that a correct statement?
`24 A Why you say that it must? I'm not sure I
`25 understand.
`
`Page 24
`
`1 Q How can the key exist that is not
`2 associated with any room?
`3 A I don't see any reason why this key must
`4 be -- you say it must. Why it cannot be key without
`5 any association to anyone yet. I can give examples.
`6 I'm not sure that --
`7 Q Okay. Give me an example of a key that is
`8 not associated --
`9 A A user -- a user that has identity and not
`10 associated to any room or a key that is not
`11 associated to any room. I just gave on the top of
`12 my head. I didn't analyze this. I don't have an
`13 opinion of this, but this seems to me is a
`14 reasonable scenario, and I will check if it's
`15 different.
`16 Q Okay. So -- and off -- with the patent in
`17 front of you, do you know of anywhere within the
`18 patent where it discloses a key not being associated
`19 with any room?
`20 A I don't have an opinion on this. I can go
`21 and check.
`22 Q You don't have -- off the top of your
`23 head, looking at the patent, you can't point to
`24 anything; is that correct?
`25 A Not right now. I -- not on the top of my
`
`Page 25
`
`1 head.
`2 Q Okay. If you can -- in the Roseman
`3 patent, if you can read column 9, line 32 to, let's
`4 say, 48 to yourself, and then let me ask you some
`5 questions about that.
`6 A 32 to --
`7 Q 48.
`8 [Pause.]
`9 Are you on column 9?
`10 A Yes.
`11 Q Okay. Have you finished reading that
`12 passage?
`13 A Give me one second. Yes.
`14 Q So let's talk about what different pieces
`15 of information can be associated with a key based on
`16 what you know from Roseman and the passage that I
`17 just referred you to.
`18 A key can be associated with one or more
`19 room, correct?
`20 A Yes.
`21 Q A key can be associated with one or more
`22 individual, correct?
`23 A I'm not sure. Where do you see it here?
`24 Q A level -- would you agree that a level
`25 three key can be associated with more than one
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 7
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 26
`
`1 individual?
`2 A Yes.
`3 Q So if you were implementing the Roseman
`4 system and the pieces of information that you would
`5 associate with a key would include -- would include
`6 meeting rooms, would be one thing, correct? Is that
`7 a correct statement?
`8 A You have to ask me a question.
`9 Q Is it -- would you associate -- would --
`10 would the information that's associated with a key
`11 include the meeting room or meeting rooms that work
`12 with that key?
`13 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`14 THE WITNESS: This is not a question. I'm
`15 not sure what is the question.
`16 BY MR. HAREL:
`17 Q If you -- if you were implementing the
`18 Roseman system --
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q -- and you were implementing keys in the
`21 Roseman system, the information that you would
`22 associate with the keys, would it include the
`23 meeting rooms that are associated with that key?
`24 Would it include a list of meeting rooms associated
`25 with the key?
`
`Page 28
`1 a software developer need to develop something, he
`2 needs to have some design document, architectural
`3 document, specification.
`4 BY MR. HAREL:
`5 Q If you were writing a piece of software
`6 that -- that had to -- that had to process a key in
`7 the system, would one of the pieces of information
`8 that you may want include the type of key, such as
`9 level one, level two, or level three key?
`10 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`11 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I can answer
`12 about this type of question without a clear
`13 definition and clear design document, clear
`14 architectural, clear spec. Off the top of my head,
`15 you can -- you can write on a piece of paper
`16 anything, but you have to have a spec.
`17 BY MR. HAREL:
`18 Q You don't consider the -- the
`19 specification of the '636 patent sufficient for your
`20 purposes?
`21 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`22 THE WITNESS: No, the specification is the
`23 specification of the patent. This is not
`24 architectural document for software.
`25 //
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`1 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`2 THE WITNESS: You ask question that does
`3 not -- it's not a question.
`4 BY MR. HAREL:
`5 Q If -- if a software developer was going to
`6 implement the Roseman system and would need to
`7 create some sort of record of different keys, how --
`8 what would be the most natural way of doing that, in
`9 your opinion?
`10 A I'm not --
`11 MR. MACE: Objection.
`12 THE WITNESS: -- sure that you can say
`13 "natural way." Before doing any work, you need to
`14 do -- to write specification, to understand goals,
`15 to see the system, to design the system, to write
`16 the feature -- the feature list. So I'm not sure
`17 how the software need to get some spec and to work
`18 against the spec.
`19 BY MR. HAREL:
`20 Q So, sitting here today, you can't give an
`21 answer as to a natural way of implementing a key in
`22 the Roseman system?
`23 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`24 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that for
`25 anything in the world you can say "natural way." If
`
`1 BY MR. HAREL:
`2 Q Let's put it this way: Is the type of
`3 key, whether it is level one, level two, or level
`4 three -- is -- it's not your testimony that one can
`5 disregard -- that one can always disregard that
`6 piece of information when processing keys within the
`7 Roseman system, correct?
`8 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`9 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand
`10 the question. I would love to get the question.
`11 BY MR. HAREL:
`12 Q Are there scenarios in -- that are
`13 envisioned by the Roseman specification where it
`14 matters whether there is a -- whether a key is a
`15 level one key, a level two key, or a level three
`16 key?
`17 A Yes, clearly Roseman disclose examples on
`18 column 9 starting from line approximately 30 until
`19 50 examples of using three types of keys. One key
`20 is for individual. The second key is to send it to
`21 invitee that can pass it only to one person, and the
`22 third that it's basically invitation -- open
`23 invitation to multiple people. That's the -- one
`24 high-level description in the paragraph that I
`25 mentioned, column 9 between line 30 to approximately
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`IPR2016-01159 Ex. 2006
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner 8
`
`

`

`TAL LAVIAN
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 50.
`2 Q Let's talk about the -- the logic that is
`3 used to determine whether a person can enter a
`4 specific meeting room upon presenting a certain key.
`5 If you were going to build the logic or
`6 write the program associated with that logic, what
`7 pieces of information would you want?
`8 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`9 THE WITNESS: I would need to put
`10 requirement documents -- documents, plural. I will
`11 need to write architectural document. I will look
`12 at the high-level design document, detailed design
`13 document, mock-up of the high-level software,
`14 writing an API, showing it to the customer. That's
`15 the natural process of software development.
`16 BY MR. HAREL:
`17 Q The -- the input into that logic would
`18 include the identity of the key, the identity of the
`19 meeting room, and the identity of the person seeking
`20 access to the meeting room; is that correct?
`21 MR. MACE: Object to form.
`22 THE WITNESS: More likely this type of
`23 information will be part of the requirement
`24 document.
`25 //
`
`1 about each key in the entire system or does it mean
`2 that the meeting room knows -- or could i