Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________________
`
` APPLE INC.,
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
` Patent Owner.
` ___________________
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01738
` U.S. Patent Number 8,880,862
` ____________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, Ph.D.
` Washington, D.C.
` Tuesday, November 21, 2017; 9:43 a.m.
`
`Reported by:
`Laurie Donovan, RPR, CRR, CSR
`Job Number 20162
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 1 of 76
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` EXAMINATION INDEX
` PAGE
`EXAMINATION BY MR. NOROOZI . . . . . . . . . 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (None marked)
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`456789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Deposition of
` Charles J. Neuhauser, Ph.D.
`
`Held at the offices of:
` Fish & Richardson, P.C.
` 901 15th Street, N.W.
` Suite 700
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202)626-6357
`
` Taken pursuant to notice, before
` Laurie Donovan, Registered Professional
` Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and
` Notary public in and for the District of
` Columbia.
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, APPLE, INC.:
` Fish & Richardson, P.C.
` 901 15th Street, N.W.
` Suite 700
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202)626-6357
` By: R. Andrew Schwentker, Esq.
` schwentker@fr.com
` Andrew Patrick, Esq.
` patrick@fr.com
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER, REALTIME DATA, LLC:
` NOROOZI, P.C.
` 1299 Ocean Avenue
` Suite 450
` Santa Monica, California 90401
` (310)975-7074
` By: Kayvan B. Noroozi, Esq.
` kayvan@noroozipc.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
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn, testified
` upon his oath as follows:
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q Dr. Neuhauser, how did you prepare for
`today?
` A How I prepared for today? Well, I met,
`I met with the clients yesterday for about half a
`day or a little more than that, and then I, in
`addition to that, I read over documents. Reviewed
`the, the declaration. I read over the testimony
`that I had given before. Looked over the usual
`suspects that I referenced in the -- Sukegawa,
`Esfahani, et cetera, et cetera. They're all in
`the declaration. Looked over the '862 pretty
`carefully.
` That's probably it.
` Q When you say you met with "the clients,"
`do you mean people from Apple or from Fish &
`Richardson?
` A No, just Fish & Richardson. They're my
`clients.
` Q Understood.
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 2 of 76
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 6
` Did you review any documents yesterday
`that you had not previously looked at in preparing
`your declarations?
` A I don't think so.
` Q Did you review Apple's brief that was
`submitted in conjunction with your latest
`declaration?
` A No.
` Q Did you review that at the time that you
`prepared your declaration?
` A I don't know the answer to that. The
`best I can tell you is that there's something
`called the "opposition." Is that what they refer
`to it as? I think I saw some preliminary version
`or something at some point, but I don't remember
`clearly.
` Q Did you review Realtime's last brief in
`connection with these motions to amend?
` A I probably have to see it to be sure,
`but I think so. I think I've -- I have several
`documents. Not necessarily -- there's two tracks
`in this case. Sometimes I only look at one track,
`because they're almost the same, but I'm pretty
`sure I did.
` Q Did you review Dr. Back's last
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`declaration submitted in conjunction with
`2
`Realtime's last brief in these motions to amend,
`3 which came after your last deposition?
`4
` A It's called something like "Declaration
`5
`in Support of a Motion to Amend" or something like
`6
`that?
`7
` Q I think this particular one is in
`8
`support of the reply to the motion to amend or
`9
`something like that.
`10
` A Probably. If you had it, I could look
`11
`at it and maybe it would remind me. Probably.
`12
` Q Do you remember if you looked at that
`13 when you were preparing your last declaration?
`14
` A The declaration, the declaration we're
`15
`talking about today? I'm pretty sure I did.
`16
` Q Okay. So let me put in front of you
`17 Apple's briefs that were submitted in conjunction
`18 with your latest declaration.
`19
` A Okay.
`20
` MR. NOROOZI: And I have one copy
`21
` of each. If you guys need copies, I guess we
`22
` could take a break and you could print it
`23
` out.
`24
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Sure. Why don't
`25
` we do that.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`2
` Q The two documents I'm giving you now are
`3
`both titled "Petitioner's Supplemental Brief in
`4 Opposition to Patent Owner's Motion to Amend."
`5 One was entered in IPR 2016-01737, the other one
`6
`in IPR 2016-01738.
`7
` A Okay.
`8
` MR. NOROOZI: Now, I could ask the
`9
` witness, but I'll just ask counsel in case
`10
` you didn't make a representation. It looks
`11
` to me that they are identical, the two
`12
` briefs. Is that right, or do you want me to
`13
` walk through that with the witness?
`14
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Well, since we're
`15
` going to print out copies, why don't we take
`16
` a break and do that.
`17
` MR. NOROOZI: Okay.
`18
` (Whereupon, a short recess was
`19
` taken.)
`20
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`21
` Q All right, Dr. Neuhauser, you have
`22
`copies of the two briefs that were submitted in
`23
`conjunction with your declaration in front of you,
`24
`right?
`25
` A I do.
`
`Page 9
`
`1
` Q What are the dates on those briefs, if
`2
`you could look at the last page?
`3
` A November 10 of 2017. They both say
`4 November 10 of 2017.
`5
` MR. NOROOZI: Now, Counsel, would
`6
` you be able to tell us whether they're
`7
` identical or not, or do you want me to go
`8
` through that with the witness?
`9
` MR. SCHWENTKER: I'm not sure that
`10
` I can represent that they're identical.
`11
` They're similar, but -- they're similar, but
`12
` they're not identical.
`13
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`14
` Q Okay. Dr. Neuhauser, if you could turn
`15
`to page 6 of both of the briefs and let me know
`16 when you're there.
`17
` A Okay, I'm there.
`18
` Q You see about three quarters of the way
`19
`down, there's a sentence that says "Indeed, a
`20
`POSITA would have found it obvious"?
`21
` A I see that.
`22
` Q Do you see the same exact sentence in
`23
`both briefs at page 6?
`24
` A Yes, I do.
`25
` Q And can you read out the full sentence,
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 3 of 76
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`please?
`2
` A Sure. I'll read it from the '37.
`3
` "Indeed, a POSITA would have found it
`4
`obvious for at least some portion of the operating
`5
`system to be stored on Sukegawa's HDD 2, given
`6
`capacity/cost issues for flash memory."
`7
` Q All right. Now, is there an explanation
`8
`in this section of the brief about what capacity
`9
`and cost issues are being referred to?
`10
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection.
`11
` Foundation. Scope.
`12
` THE WITNESS: I have no idea
`13
` without reading it or -- you're asking me
`14
` what's in the brief?
`15
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`16
` Q Sure. I mean the whole brief is 12
`17
`pages, and you see that, starting at page 8, it
`18
`starts talking about Settsu?
`19
` Do you see that?
`20
` A I do.
`21
` Q Okay, and here in this section on page 6
`22
`that I asked you about, it's talking about the
`23 Kroeker reference, right?
`24
` A Probably. I see Kroeker above it. It
`25
`could be. I don't think I've really seen this
`
`Page 11
`1
`document, so I'm going to have to read it, and at
`2
`that point, the best I can do is -- I think the
`3
`best I'm going to be able to do is tell you
`4 whether or not something's in there, but if it
`5
`gets really complicated, I don't think I've had
`6 much time. I mean --
`7
` Q Let me clarify for you what I'm asking
`8
`you to do.
`9
` A Okay, and I'll tell you whether I can do
`10
`it or not or whether it's something that's going
`11
`to require consideration or whether it's just
`12 mechanical.
`13
` Q Sure. You see that there's a heading on
`14
`page 1 that refers to Sukegawa, Dye -- withdrawn.
`15
` You see there's a heading on page 1 that
`16
`refers to Sukegawa and Dye combined with Esfahani
`17
`and Kroeker?
`18
` A I see that.
`19
` Q And then you see the discussion begins
`20
`with a general discussion and then goes
`21
`specifically into Esfahani, and then, starting at
`22
`page 5, goes into Kroeker?
`23
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`24
` THE WITNESS: Without reading it, I
`25
` wouldn't know whether I could agree or
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
` disagree with that.
`2
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`3
` Q Go ahead then. Would you read, please?
`4
` A Sure. How far did you want me to read?
`5 You said page -- let me hear the question again.
`6
` (Whereupon, reporter reads
`7
` requested material.)
`8
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`9
` (Witness peruses document.)
`10
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`11
` Q Let me actually ask you about a
`12
`different topic.
`13
` A Sure.
`14
` Q Just going back to some preliminary
`15
`information, when did you first start working on
`16
`this declaration that you submitted?
`17
` A I'm not sure. I think sometime toward
`18
`the end of October, but I'm not, not 100 percent
`19
`sure.
`20
` Q And how long did you spend preparing the
`21
`declaration -- the declarations?
`22
` A The declarations? Something like 84
`23
`hours.
`24
` Q How long did it take you --
`25
` A Possibly a little less than 84. I'm
`
`Page 13
`1
`just taking this from my timesheet, and some of
`2
`that was correcting the previous deposition that
`3 we had. I'm pretty sure that there were a few
`4
`hours in October, so maybe 84 minus four or
`5
`something.
`6
` Q How long did it take you to come up with
`7
`the combination of Sukegawa, Dye and Kroeker?
`8
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`9
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
`10
` "come up with"?
`11
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`12
` Q Well, let me ask you this: Did you come
`13
`upon the idea of combining Sukegawa and Dye with
`14 Kroeker in the way set forth in your declarations
`15
`all by yourself, or was that something that was
`16
`presented to you or suggested to you by counsel?
`17
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection, form,
`18
` and I'll caution the witness not to disclose
`19
` the contents of any communications with
`20
` counsel.
`21
` THE WITNESS: I'm not really sure.
`22
` I mean I've been aware of Kroeker literally
`23
` from the beginning of this case, okay, on my
`24
` own, okay, so I don't know. I suspect mostly
`25
` it was my doing to put the combination
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 4 of 76
`
`

`

`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
`
` together, to think that this was a good --
` I've always thought Kroeker was a good
` reference. I don't, I don't really know in
` detail how it came about.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q This declaration is the first time in
`these proceedings that you've relied on Kroeker,
`right?
` A That's probably --
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That's probably true.
` I don't think it's mentioned in the other
` declarations, without looking at the front
` page, but I'm pretty sure it's the first
` time.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q These declarations are also the first
`time in these proceedings that you've relied on
`Esfahani, right?
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe that's
` correct.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q How long did it take you to be able to
`come up with the combinations of Kroeker with
`Page 15
`1
`Sukegawa and Dye and Esfahani with Sukegawa and
`2 Dye that are set forth in these latest
`3
`declarations, approximately?
`4
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`5
` THE WITNESS: I'm not quite sure
`6
` what you mean by "come up with." Do you mean
`7
` to write it or to conceive it or to --
`8
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`9
` Q To conceive it and to be able to
`10
`articulate it with the specificity that you have
`11
`in your declarations.
`12
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`13
` THE WITNESS: Well, I mean it's
`14
` going to sound like a tautology, but the
`15
` specificity that I have in my declaration is
`16
` the declaration itself, so I really don't
`17
` know.
`18
` I mean I probably put into Esfahani
`19
` and Kroeker maybe 20 hours or something like
`20
` that. There's a lot of writing and rewriting
`21
` and considering and reconsidering that I did,
`22
` and it's pretty hard to separate -- I mean
`23
` there's three or four things in the
`24
` declaration. Pretty hard to separate them
`25
` out. Maybe 20 hours to get it down -- from
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.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
`
`Page 16
` conceiving it to getting it down on paper.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q If we refer to the latest declarations
`you've submitted in connection with the motions to
`amend as your "second declarations," will you be
`able to follow that? Does that make sense to you?
` A Is it the second declaration? Wasn't
`there -- oh, to the motion --
` Q Or should we call it the "third
`declaration"?
` A Which one are you talking about? The
`latest one?
` Q Yes.
` A The latest one must be the third one,
`because there was a first one that was -- and then
`there was one for the amendment, and then there's
`this whatever, this auxiliary thing, so this would
`be the third one, I think.
` Q Okay. So the latest declarations, we'll
`call them both your "third declarations"; is that
`fair?
` A Yeah. If I get confused, I'll ask you.
` Q And the prior declarations, which were
`the first ones you submitted in connection with
`the motions to amend, we'll call your "second
`Page 17
`
`1
`declarations"; is that fair?
`2
` A Second declarations? I'm sorry.
`3 Which -- I'm confused.
`4
` Q You submitted a pair of declarations in
`5
`connection with the petition itself, right?
`6
` A Correct.
`7
` Q Then you submitted another pair of
`8
`declarations in response to the motions to amend,
`9
`right?
`10
` A Yes, that's correct.
`11
` Q And those were submitted I think in
`12 August.
`13
` A I think.
`14
` Q And now you've submitted a third pair of
`15
`declarations in further response to the motions to
`16
`amend, right?
`17
` A That's correct.
`18
` Q So when you put together your second
`19
`declarations, which were the first declarations
`20
`you prepared in response to the motions to amend,
`21
`you understood that you didn't face any kind of
`22
`page limit constraints in what you could say in
`23
`those declarations, right?
`24
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`25
` THE WITNESS: I don't know if I had
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 5 of 76
`
`

`

`Page 18
` an understanding, but nobody ever told me,
` nobody ever told me I had a certain number of
` pages to work with. I don't know what the
` rules are. I don't know whether there's some
` limit.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q In preparing your second declarations,
`those being the first declarations that were
`submitted in response to the motions to amend, was
`it your goal to address what you thought was the
`closest prior art in response to the proposed
`amendments Realtime has put forth?
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I think that
` was generally my -- I try to do what I think
` is best for the client, and I put together
` the best explanation that I can. It's
` probably true in a general sense.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q In your prior declarations, your second
`declarations, you did not rely on Kroeker or
`Esfahani at all, right?
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` Scope.
`
`Page 19
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't think I
` mentioned them in there, so I don't think I
` could have relied on them in the sense that
` they're in the -- you know, something from
` them is in the declaration.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q Why?
` A Why?
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure.
` There's lots of art. Let's see if I can
` answer this in a clear way.
` Let me put it this way. You know,
` I'm just an engineer here. I'm not a lawyer.
` When clients ask me to do things, sometimes
` they suggest that, you know, this, that or
` the other thing, and sometimes there's a good
` reason for them to suggest it. You know,
` maybe something is -- maybe you're not
` allowed to use a particular piece of part.
` Maybe it's not prior art, for example.
` So I may talk with clients about
` things that I think are good or good
` combinations, and they may have reasons for
` having me concentrate my attention on some
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.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
`
`Page 20
` other thing, and, you know, sometimes I
` think, well, maybe you can't use that piece
` of art, so it's probably a combination of
` those things.
` And the thing is, there's time
` constraints, too, that make it difficult
` to -- you know, there's -- I don't know what
` the page limit is for a declaration, but
` there's just a limited amount of time to work
` in, and I mean I think I've said this before
` in our last deposition.
` There was something like 117 claims
` here, spread across two different
` declarations, and, you know, just a limit to
` how much time is available to do things. So
` not every combination that might be useful is
` a combination that I dealt with.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q As of the time that you put together
`your second declaration -- your second
`declarations, had you already conceived the
`combinations of Sukegawa, Dye and Kroeker and
`Sukegawa, Dye and Esfahani that appear in your
`third declaration?
` A At the time that I wrote the second one?
`Page 21
`1
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`2
` Scope.
`3
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`4
` Q Yes.
`5
` A Don't know. Probably. Probably. I
`6
`always thought Kroeker is a good reference, so I
`7
`certainly thought about Kroeker.
`8
` Q Had you specifically thought of the
`9
`combination of Kroeker, Sukegawa and Dye that
`10
`appear in your third declarations?
`11
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Same objections.
`12
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`13
` Q In the manner that you've proposed in
`14
`your third declarations?
`15
` A When I did the second declaration?
`16
` Q Yes.
`17
` A I don't know, but I probably had part of
`18
`the concept in my mind. I don't know whether I
`19
`had a specific combination, like Sukegawa, Dye and
`20 Kroeker, but I've always thought that Kroeker in
`21
`combination with something like Sukegawa or
`22 Kroeker in combination with Dye or some of these
`23
`other references was a pretty good combination.
`24
` Q When you say that you previously had
`25
`"part of" the combination in mind, possibly, what
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 6 of 76
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`do you mean by "part of" the combination?
`2
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Same objections.
`3
` THE WITNESS: This is before I --
`4
` this is back in August I think is what you're
`5
` asking, right?
`6
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`7
` Q Prior to your --
`8
` A Third declaration.
`9
` Q Prior to submitting your second
`10
`declarations.
`11
` A Well, now I'm confused.
`12
` Q That would be back in August or earlier.
`13
` A Oh, prior to submitting them? Okay,
`14
`okay. You're asking me whether I had -- well,
`15
`read the question again.
`16
` Q Prior to submitting your second
`17
`declarations, I believe you said that you only had
`18
`part of the combination of Sukegawa, Dye and
`19 Kroeker in mind in comparison to what appears in
`20
`your third declarations, and I wanted to
`21
`understand what you mean by "part of."
`22
` A Mm-hmm.
`23
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`24
` Scope.
`25
` THE WITNESS: So your question is
`Page 23
`
`1
` what part did I have --
`2
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`3
` Q Yes.
`4
` A -- had I thought about?
`5
` Q Yes.
`6
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Same objections.
`7
` THE WITNESS: The only thing I can
`8
` say that I clearly thought about was -- I'm
`9
` pretty sure that I thought about Kroeker with
`10
` respect to the aspects of the amendment that
`11
` relate to what I sometimes refer to as
`12
` "timing."
`13
` Do you have the amended claims
`14
` here?
`15
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`16
` Q I don't have them in front of me.
`17
` A Okay. Well, I'll do it from memory.
`18
` Let me see if I can put this in --
`19
`there's a concept in the '862 that relates to
`20
`potential for loading or "preloading," as it's
`21
`termed in the amended claims, information during
`22
`this very brief interval when there's a gap
`23
`between the resetting of the boot data controller
`24
`and the resetting of the -- or the functioning or
`25 whatever of the, of the CPU.
`
`1
` You know, I'm sure at that time I
`2
`thought about Kroeker as representing that, that
`3
`aspect of it. I'm not sure about, you know, the
`4
`complete combination of combining it with Sukegawa
`5
`and Dye, but I've certainly thought about that
`6
`aspect of it as being applicable. It seemed
`7
`pretty obvious. I stated it in the third
`8
`declaration.
`9
` Q In the third declarations, you don't
`10
`rely only on Kroeker alone as purporting to meet
`11
`all of the limitations of the amended claims,
`12
`right?
`13
` A Yes, I think that's correct.
`14
` Q And you don't even rely only on Kroeker
`15
`as -- withdrawn.
`16
` With respect to Sukegawa and the way
`17
`that you use it in your third declarations, across
`18
`both declarations, all of your opinions with
`19
`respect to Sukegawa require modifying Sukegawa so
`20
`that it would incorporate the use of volatile RAM
`21 memory, right?
`22
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`23
` THE WITNESS: The two declarations
`24
` you're talking about, the two third
`25
` declarations?
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`2
` Q The latest declarations.
`3
` A The latest declarations. Say the
`4
`question again.
`5
` Q In your latest declarations which we've
`6
`been calling your third declarations, all of your
`7
`opinions with respect to Sukegawa require
`8 modifying Sukegawa to incorporate the use of
`9
`volatile RAM memory, true?
`10
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`11
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure about
`12
` "require," but they certainly make use of RAM
`13
` memory, because that's the basis of Kroeker,
`14
` for example.
`15
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`16
` Q As well as with respect to Esfahani,
`17
`right?
`18
` A Yes, that's true.
`19
` Q And so you don't have a theory based on
`20
`Sukegawa in your third declarations that relies
`21
`entirely on nonvolatile memory, right?
`22
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`23
` THE WITNESS: No, I don't think I
`24
` have such a theory.
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 7 of 76
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`2
` Q Now, you have an opinion in your third
`3
`declarations that a person of skill in the art,
`4 which I'll call a "POSA," would have been
`5 motivated to combine Sukegawa with Kroeker; is
`6
`that true?
`7
` A Well, the combination is Sukegawa,
`8 Kroeker and Dye, but it certainly includes that.
`9
` Q And the specific reason you say that a
`10
`person of skill in the art would have been
`11 motivated to combine Sukegawa with Kroeker is
`12
`because, according to you, in February of 2000,
`13
`the use of nonvolatile flash memory as taught in
`14
`Sukegawa was significantly more expensive than the
`15
`use of volatile RAM as taught in Kroeker; is that
`16
`true?
`17
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`18
` THE WITNESS: That's the basic
`19
` motivation. There's some other motivation
`20
` that's important, too, but the cost is a
`21
` clear quantitative kind of thing that I
`22
` pointed to.
`23
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`24
` Q What other motivation?
`25
` A Well, I think I -- in my declaration, I
`
`1
` for some of the boot data, yes.
`2
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`3
` Q And your proposal is that some amount of
`4
`that boot data should instead be stored in RAM
`5
`during the next boot cycle, the boot cycle in
`6 which the boot data is being used, as, according
`7
`to you, taught by Kroeker?
`8
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`9
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure the
`10
` chain of reasoning is quite the way you have
`11
` presented it, but the notion is correct that
`12
` the -- in Kroeker, because its volatile
`13
` memory, its RAM, the loading would have to be
`14
` done in the current boot cycle, if you will.
`15
` The cycle in which you're going to use it, it
`16
` has to be loaded in the RAM in that cycle.
`17
` That's the notion.
`18
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`19
` Q So imagine that we're talking about the
`20
`boot cycle in which we're going to be using this
`21
`so-called "preloaded" boot data.
`22
` Are you with me there?
`23
` A I think so.
`24
` Q We'll call that the current boot cycle;
`25
`fair enough?
`
`Page 27
`spoke about access, speed and write time, so it's
`faster to read RAM than it is to read flash, at
`least in those days. It's also faster to write,
`so there's these access time issues.
` Q In Sukegawa without modification, the
`boot data in question is going to be stored in a
`nonvolatile flash memory during one boot cycle to
`be used in the next boot cycle, right?
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Just to be clear,
` what, what's your notion of boot cycle?
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q A power-on/power-off cycle.
` A From power-on until the next power-on,
`for example?
` Q Yes.
` A Okay. Ask your question again.
` Q In Sukegawa without modification, the
`boot data that you refer to is stored in
`nonvolatile flash memory, and that storage happens
`in one boot cycle, and then the boot data is used
`from the nonvolatile flash memory in the next boot
`cycle, right?
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That's certainly true
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Page 29
`
`1
` A Okay.
`2
` Q So in Scenario A where we're only doing
`3 what Sukegawa taught, without modification, we
`4
`start the current boot cycle with boot data that
`5
`has already been stored in nonvolatile flash,
`6
`right?
`7
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`8
` THE WITNESS: It's already present
`9
` in the -- yes, it's stored there or present
`10
` in the nonvolatile flash.
`11
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`12
` Q And so no further writing of boot data
`13
`needs to be done to the nonvolatile flash in the
`14
`current boot cycle in that scenario, the
`15
`unmodified Sukegawa scenario, right?
`16
` A I think your question is kind of
`17
`ambiguous. I mean I think I know what you're
`18
`getting at, but let me just tell you the problem
`19
`here.
`20
` There is further writing until the
`21
`nonvolatile -- I mean that's part of the '862,
`22
`even, because if you ask for something in the
`23
`current boot cycle, it will be written into the
`24
`nonvolatile memory in Sukegawa.
`25
` Q So you're talking about for use in a
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`Realtime 2026
`Page 8 of 76
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`1
`future boot cycle?
`2
` A No, no. In the current boot cycle.
`3
` Q So let me see if I can understand what
`4
`you're saying. Just one second.
`5
` So let's say that, let's say that --
`6 withdrawn.
`7
` You agree that in Sukegawa, as taught by
`8
`Sukegawa, all of the boot data that is going to be
`9
`read from nonvolatile flash for purposes of the
`10
`boot process in a current boot cycle was written
`11
`to the nonvolatile flash and stored in it during
`12
`the past boot cycle, right?
`13
` A Let me have a copy of Sukegawa here.
`14
` Q Sure.
`15
` A I may just misunderstand your question.
`16
`I want to make sure that I'm not confusing
`17
`Sukegawa with some other reference.
`18
` Q Why don't I give you a copy of your
`19
`previous deposition where I think we covered this
`20
`issue.
`21
` A Okay. It would be good to have
`22
`Sukegawa, too, if you can spare it.
`23
` Q I'll give you that, too.
`24
` Okay. So here is a copy of Sukegawa,
`25
`and my question is: If, hypothetically, using the
`Page 31
`1
`teaching of Sukegawa, the system is going to
`2
`load -- let's say for assumption's sake -- five
`3 megabytes of boot data from the nonvolatile flash
`4
`during a current boot cycle, is it the case,
`5
`according to Sukegawa, that all of those five
`6 megabytes of boot data was stored into the
`7
`nonvolatile flash during the prior boot cycle?
`8
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Objection. Form.
`9
` (Witness peruses document.)
`10
` THE WITNESS: Ask the question
`11
` again.
`12
` (Whereupon, reporter reads
`13
` requested material.)
`14
` THE WITNESS: So here's the
`15
` ambiguity. There's two areas of the, the
`16
` flash memory area unit, flash memory Unit 1
`17
` in Sukegawa. There's area 10A and there's
`18
` area 10C, and my best recollection is that
`19
` 10A is set up with a program at some prior
`20
` boot cycle or some prior point in time.
`21
` The problem is booting might also
`22
` include the nonvolatile cache area, which is
`23
` 10C, and that's a dynamic kind of area. It's
`24
` like a conventional cache. So if something
`25
` were to change in the operating system
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Page 32
` between two boot cycles or, you know, some
` environmental factor -- a concrete example of
` an environmental factor would be you've put
` in a new device, for example, or taken a
` device out.
` Then there would be information
` loaded during the current boot cycle into the
` nonvolatile flash memory in this area 10C.
` So that would be an example where it wasn't
` all of the boot data came from, from 10A.
` Some of it might have come from 10C. That's
` the purpose of 10C.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q Do you offer an opinion that using data
`that was put into 10C of Sukegawa during the
`current boot cycle,