Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`1
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`Emerson Electric Company, )
` Petitioner, ) CASE NO.
`v. ) IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC, )
` Patent Owner. )
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
` DEPOSITION OF DR. STEPHEN HEPPE
` THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017
`
`
` BEHMKE REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES, INC.
` BY: BRANDON D. COMBS, CSR NO. 12978
` 160 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 300
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
` (415) 597-5600
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`1
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`Emerson Electric Company, )
` Petitioner, ) CASE NO.
`v. ) IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC, )
` Patent Owner. )
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
` DEPOSITION OF DR. STEPHEN HEPPE
` THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017
`
`
` BEHMKE REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES, INC.
` BY: BRANDON D. COMBS, CSR NO. 12978
` 160 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 300
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
` (415) 597-5600
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`2
`
` Deposition of DR. STEPHEN HEPPE, taken on behalf of
`the Patent Owner, at 1900 University Avenue, Sixth Floor,
`East Palo Alto, California, commencing at 9:04 A.M., on
`THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017, before Brandon D. Combs,
`Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 12978, pursuant to
`Notice.
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`3
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`FOR PATENT HOLDER:
` MEAGHER, EMANUEL, LAKS, GOLDBERG & LIAO, LLP
` BY: THOMAS F. MEAGHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` One Palmer Square
` Suite 325
` Princeton, New Jersey 08542
` Telephone: (609) 454-3500
` Email: tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
` ROPES & GRAY LLP
` BY: KATHRYN N. HONG, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` 1900 University Avenue
` Sixth Floor
` East Palo Alto, California 94303
` Telephone: (650) 617-4000
` Email: kathryn.hong@ropesgray.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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`4
`
` INDEX
`THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017
`DR. STEPHEN HEPPE - VOLUME 1 PAGE
` Examination by MR. MEAGHER 6
`P.M. SESSION 95
` Examination resumed by MR. MEAGHER 95
`
` --o0o--
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`5
`
` EXHIBITS
` DR. STEPHEN HEPPE
`Number Description Page
`
` (No exhibits marked.)
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`6
`
` THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017; 9:04 A.M.
`
` STEPHEN HEPPE,
`having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. Can you please state your name for the record.
` A. My name is Stephen, with a p-h, Heppe,
`H-e-p-p-e.
` Q. Do you understand that you're under oath to
`testify truthfully?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there anything that would keep you from
`testifying accurately today?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you taking any medication that could
`interfere with your ability to testify accurately?
` A. No.
` MR. MEAGHER: One for you, one for him.
` MS. HONG: Okay.
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. You've just been handed a document. Is that
`the declaration that you prepared for this proceeding?
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`7
`
`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. Yes, it is.
` Q. Did you review your declaration before this
`deposition?
` A. I did.
` Q. As you sit here today, is there anything that
`you would like to clarify or restate in your
`declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. In preparing your rebuttal declaration, what
`materials did you consider?
` A. I may have actually listed those. Let's see.
`Looks like I might not have listed that. This may not
`be a complete listing. I may fill this in as we go
`forward.
` But of course in preparing this rebuttal, I
`reviewed my initial declaration, the '732, its
`prosecution history, the patent owner responses,
`Dr. Almeroth's declarations, my initial deposition
`transcript, the prior art that I've referenced here in
`the rebuttal.
` Q. Anything else? I'm sorry.
` A. And there may have been one or two other things
`that -- I know I looked at -- that's what I can
`remember right now. If I need to embellish, I will.
` So there were some, just since there's a bit of
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`a pause here, I notice on page 10 I reference a
`dictionary that was cited, so Webster's Third
`International Dictionary of the English Language,
`Unabridged.
` I recall, I believe it was in reference to this
`rebuttal declaration, I also believe that I cited an
`IEEE dictionary definition for actuator. So those two
`should be added to the list.
` Again, if something else occurs to me, I'll
`endeavor to add it to this list.
` Q. Did you refer to a document that goes in your
`declaration by Tobagi?
` A. Yes, that's one of the prior art references
`that I looked at.
` Q. And did you base your opinions on Tobagi, in
`part?
` It's T-o-b-a-g-i.
` A. So I did cite to it, but I'd like to find that
`reference here and get my response precisely correct as
`to the degree that I relied on it. So if you'll allow
`me to find that here in the declaration. It might take
`a few moments.
` Q. No problem. You'll see it in a number of
`spots, if it helps you at all.
` A. Let's see. Okay. So that would be, I believe,
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`in relation to Claim Limitation 1D. Let me see if I
`can find that.
` So one place that's referenced in paragraph 30,
`where I note that Kahn -- let's see -- I don't see it
`in this paragraph. But Kahn refers to Tobagi, and
`there's actually two articles, written with Tobagi as
`the lead author.
` So Tobagi confirms that routing identifying the
`pickup packet is written to the measurement file, and
`it would be important to understand the route actually
`followed by such a packet in order to understand the
`behavior of the network.
` So that reference to Tobagi which comes from a
`citation in Kahn, is part of my opinion.
` Q. Are you relying upon Tobagi to show that, in
`whole or in part to show that any particular claim is
`unpatentable?
` A. Tobagi actually confirms the understanding that
`a person of skill would have in the art, reading Kahn.
`So I believe that Kahn by itself is sufficient and
`Tobagi confirms it.
` Q. So if I understand what you're saying
`correctly, is it correct that anything that you say
`about Tobagi -- or everything that you say about Tobagi
`is not necessary to your conclusions of
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`10
`
`unpatentability?
` A. No, I don't think that's a proper
`characterization. I think it would be more fair to say
`that I have two lines of reasoning.
` A first line of reasoning is that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time, reading Kahn,
`would understand, for example, in here, in
`paragraph 30, that it would be important to understand
`the route actually followed by a packet in order to
`understand the behavior of the network.
` I believe that a person of ordinary skill would
`have that understanding, working in this field.
` It's confirmed by Tobagi. That's a second line
`of reasoning, in addition to my opinion that a person
`of ordinary skill would understand that purely based on
`Kahn.
` Q. So in that second line of reasoning, you are
`relying upon Tobagi; is that correct?
` A. In that second line of reasoning, of course, as
`a sort of confirming or health checking sort of
`analysis, I rely on Tobagi.
` Q. Is there anything that you rely upon Tobagi
`that isn't explicitly disclosed in Kahn?
` A. So what I can do is point to a couple examples
`here, and we can continue the discussion if you feel
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`it's necessary.
` So, for example, in paragraph 32 of my rebuttal
`declaration, I note that Kahn explains the pickup
`packets pick up information at each node they traverse
`en route to their destination and provide a trace of
`their history.
` The pickup packets thus contain both data from
`the packet radios as well as the full set of selectors
`identifying the original -- the originating packet
`radio and the packet radios along the route to the
`station.
` So that's my understanding of what Kahn
`teaches.
` I note that Tobagi confirms that understanding,
`starting in the last line on page 27, confirming that a
`POSITA would have understood that pickup packets
`contain the actual and complete route taken by the
`packet and include the PRU ID collected at each PRU in
`addition to other information.
` That comes out in Tobagi, and there's an
`explicit listing of the PRU ID in the table at the very
`end of Tobagi.
` But that is only confirming what Kahn has
`already taught, in my opinion. So in that case, Tobagi
`is not going beyond what Kahn teaches, but confirms
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`what, my belief, a POSITA would learn from Kahn.
` Moving on, in paragraph 33, on page 30, there's
`a discussion regarding the form of data that is in the
`measurement file and ultimately delivered to a
`researcher, let's say at UCLA. So let me back up a
`moment.
` Starting on page 29, there's a discussion on
`patent owners and Dr. Almeroth's characterization, or I
`would say mischaracterization of the data that Kahn
`describes in the, quote, measurement file, unquote.
` So I discuss that and my reasoning for
`believing that patent owner and Dr. Almeroth have
`mischaracterized the Kahn reference.
` Then moving on to page 30, which is still in
`the same lengthy paragraph.
` I say that a POSITA would have understood that
`transmitting the full set of selectors, along with
`other measurement data, would beneficially provide
`additional details about the network performance and
`specific nodes.
` To be used for analyzing the debugging and
`network performance issues discussed by Kahn.
` Indeed, the Tobagi article published in 1976
`confirms it would have been known to a POSITA that such
`measurement tools provide a means to evaluate the
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`performance of the operational protocols employed in
`the identification of their key parameters, further
`used to assist in the study of routing strategies.
` And I cite to Tobagi.
` So there again it's my opinion that a POSITA
`would have understood this need for precise data,
`purely from reading Kahn and the knowledge of an
`ordinary person -- of a person of ordinary skill at the
`time, working in that field.
` And that understanding that I have of a POSITA
`is confirmed by Tobagi. So there again, I don't
`believe that Tobagi is -- is needed to go beyond what
`is in Kahn, or Kahn combined with the understanding of
`a person of skill.
` But it confirms my understanding of what would
`be known by a person of skill.
` So those are the two examples that I see right
`here. There's another one on page 32.
` Q. Before we get to that, there's one right on
`page 30 that you missed.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Feel free to keep going.
` A. At the bottom of the page? Which one are you
`referring to?
` Q. I'm trying to get you to understand -- or to
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`14
`
`tell me if the sentence that begins, as Tobagi
`explains, is responsive to the question I've asked you?
` A. Where on this page?
` Q. Page 30, three lines from the bottom.
` A. Three lines from the bottom, as Tobagi
`explains, the pickup packet is a valuable tool in
`routing studies in that it contains the actual and
`complete route taken by the packet.
` As well as time stamps to compute the queuing
`and transmission delays incurred at each repeater.
` So the issue we're addressing in this paragraph
`is that Dr. Almeroth and the patent owner have
`suggested that the data in the measurement file is
`aggregated and, therefore, does not provide a granular
`understanding of what's going on at each of the packet
`radios.
` So they are arguing that, for example, the data
`contained in the measurement file and ultimately sent
`over the LAN, which in this case is the ARPANET, does
`not contain the detailed route followed by a packet to
`get to the station, does not contain statistics
`gathered at each individual packet radio.
` So what I'm doing is contesting that position
`that was adopted by the patent owner on the basis of
`Dr. Almeroth's declaration.
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
` I believe in contesting that position, that
`Kahn by itself demonstrates those positions are
`incorrect.
` Kahn says that the pickup packet describes the
`information, it is written into the labeling and the
`data, the measurement data is written into the
`measurement file as it occurs.
` And, therefore, I believe there are disclosures
`in Kahn that demonstrate that the measurement file
`actually provides a granular understanding of the data
`gathered during a measurement run. That's my opinion.
` To that extent, or to the extent that that is
`my opinion, Tobagi confirms that opinion. Now, Tobagi
`does have a few additional details, for example, the
`timestamps to compute queuing and transmission delays
`incurred at each repeater.
` I would have to see if Kahn included those
`words. I don't recall if it did or not. Those are
`additional details.
` But they don't change the fundamental opinion
`that the measurement file provides granular details on
`what's happening in the network as the measurement run
`is being performed, and that the data is not aggregated
`as suggested by Dr. Almeroth and the patent owner.
` Q. Was Tobagi a reference listed in the
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`16
`
`institution decision with respect to any of the
`instituted grounds?
` A. Not that I recall, but I don't have that in
`front of me. You would have to put that in front of
`me. I don't recall that.
` Well, actually hold on. I think that might be
`in my rebuttal declaration. Hold on.
` So my understanding is that the inter partes
`review has been instituted based on the following
`grounds. This comes from paragraph 5 of my
`declaration.
` So Ground 1 is that Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are
`obvious over the combined teachings of Kahn, the APA,
`Cerf, and Cunningham. And Ground 2, the claims 1 to 7
`are obvious over the combined teachings of Kahn, APA,
`Cerf, and Ehlers.
` So based on that, if that's -- I believe that
`that's accurate, Tobagi is not explicitly listed.
`However, Tobagi is cited by Kahn.
` And if you read Tobagi, both of the articles
`actually, both of the Tobagi articles, they essentially
`support -- repeat in many cases and support the
`teachings of Kahn.
` For example, Kahn describes the types of
`measurement data that are taken. There's CUMSTATS,
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`snapshots, pickup packets, and one other that I don't
`recall at the moment. Tobagi cites exactly the same
`information.
` Kahn describes that it's important to
`understand the route followed by a pickup packet back
`to the station. Tobagi says the same thing.
` So Tobagi provides some -- so Tobagi, first of
`all, is cited by Kahn. You could argue that since Kahn
`points to Tobagi for additional details -- and, again,
`I'm not a lawyer, so I'm only an engineer.
` But Kahn is pointing to Tobagi for additional
`details. I'll let you attorneys argue about whether
`that means it's part of Kahn or not. But Tobagi is
`essentially providing the same teachings as Kahn, with,
`in some cases, a little additional detail.
` Q. And some of that additional detail you've
`provided to the board; is that correct?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, we'd have to check and see
`in each case. If you're concerned about this one
`particular phrase, the timestamps to compute the
`queuing and transmission delays; is that the one that
`you're focusing on?
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. That's the one that you yourself said was
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`18
`
`different.
` A. I didn't say it was different. I said I didn't
`remember if it was in Kahn. If you provide Kahn, I'll
`check to see if that exact phrase is in there.
` Q. Here's Kahn. Exhibit 1002, looks like. Let me
`make sure.
` A. So Kahn teaches -- and here I'm starting on
`page 1494, Column 2 of Kahn, at the bottom of the
`column, in a section called test and experimentation.
` So Kahn says, this section describes the
`measurement capabilities that have been designed in as
`an integral part of the experimental network.
`Measurement facilities have been built into the PR,
`packet radio, and station software.
` They provide for the collection and delivery of
`measurement data over the radio channel in realtime
`while an experiment is being run.
` He goes on and talks about some other things.
` And he says, a discussion of PR measurement
`techniques is given in Tobagi, et al., in this issue.
` And he references an article by Tobagi, which
`is Reference 29. That article is one of the two that I
`mentioned. And that article by Tobagi references the
`second article by Tobagi.
` So what Kahn is saying is that he's pointing to
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`the measurement facilities that have been built into
`the packet radio and station software of the network
`that he's describing in his article.
` And he points to Tobagi to give a discussion of
`those measurement techniques.
` So he's explicitly including the description of
`those PR measurement techniques in his teachings here.
`At least, that's the way I would read it as an
`engineer.
` Further down in the first column of page 1495
`he says that pickup packets are crates that start out
`empty at a traffic source and pick up information at
`each node they traverse en route to their destination,
`thus providing a trace of their history.
` And so he doesn't actually say timestamps to
`compute the queuing and transmission delays, but that's
`part of how one would understand the performance of the
`network and also part of the history of a packet as it
`goes through the network.
` So at a high level, Kahn is describing keeping
`track of the history of a packet. And Tobagi, which
`Kahn refers to for a detailed discussion of the PR
`measurement techniques, identifies those additional
`details.
` Q. So if I understand what you just said, you have
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`20
`
`included in your declaration some details that are in
`Tobagi, but that are not explicitly in Kahn; is that
`correct?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I would say they're described at
`a high level in Kahn, and in greater detail in Tobagi.
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. Could the board ignore all that you said about
`Tobagi in rendering a decision?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think that's up to the board.
`You're asking what could the board do. I think that's
`a legal question. I've rendered opinions as an
`engineer on what I believe the teachings of Kahn
`include. And how they are confirmed by Tobagi.
` I'll allow the board to make its decision on
`what it can consider or not consider.
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. The issue is, as I think you know, only
`references listed in the instituted grounds can be used
`to show a claim to be unpatentable. And you've brought
`into your declaration disclosure from a different
`reference.
` MS. HONG: Objection. So is there a question?
` THE WITNESS: Exactly my thought.
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. Can this board ignore what you've said about
`Tobagi in rendering a decision?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think it is asked and
`answered, and I think, again, that's actually a legal
`question, or something up to the board.
` As I've testified to here, I believe that Kahn
`is pointing directly to Tobagi to provide additional
`detail. I will leave it to the board and you attorneys
`to argue about whether that's in or out.
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. Could one conclude that the claims are
`unpatentable without reference to the disclosure of
`Tobagi?
` A. Again, as I've already testified, in my opinion
`the Kahn and the understanding of a person of ordinary
`skill reading Kahn, is sufficient to demonstrate that
`these claims are unpatentable.
` And that understanding is confirmed by Tobagi,
`as a second line of reasoning.
` Q. Thank you.
` Could you just tell me -- could you go through
`the various statements you've made about the disclosure
`of Tobagi and tell me which ones are not found also in
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`22
`
`Kahn?
` A. I could. That might be time-consuming. Would
`you like to point me to specific statements?
` Q. Why don't we start with the first one you
`mentioned, and the second one, the first one being on
`30, the second one being at the top -- I'm sorry.
` The first one being on 28 and second one being
`at the top of 30. Or further -- higher up on 30, I'll
`put it that way.
` A. So on page 28, you're referring to -- where are
`you on page 28?
` Q. It's the passage bridging 27 and 28 as I
`recall.
` A. So as I say there, Tobagi confirms that a
`POSITA would have understood from Kahn that the packets
`contained the actual and complete route taken by the
`packet and include the PRU ID collected at each PRU.
` Which essentially, that's the actual and
`complete route.
` So including the PRU ID, which is explicitly
`listed by Tobagi, is really just another way of saying
`what Kahn has already said, that they provide a trace
`of their history, essentially the route taken by the
`packet into the station.
` So in that instance, Tobagi is not providing
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`23
`any data that's not already there in Kahn. It's saying
`it in a different way.
` So now you're concerned about 30?
` Q. Yes. About two-thirds of the way down is the
`reference to Tobagi, which follows presumably text from
`Tobagi.
` A. So I'm reading in the middle of the page.
` Q. Starts, indeed, the Tobagi article.
` A. Indeed, the Tobagi article confirms that it
`would have been known to a POSITA that such measurement
`tools provide a means to evaluate the performance of
`the operational protocols employed.
` And the identification of their key parameters
`further used to assist in the study of routing
`strategies.
` So while that text does indeed come from
`Tobagi, that again is similar to, in a way you might
`say, paraphrase, of what is previously described from
`Kahn.
` So Kahn explains that pickup packets pick up
`information at each node they traverse en route to
`their destination and provide a trace of their history.
` And pickup packets also contain that data that
`they picked up at each of those nodes, which helps to
`evaluate the performance of the operational protocols
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`24
`employed and the identification of the key parameters.
` So while the words are different, the
`understanding that one gets from reading Tobagi is, at
`a high level, essentially the same as what's already
`provided by Kahn.
` So there's -- okay. So that's -- and provides,
`let's say, some additional nuances, but the fundamental
`teaching is the same, and confirms, as I said, what a
`POSITA would understand from Kahn.
` Now, I think we've already addressed the one at
`the bottom of page 30. Is there something else you
`want me to look at?
` Q. Well, it's all over the place, so the answer is
`yes.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Let's see if I can find a couple.
` Page 26, middle.
` A. Okay. Hold on a moment.
` Okay. I'm sorry, page 26 in the middle. Okay.
`So this is in paragraph 30, I take it you're referring
`to.
` In paragraph 30 I say that, based on these
`disclosures, and we're referring to disclosures in
`Kahn, a POSITA would have understood that the station
`rights, network connectivity, labeling and route
`
`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
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`updates to the measurement file as they occur, and I
`cite to Kahn.
` This confirms that the routing identified in
`the pickup packet is written to the measurement file
`along with the, quote, select information, unquote,
`from the one or several PRUs that have inserted their
`CUMSTATS into the packet.
` A POSITA would have understood that it would be
`important to understand the route actually followed by
`a packet in order to understand the behavior of the
`network, and this is further confirmed by Tobagi at
`page 594, Column 2.
` See also page 592, Column 1, where it says, all
`changes to the stations' internal tables, routing
`connectivity, PRU, operational parameters, et cetera,
`will be reflected by an entry into the measurement
`file, thus allowing the correlation of measurement
`results to the actual network configuration.
` So again, this is the same understanding.
`Tobagi is essentially, as I say here, confirming what a
`POSITA would understand from Kahn. Kahn teaches that
`you write the network connectivity labeling and route
`updates to the measurement file as they occur.
` Tobagi provides confirmatory evidence, if you
`will, that that is true. So I -- so I would say that,
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`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
`
`again, my opinions are based on Kahn and the
`understanding of a POSITA and confirmed as a second
`line of reasoning by Tobagi.
` Q. On pages 18 and 32 --
` A. Okay. Pages 18 and 32.
` Q. Yeah, I'm going to tell you. Let me set it up
`first. You repeat the quote from Tobagi that we
`focused on earlier, which included some disclosure not
`found in Kahn.
` Can you just confirm that that's true.
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Oh, the timestamps to compute the
`queuing and transmission delays; is that what you're
`referring to?
`BY MR. MEAGHER:
` Q. Yes.
` A. And while I did indicate that I did not see
`those words explicitly in Kahn, at least in
`Columns 1494 and 1495 -- let me back up and check a
`little bit more into Kahn if you don't mind.
` Q. I don't mind you doing that, but before you do,
`can you just answer the question as to whether it's
`true with respect to both pages 18 and 32 with respect
`to that passage.
` So can you confirm that you've used the passage
`
`Olender Reporting, Inc.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`(888) 445-3376
`Baltimore, MD
`
`WORLDWIDE
`Florida
`
`IPR2017-00216
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`Stephen Heppe
`Emerson Electric Company v. SIPCO, LLC
`
`12/21/2017
`
`27
`
`again at pages 18 and 32.
` A. Yes. So I will confirm that the passage, which
`is timestamps to compute the queuing and transmission
`delays incurred at each repeater, is used in both
`places, on page 18 and on page 32.
` But what I want to check is in your question, I
`guess the presumption is that that is not taught in
`Kahn, it's only taught in Tobagi.
` So what I want to do is check Kahn in a little
`bit more detail.
` Because the timestamps to compute queuing and
`transmission delays are clearly a absolutely critical
`and vital parameter to understand if you're studying
`routing strategies in a packet radio network. And Kahn
`is directed to actually the research of packet radio
`networks.
` And so while I di
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
