· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`· · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`
`· · vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2017-01406
`
`ALACRITECH INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________________/
`
`· · · · ·DEPOSITION OF KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, Ph.D.
`
`· · · · · · · · VOLUME I (Pages 1 - 255)
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · May 3, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`Natalie Y. Botelho
`CSR No. 9897
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.001
`
`
`
`· · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`
`· · vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2017-01406
`
`ALACRITECH INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________________/
`
`· · · · ·DEPOSITION OF KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, Ph.D.
`
`· · · · · · · · VOLUME I (Pages 1 - 255)
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · May 3, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`Natalie Y. Botelho
`CSR No. 9897
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.001
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · INDEX
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page
`
`·4· ·EXAMINATION BY MR. STEPHENS· · · · · · · · · · · · ·6
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`
`·9· ·No.· · · · · · · · Description· · · · · · · · · · Page
`
`10· ·Exhibit 1· · · Corrected Patent Owner's· · · · · · ·6
`· · · · · · · · · · Exhibit 2026 Declaration of
`11· · · · · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D., Case
`· · · · · · · · · · IPR2017-01406 (Alacritech
`12· · · · · · · · · Exhibit 2026)
`
`13· ·Exhibit 2· · · United States Patent No.· · · · · · 40
`· · · · · · · · · · US 7,673,072 B2 (INTEL Ex. 1001)
`14
`· · ·Exhibit 3· · · United States Patent No.· · · · · · 50
`15· · · · · · · · · 5,768,618 (INTEL Ex. 1005)
`
`16· ·Exhibit 4· · · Corrected Patent Owner's· · · · · · 97
`· · · · · · · · · · Exhibit 2026 Declaration of
`17· · · · · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D., Case
`· · · · · · · · · · IPR2017-01391 (Alacritech
`18· · · · · · · · · Exhibit 2026)
`
`19· ·Exhibit 5· · · A spiral-bound document· · · · · · 134
`· · · · · · · · · · entitled "Third Edition,
`20· · · · · · · · · Computer Networks, Andrew S.
`· · · · · · · · · · Tanenbaum," Case IPR2017-01392
`21· · · · · · · · ·(Intel Ex. 1006)
`
`22· ·Exhibit 6· · · Corrected Patent Owner's· · · · · ·154
`· · · · · · · · · · Exhibit 2026 Declaration of
`23· · · · · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D., Case
`· · · · · · · · · · IPR2017-01392 (Alacritech
`24· · · · · · · · · Exhibit 2026)
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.002
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
`
`·2· ·No.· · · · · · · · Description· · · · · · · · · · Page
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 7· · · An article from EETimes· · · · · · 192
`· · · · · · · · · · entitled "New ASIC drives
`·4· · · · · · · · · Alacritech into storage"
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 8· · · A document entitled "Ask· · · · · ·201
`· · · · · · · · · · Premier Field Engineering
`·6· · · · · · · · · (PFE) Platforms, Why Are We
`· · · · · · · · · · Deprecating Network Performance
`·7· · · · · · · · · Features (KB4014193)?"
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 9· · · License Agreement between· · · · · 209
`· · · · · · · · · · Alacritech and Chelsio, Bates
`·9· · · · · · · · · ALA02140018 through ALA02140044
`· · · · · · · · · · (Alacritech, Ex. 2038, Pages 62
`10· · · · · · · · · thru 89)
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.003
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, on Thursday, May 3,
`
`·2· ·2018, commencing at the hour of 9:01 a.m. of the said
`
`·3· ·day, at the law offices of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`
`·4· ·SULLIVAN, 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San
`
`·5· ·Francisco, California, before me, NATALIE Y. BOTELHO, a
`
`·6· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of
`
`·7· ·California, personally appeared KEVIN C. ALMEROTH,
`
`·8· ·Ph.D., a witness in the above-entitled court and cause,
`
`·9· ·who, being by me first duly sworn, was examined in said
`
`10· ·cause.
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
`
`13
`
`14· ·FOR PETITIONER, INTEL:
`
`15· · · · · · WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`· · · · · · · BY:· GARLAND STEPHENS, ESQ.
`16· · · · · · 700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`· · · · · · · Houston, TX· 77002-2755
`17· · · · · · (713)546-5011
`· · · · · · · garland.stephens@weil.com
`18
`
`19· · · · · · WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`· · · · · · · BY:· AMANDA K. BRANCH, ESQ.
`20· · · · · · 201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`· · · · · · · Redwood Shores, CA· 94065-1134
`21· · · · · · (650)802-3138
`· · · · · · · amanda.branch@weil.com
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.004
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (CONTINUED)
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR PETITIONER, CAVIUM:
`
`·4· · · · · · DUANE MORRIS LLP
`· · · · · · · BY:· NIKOLAUS A. WOLOSZCZUK, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · 2475 Hanover Street
`· · · · · · · Palo Alto, CA· 94304-1194
`·6· · · · · · (650)847-4147
`· · · · · · · nawoloszczuk@duanemorris.com
`·7
`
`·8· ·FOR RESPONDENT:
`
`·9· · · · · · QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`· · · · · · · BY:· BRIAN E. MACK, ESQ.
`10· · · · · · 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`· · · · · · · San Francisco, CA· 94111
`11· · · · · · (415)875-6423
`· · · · · · · brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.005
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2018, 9:01 A.M.
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PROCEEDINGS
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, Ph.D.,
`
`·6· · · · being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION BY MR. STEPHENS
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Good morning, Dr. Almeroth.
`
`10· ·A.· · · · Good morning.
`
`11· ·Q.· · · · Thanks for coming today.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Going to ask the court reporter to mark
`
`13· ·Exhibit 1, Almeroth 1.
`
`14· · · · · · ·(Whereupon Exhibit 1 was marked for
`
`15· · · · · · ·identification.)
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· And Almeroth 1 is also
`
`17· ·Alacritech Exhibit 2026 in IPR2017-1406.· And that's
`
`18· ·your corrected declaration; is that right?
`
`19· ·A.· · · · It is.
`
`20· ·Q.· · · · Why did you correct it?
`
`21· ·A.· · · · After submitting it, there -- as I was reading
`
`22· ·through it, it was -- there was a portion under
`
`23· ·"Secondary Considerations" that I thought wasn't
`
`24· ·completely clear, so I wanted to make it clear.
`
`25· ·Q.· · · · Do you remember what that was?
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.006
`
`
`
`·1· ·A.· · · · I think it had to do with identifying the
`
`·2· ·related patents or technology in the "Secondary
`
`·3· ·Considerations" section.· I don't have the redline
`
`·4· ·memorized.
`
`·5· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· If you would turn to paragraph 49,
`
`·6· ·which is on page 17 of Exhibit 1.· Section 4, there is
`
`·7· ·background of the technology disclosed in the '072
`
`·8· ·patent.· Do you see that?
`
`·9· ·A.· · · · I do.
`
`10· ·Q.· · · · And 49 is the first paragraph in that section.
`
`11· ·And it lists the '205 patent, the '036 patent, the '241
`
`12· ·patent, '072 patent, '699 patent, '880 patent, '948
`
`13· ·patent, and '104 patent.· And then it says -- and it
`
`14· ·calls them the Alacritech patents.· And then it says,
`
`15· ·"The Alacritech patents reflect inventions relating to
`
`16· ·offloading certain tasks traditionally performed by the
`
`17· ·CPU to a Network Interface Device."· Did I read that
`
`18· ·right?
`
`19· ·A.· · · · Yes.
`
`20· ·Q.· · · · Some of those tasks traditionally performed by
`
`21· ·the CPU or one of those tasks traditionally performed by
`
`22· ·the CPU is dividing data into segments, right?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure I understand your
`
`25· ·question.· I can explain why I don't understand it, if
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.007
`
`
`
`·1· ·you want.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· That's okay.· If you'd turn
`
`·3· ·to paragraph 92.· You say there that, "Petitioner
`
`·4· ·alleges that the combination of Tanenbaum and Erickson
`
`·5· ·discloses this limitation."· And the limitation is
`
`·6· ·dividing by the interface the data into segments.· Do
`
`·7· ·you see that?
`
`·8· ·A.· · · · I do.
`
`·9· ·Q.· · · · You say, "Petitioner alleges that the
`
`10· ·combination of Tanenbaum and Erickson discloses this
`
`11· ·limitation because Tanenbaum describes a TCP entity that
`
`12· ·can accept user datastreams and break them up into
`
`13· ·pieces, sending each piece as a separate IP datagram,"
`
`14· ·and you have a cite.· And then you say, "But this
`
`15· ·traditional TCP functionality described by Tanenbaum
`
`16· ·occurs completely on the host and not on the network
`
`17· ·interface device."· Do you see that?
`
`18· ·A.· · · · Yes.
`
`19· ·Q.· · · · Is it correct, then, that traditionally a TCP
`
`20· ·entity on the host computer would accept user
`
`21· ·datastreams and break them up into pieces sending each
`
`22· ·piece as a separate IP datagram?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So the process of dividing data
`
`25· ·into segments is usually not done by TCP.· There's a
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.008
`
`
`
`·1· ·fragmentation and reassembly function that's part of IP,
`
`·2· ·and then applications generally divide up the data that
`
`·3· ·it needs to send.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· But the application
`
`·5· ·can send as much data as it wants, right?· There's no
`
`·6· ·length restriction?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Theoretically speaking.
`
`·9· ·Practically, there's limits.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· And those limits have
`
`11· ·increased every year since TCP was first introduced,
`
`12· ·correct?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's usually operating
`
`15· ·system-dependent.· I don't know that that's accurate
`
`16· ·across all operating systems per year.
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· There is a 64K limit
`
`18· ·on TCP packets; is that right?
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No.
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Is that an IP limitation?
`
`22· ·A.· · · · It's an IP limitation.
`
`23· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· So the TCP/IP layers in a host -- a
`
`24· ·traditional host protocol stack would accept essentially
`
`25· ·arbitrary amounts of data from a user program and break
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.009
`
`
`
`·1· ·them up into pieces and send each piece as a separate
`
`·2· ·IP -- TCP/IP datagram, right?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So then that gets into the
`
`·5· ·implementation details of a particular operating system
`
`·6· ·and how they deal with what they set the limits as to
`
`·7· ·the amount of data that they can send a TCP.
`
`·8· ·Practically speaking, applications don't send more than
`
`·9· ·64 kilobytes.· In fact, we're usually aware of what an
`
`10· ·MTU is, the maximum transmission unit, which is often
`
`11· ·something like 1500 bytes.
`
`12· · · · · · ·But to the extent that IP allows for creating
`
`13· ·packets that are 64 kilobytes, if, based on the MTU, it
`
`14· ·needs to divide those up, it will perform segmentation
`
`15· ·and reassembly, at least according to how the protocol
`
`16· ·is described for IP.
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· So TCP and I --
`
`18· ·well, TCP is a stream-oriented protocol, right?
`
`19· ·A.· · · · That's the way that it's characterized.
`
`20· ·Q.· · · · And what is a stream-oriented protocol?
`
`21· ·A.· · · · Generally speaking, it's the ability to not
`
`22· ·distinguish between segments of data.· In other words,
`
`23· ·an application can generate a stream of data and be able
`
`24· ·to deliver that over the network via a TCP socket, for
`
`25· ·example.· How that stream is divided into segments or
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.010
`
`
`
`·1· ·packets or data length layer frames is hidden from the
`
`·2· ·application generally.
`
`·3· ·Q.· · · · In paragraph 92, when you said "this
`
`·4· ·traditional TCP functionality described by Tanenbaum
`
`·5· ·occurs completely on the host and not on the network
`
`·6· ·interface device," what was the traditional TCP
`
`·7· ·functionality you were referring to?
`
`·8· ·A.· · · · If you look at the previous sentence, it's
`
`·9· ·talking about the creation of IP datagrams.· And so it's
`
`10· ·really the combination of TCP and IP.· So it says,
`
`11· ·"Petitioner alleges that the combination of Tanenbaum
`
`12· ·and Erickson discloses this limitation because Tanenbaum
`
`13· ·describes a TCP entity that can accept user datastreams
`
`14· ·and break them into pieces, sending each piece as a
`
`15· ·separate IP datagram."· So it's involving kind of the
`
`16· ·combination of TCP and IP and referencing the
`
`17· ·segmentation and reassembly functionality.
`
`18· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· In your report, you don't dispute
`
`19· ·anywhere that Tanenbaum describes a TCP and IP entity
`
`20· ·that can accept user datastreams and break them up into
`
`21· ·pieces, sending each piece as a separate datagram, IP
`
`22· ·datagram, right?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think the declaration speaks
`
`25· ·for itself.· I don't have it memorized.· I don't recall
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.011
`
`
`
`·1· ·if I've disputed that particular functionality from
`
`·2· ·Tanenbaum.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Do you dispute it sitting
`
`·4· ·here today?
`
`·5· ·A.· · · · I'd have to go back and look at what the
`
`·6· ·petition said and what was cited and review what
`
`·7· ·Tanenbaum said.· I mean, I think Tanenbaum describes the
`
`·8· ·traditional IP functionality and TCP functionality, but
`
`·9· ·whether or not that rises to the level of this
`
`10· ·characterization, I'm not sure I would agree with it.
`
`11· ·But maybe I would.· I'd have to think about it.
`
`12· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· Well, take a look at your report and
`
`13· ·see if you can identify for me anywhere where you
`
`14· ·dispute the idea that Tanenbaum discloses a TCP and IP
`
`15· ·entity that can accept user datastreams and break them
`
`16· ·up into pieces, sending each piece as a separate IP
`
`17· ·datagram.
`
`18· · · · · · ·(Pause.)
`
`19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I've tried to review it -- as
`
`20· ·much of it as I can.· I don't see anything specifically,
`
`21· ·but, again, it's a fairly long declaration.· Maybe
`
`22· ·there's something that I've missed.
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· So, as far as you
`
`24· ·know, you haven't disputed in your report that the
`
`25· ·traditional TCP functionality described by Tanenbaum
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.012
`
`
`
`·1· ·includes a TCP/IP entity that can accept user
`
`·2· ·datastreams and break them up into pieces, sending each
`
`·3· ·piece as a separate data bit; is that right?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, as I sit here right now, I
`
`·6· ·don't have the declaration memorized, but I don't recall
`
`·7· ·disputing that particular statement from Tanenbaum.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· And those are
`
`·9· ·referred to as TCP segments, right?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sorry.· When you say "those,"
`
`12· ·what do you mean?· I mean, ultimately, as part of that
`
`13· ·TCP/IP process, IP packets are created.· Before the IP
`
`14· ·headers are added and the 64-kilobit limitation is
`
`15· ·imposed, they're generally called TCP segments.
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· So the divided data with
`
`17· ·the TCP header on it, but before the IP header is added
`
`18· ·in the 64K limit is imposed, that's called a TCP
`
`19· ·segment?
`
`20· ·A.· · · · It generally is.· It's funny, I was just
`
`21· ·telling my students about this.· The terminology is
`
`22· ·usually "segment packet" and "frame," though in a lot of
`
`23· ·instances they're all just called "packets."· But what I
`
`24· ·tell my students is, if they're trying to distinguish
`
`25· ·between an IP packet and a TCP segment, usually the
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.013
`
`
`
`·1· ·right terminology is "segment" for TCP and "packet" for
`
`·2· ·IP.
`
`·3· ·Q.· · · · Is there any segment size limit for TCP?
`
`·4· ·A.· · · · I would have to go back and check.· I know
`
`·5· ·there's an MSS, maximum segment size.· I forget if
`
`·6· ·that's part of the TCP standard or if it's usually an
`
`·7· ·operating system-based limitation or if it's calculated
`
`·8· ·based on information that TCP can glean from the
`
`·9· ·maximum/minimum size along all the hops of a path.
`
`10· ·Q.· · · · That's -- I think your last point is correct,
`
`11· ·right?· MSS is negotiated between the two endpoints as
`
`12· ·reflecting the minimum MTU along the path between the
`
`13· ·two endpoints, right?
`
`14· ·A.· · · · It can be.· I think there are other factors
`
`15· ·that can go into the negotiation of MSS during
`
`16· ·connection setup.
`
`17· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· But generally speaking, that's what
`
`18· ·it's intended to accomplish, right, to avoid
`
`19· ·fragmentation of packets along the two endpoints?
`
`20· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Right?
`
`22· ·A.· · · · I will have to double-check.· I thought MSS
`
`23· ·was different than the MTU discovery, which generally
`
`24· ·happens at the IP layer.
`
`25· ·Q.· · · · Right.· MTU discovery is for the local
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.014
`
`
`
`·1· ·network, and MSS reflects the minimum MTU size and all
`
`·2· ·the network segments between the two endpoints, right?
`
`·3· ·A.· · · · MTU path discovery can be for the whole path,
`
`·4· ·not just for the first hop.
`
`·5· ·Q.· · · · But it's generally just the first hop, right?
`
`·6· ·A.· · · · No.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't think it's just for the
`
`·9· ·first hop.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· Typically when TCP
`
`11· ·is being used, though, there is a maximum segment size,
`
`12· ·right?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· In many cases for TCP, there's a
`
`15· ·maximum segment size.
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· And the TCP entity is
`
`17· ·responsible for ensuring that the TCP packets before
`
`18· ·it -- or the TCP segments, before they're encapsulated
`
`19· ·by IP, do not exceed the MSS or maximum segment size,
`
`20· ·right?
`
`21· ·A.· · · · I would have to double-check whether -- what
`
`22· ·the protocol standard says, what TCP says about how it
`
`23· ·uses MSS and what it does, for example, in a
`
`24· ·hypothetical situation were it to receive data from the
`
`25· ·application that was larger than the MSS.· I don't
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.015
`
`
`
`·1· ·remember specifically.
`
`·2· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· But it can't send data larger than the
`
`·3· ·MSS size, right?· That's why it's called the maximum
`
`·4· ·segment size?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would have to double-check the
`
`·7· ·TCP standard to see what it says about MSS, whether it's
`
`·8· ·allowed to or not, what the rules are, what it would
`
`·9· ·then have to do, again, in the hypothetical scenario
`
`10· ·from the last answer.· So, for example, I don't recall
`
`11· ·from the standard maybe it's -- whether it's a "may" or
`
`12· ·"should" or "must not" and how it would enforce whatever
`
`13· ·the requirement is.
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· What is the actual behavior
`
`15· ·in BSD?
`
`16· ·A.· · · · Do you have a version?· Which version?
`
`17· ·Q.· · · · Well, you teach it in your courses, right?
`
`18· ·And let's refer specifically to the version available in
`
`19· ·1997.
`
`20· ·A.· · · · I don't know -- I don't remember what version
`
`21· ·that was.
`
`22· ·Q.· · · · Do you know if that behavior has changed in
`
`23· ·any version since the very first?
`
`24· ·A.· · · · I don't recall.· I doubt it.· I'd have to
`
`25· ·double-check.
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.016
`
`
`
`·1· ·Q.· · · · Do you know what it does today?
`
`·2· ·A.· · · · For BSD, I'm not -- I still think it's --
`
`·3· ·well, it's implementation-specific within BSD.· I'm not
`
`·4· ·sure how it deals with attempts when an application
`
`·5· ·sends the data -- sends data that's larger than the MSS.
`
`·6· ·Q.· · · · So you just don't know what happens?
`
`·7· ·A.· · · · I don't recall, sitting here right now.
`
`·8· ·Q.· · · · Now, in your declaration, you give examples of
`
`·9· ·TCP and IP headers, right?
`
`10· ·A.· · · · I do.
`
`11· ·Q.· · · · Why are they called headers?
`
`12· ·A.· · · · I don't understand the question.
`
`13· ·Q.· · · · Well, what does the word "header" mean?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know that I can give you
`
`16· ·a definition.· I don't recall why they used that term.
`
`17· ·Generally, you have protocol headers.· I don't recall
`
`18· ·why they use that term.
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Is it something different
`
`20· ·than a trailer?
`
`21· ·A.· · · · It is something different than a trailer.
`
`22· ·Q.· · · · And how is it different from a trailer?
`
`23· ·A.· · · · Headers usually come at the beginning of what
`
`24· ·they're transmitting, what data they're transmitting.
`
`25· ·Trailers usually come at the end.
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.017
`
`
`
`·1· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· Is it possible to put a header on data
`
`·2· ·without prepending that header?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection to form.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know.· It might be.· I'd
`
`·5· ·have to give it some thought to see if there are ways
`
`·6· ·that you could implement combining a header and data
`
`·7· ·such that you wouldn't call it prepending.· It certainly
`
`·8· ·seems like it would be possible.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· How would you do
`
`10· ·that?
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, I'm not sure.· I mean,
`
`13· ·that's the thing.· I'd have to think about it.· I can't
`
`14· ·sit here now and say definitively that there's just
`
`15· ·absolutely no way of doing it.· Programming languages
`
`16· ·offer a lot of the flexibility.· If I had some time, I
`
`17· ·might be able to come up with a reasonable scenario
`
`18· ·where you could do it.
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· Go ahead take a few
`
`20· ·minutes, think about it, and let me know what you come
`
`21· ·up with.
`
`22· · · · · · ·(Pause.)
`
`23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So I think the best that I can
`
`24· ·say is that there are a variety of ways of creating
`
`25· ·packets.· You -- I mean, in some cases, there's a
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.018
`
`
`
`·1· ·concept of a template.· Might be possible to create a
`
`·2· ·header structure or a packet structure that contains a
`
`·3· ·place where the data goes and header elements go, and
`
`·4· ·then filling in those header elements maybe or filling
`
`·5· ·in the data elements at the same time, or you fill in
`
`·6· ·the header first and then the data.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Ultimately, it depends on what kind of
`
`·8· ·definition you want to use for prepending and whether or
`
`·9· ·not it matters how you fill in the data, how the
`
`10· ·structure is created.· Those are the things that sort of
`
`11· ·come to mind that could possibly have an impact.
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· What understanding
`
`13· ·of prepending did you use in your work in this IPR
`
`14· ·proceeding?
`
`15· ·A.· · · · I recall that there was claim language that
`
`16· ·considered the idea of prepending.· I'm not sure which
`
`17· ·patent it was or what claim, which IPR it was, which
`
`18· ·declaration it's described in.· I'd have to go back and
`
`19· ·look.· I don't recall if it was an issue that was even
`
`20· ·relevant in the context of the opinions that I gave.
`
`21· ·Again, I'd have to sort of see that declaration to give
`
`22· ·me some context to answer that question.
`
`23· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· Tanenbaum describes the process of a
`
`24· ·TCP entity putting TCP headers on data to form TCP
`
`25· ·packets, right?
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.019
`
`
`
`·1· ·A.· · · · I don't recall if TCP -- or if Tanenbaum goes
`
`·2· ·into that level of detail or what sort of the steps are
`
`·3· ·or the process is.· I don't have Tanenbaum in front of
`
`·4· ·me, so I can't check.· Certainly I think it describes at
`
`·5· ·a high level the idea that you have the TCP header, and
`
`·6· ·when it's passed the IP, there's the header portion at
`
`·7· ·the beginning and then the data portion that IP then
`
`·8· ·adds its own header to.
`
`·9· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· So you would agree, then, that
`
`10· ·Tanenbaum describes that the TCP layer provides to the
`
`11· ·IP layer a TCP packet that has both header and data,
`
`12· ·right?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would have to double-check,
`
`15· ·but I think generally Tanenbaum does describe passing to
`
`16· ·IP a thing that has a TCP header and an IP header, at
`
`17· ·least in some circumstances.
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· And do you dispute
`
`19· ·that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`20· ·that the TCP entity prepended that header to the data?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Reading Tanenbaum in 1996?
`
`23· ·A.· · · · So I would have to see whatever declaration
`
`24· ·where this came up in and what I had said about what
`
`25· ·Tanenbaum discloses.· Off the top of my head, I mean, I
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.020
`
`
`
`·1· ·would have to double-check.· Whether there's language in
`
`·2· ·Tanenbaum that would support that it's doing prepending
`
`·3· ·or that Tanenbaum doesn't go into that level of detail,
`
`·4· ·without the declaration, without some context for that
`
`·5· ·question, I don't think I can really answer it.
`
`·6· ·Q.· · · · Well, Mr. Almeroth, you have a declaration
`
`·7· ·right in front of you, and prepending is one of the
`
`·8· ·claim elements in claim 1 of the '072 patent.· So take a
`
`·9· ·look, let me know what your view is, whether or not a
`
`10· ·person of ordinary skill in the art reading Tanenbaum in
`
`11· ·1996 would understand that the TCP entity prepended a
`
`12· ·TCP header to data.
`
`13· · · · · · ·(Pause.)
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So in the context of this
`
`15· ·declaration, I don't see where the issue of prepending
`
`16· ·comes up.· I don't have it memorized, again, but I don't
`
`17· ·see where I have made an argument that the prepending
`
`18· ·portion of any of the relevant claims at issue in the
`
`19· ·IPR isn't met by Tanenbaum.· I wouldn't take that as an
`
`20· ·admission that I believe that it is met.· It's just not
`
`21· ·one of the issues that I focused on in this particular
`
`22· ·IPR.
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Do you know if the TCP
`
`24· ·standards enforced in 1996 required the TCP entity to
`
`25· ·divide data into any particular size and segments,
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.021
`
`
`
`·1· ·maximum segment size?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think this goes back to an
`
`·4· ·answer that I gave earlier, that I didn't recall for any
`
`·5· ·of the TCP standards what they said specifically about
`
`·6· ·maximum segment size, whether it was a requirement or
`
`·7· ·how TCP was expected to negotiate or deal with maximum
`
`·8· ·segment size.· I just don't have the standards
`
`·9· ·memorized.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· If you'd turn to
`
`11· ·paragraph 64 on page 25.· You say there that,
`
`12· ·"Transmitting a message requires processing each of the
`
`13· ·layers in that protocol stack sequentially so that the
`
`14· ·message can then be transmitted over the data medium.
`
`15· ·The receiving computer is also required to process those
`
`16· ·same layers in reverse until the message is handed off
`
`17· ·to the appropriate program.· One example of processing a
`
`18· ·message using TCP/IP is depicted below," and then you
`
`19· ·have a figure on page 26, right?
`
`20· ·A.· · · · Yes.
`
`21· ·Q.· · · · And then you say that you personally obtained
`
`22· ·that figure and that it accurately depicts an example of
`
`23· ·processing a message using TCP/IP as of October 1997,
`
`24· ·right?
`
`25· ·A.· · · · Yes.
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.022
`
`
`
`·1· ·Q.· · · · What is it that the transport layer provides
`
`·2· ·to the network layer in your figure in paragraph 64?
`
`·3· ·A.· · · · So there's really two parts to the answer.
`
`·4· ·Conceptually, it's providing something that the IP layer
`
`·5· ·can then do its own processing on.· The second part of
`
`·6· ·the answer is this figure doesn't say how that data
`
`·7· ·should be stored or represented or whether it's copied
`
`·8· ·or a pointer is passed, whether it's in shared memory or
`
`·9· ·not.· It's more of an implementation detail.
`
`10· · · · · · ·So this figure is more a conceptual
`
`11· ·representation that something is generated by the
`
`12· ·transport layer, usually a payload with the TCP header
`
`13· ·on it, and that that somehow is provided to the IP layer
`
`14· ·for its own processing.
`
`15· ·Q.· · · · Is it fair to say that the transport layer
`
`16· ·creates the TCP header that is passed to the network
`
`17· ·layer along with the data?
`
`18· ·A.· · · · I mean, it's a fairly broad question.· I think
`
`19· ·certainly in many instances, the particular header for
`
`20· ·whatever payload TCP is going to send to the network
`
`21· ·layer is instantiated or created, usually filled out
`
`22· ·within that transport layer.· There may be exceptions.
`
`23· ·Q.· · · · If you would take a look at paragraph 44.
`
`24· ·You're addressing your understanding of claim
`
`25· ·construction there, right, in that section?· You can see
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.023
`
`
`
`·1· ·it on page 15.
`
`·2· ·A.· · · · Yes, I see that paragraph.
`
`·3· ·Q.· · · · And you say, "I understand that claim terms
`
`·4· ·are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be
`
`·5· ·understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`·6· ·unless the inventor provides a special meaning for a
`
`·7· ·term."· See that?
`
`·8· ·A.· · · · I do.
`
`·9· ·Q.· · · · I don't see in this section where you identify
`
`10· ·a time at which you assess what a person of ordinary
`
`11· ·skill in the art would understand.· Did I miss
`
`12· ·something?
`
`13· ·A.· · · · I don't see anything in paragraphs 42 to 48.
`
`14· ·I mean, there's paragraph 41.· When we're looking at
`
`15· ·validity and what a person of skill in the art would
`
`16· ·have understood, it talks about an effective filing
`
`17· ·date.· I think that concept would apply to claim
`
`18· ·construction, as well.
`
`19· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· Is that the understanding you applied?
`
`20· ·In other words, to the claim terms at issue, you
`
`21· ·attempted to assess the plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`22· ·would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`23· ·art in October of 1997?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think that's generally
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.024
`
`
`
`·1· ·correct.· I think that the time frame -- if you look at
`
`·2· ·whether it's October 1997 or plus or minus a year or
`
`·3· ·two, it doesn't really have an impact.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·The other thing that I would say is, if you
`
`·5· ·then look at Section VI, starting on page 35, that as
`
`·6· ·part of my analysis, there aren't really particular
`
`·7· ·claim terms that require constructions that had any
`
`·8· ·impact on what ultimately the opinions are.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· I understand that, but
`
`10· ·nevertheless, you need to apply the plain and ordinary
`
`11· ·meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`12· ·the art, and I believe, unless I misunderstood you,
`
`13· ·you're saying that you had that as of October 1997?
`
`14· ·A.· · · · As of the time of the patent, I would say in
`
`15· ·that general period of time, I think that's correct.
`
`16· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· Why did you apply October 1997?
`
`17· ·A.· · · · I believe what it says is that it's the
`
`18· ·effective filing date.· I understand that there are
`
`19· ·questions, at least in the underlying District Court
`
`20· ·case, about when the priority date of the patent is.
`
`21· ·That might be different, but for purposes of my analysis
`
`22· ·here, I'm looking at the effective filing date.
`
`23· ·Q.· · · · Okay.· And is that your understanding of the
`
`24· ·correct way to analyze it; that you apply the
`
`25· ·understanding of a person of ordinary skill as of the
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.025
`
`
`
`·1· ·first effective filing date?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. MACK:· Objection; form.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think that's ultimately a
`
`·4· ·legal question.· I think that the understanding that I
`
`·5· ·used for claim construction was generally in that time
`
`·6· ·period.· I don't recall any particular terms that would
`
`·7· ·have changed meanings over the course of, like I said,
`
`·8· ·the plus or minus a year or two.· And so it's not an
`
`·9· ·absolute date -- as of a particular date that terms had
`
`10· ·specific meanings.· Those were terms and definitions
`
`11· ·that were generally applicable in that time frame.
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. STEPHENS:· Q.· Okay.· If you'd look at
`
`13· ·paragraph 51 of your declaration in Almeroth Exhibit 1.
`
`14· ·You say, "The steps involved in the process of data
`
`15· ·transmission are each typically performed by different
`
`16· ·software, in a particular order, and without bypassing
`
`17· ·any steps.· This is what is known as a 'multi-layered
`
`18· ·software architecture.'"
`
`19· · · · · · ·Does the different software in the
`
`20· ·multi-layered software architecture refer to the layers
`
`21· ·that we were looking at in paragraph 64?
`
`22· ·A.· · · · They can be.· Each of those layers can be
`
`23· ·implemented -- I mean, again, we're back to programming
`
`24· ·languages.· They can be implemented as separate program
`
`25· ·elements.· They could be implemented together because
`
`INTEL EX. 1224.026
`
`
`
`·1· ·something special is being done.· Each layer can be
`
`·2· ·composed of multiple processes.·
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
