·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---
`
`·4· ·INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM INC.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · Petitioners,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · vs.
`
`·7· ·ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`·8· · · · · · · Patent owner.
`· · ·____________________________/
`·9
`
`10
`
`11· · · ·Case IPR2017-013931; U.S. Patent No. 9,055,104
`· · · · ·Case IPR2017-013911; U.S. Patent No. 7,237,036
`12· · · ·Case IPR2017-014091; U.S. Patent No. 8,131,880
`· · · · ·Case IPR2017-014101; U.S. Patent No. 8,131,880
`13· · · ·Case IPR2017-014051; U.S. Patent No. 7,124,205
`· · · · ·Case IPR2017-014061; U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`14· · · ·Case IPR2017-013921; U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`18· · · · · · · _________________________________
`
`19· · · · · · · · · VOLUME 2; PAGES 256 - 478
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · ·FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·REPORTED BY:· HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(SF-173597)
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.001
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---
`
`·4· ·INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM INC.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · Petitioners,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · vs.
`
`·7· ·ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`·8· · · · · · · Patent owner.
`· · ·____________________________/
`·9
`
`10
`
`11· · · ·Case IPR2017-013931; U.S. Patent No. 9,055,104
`· · · · ·Case IPR2017-013911; U.S. Patent No. 7,237,036
`12· · · ·Case IPR2017-014091; U.S. Patent No. 8,131,880
`· · · · ·Case IPR2017-014101; U.S. Patent No. 8,131,880
`13· · · ·Case IPR2017-014051; U.S. Patent No. 7,124,205
`· · · · ·Case IPR2017-014061; U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`14· · · ·Case IPR2017-013921; U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`18· · · · · · · _________________________________
`
`19· · · · · · · · · VOLUME 2; PAGES 256 - 478
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · ·FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·REPORTED BY:· HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(SF-173597)
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.001
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
`·3· ·EXAMINATION BY:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·4· ·MR. STEPHENS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 260
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--o0o--
`
`·6· · · · · · ·EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`
`·7· ·NO.· · · · · · · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 10· · ·United States Patent 7,337,241,· · · ·260
`· · · · · · · · · · Boucher et al.
`·9
`· · ·Exhibit 11· · ·Document headed "Chapter 10:· · · · · 292
`10· · · · · · · · · Interrupt Handling"
`
`11· ·Exhibit 12· · ·Corrected Patent Owner's Exhibit· · · 388
`· · · · · · · · · · 2026, Declaration of Kevin
`12· · · · · · · · · Almeroth, Ph.D., IPR2017-1409,
`· · · · · · · · · · U.S. Patent 8,131,880
`13
`· · ·Exhibit 13· · ·Corrected Patent Owner's Exhibit· · · 388
`14· · · · · · · · · 2026, Declaration of Kevin
`· · · · · · · · · · Almeroth, Ph.D.,
`15· · · · · · · · · IPR2017-1410U.S. Patent
`· · · · · · · · · · 8,131,880
`16
`· · ·Exhibit 14· · ·United States Patent 8,131,880,· · · ·390
`17· · · · · · · · · Boucher et al.
`
`18· ·Exhibit 15· · ·Excerpt from Appendix A to the· · · · 401
`· · · · · · · · · · Report of Alacritech's expert
`19· · · · · · · · · Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth Concerning
`· · · · · · · · · · Intel's Infringement,
`20· · · · · · · · · Alacritech, Inc. vs. CenturyLink
`· · · · · · · · · · Communications, LLC, et al. and
`21· · · · · · · · · related actions
`
`22· ·Exhibit 16· · ·Declaration of Dr. Kevin· · · · · · · 431
`· · · · · · · · · · Almeroth in Support of
`23· · · · · · · · · Alacritech's Motion for
`· · · · · · · · · · Preliminary Injunction of
`24· · · · · · · · · Microsoft's Infringement of
`· · · · · · · · · · Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 6,697,868
`25· ·(Cont'd)
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.002
`
`
`
`·1· ·(Exhibits, cont'd)
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 17· · ·Declaration of Dr. Kevin· · · · · · · 436
`· · · · · · · · · · Almeroth in Support of
`·3· · · · · · · · · Alacritech's Reply to
`· · · · · · · · · · Microsoft's Opposition to
`·4· · · · · · · · · Alacritech's Motion for
`· · · · · · · · · · Preliminary Injunction
`·5
`· · ·Exhibit 18· · ·Document headed "14: A Reduced· · · · 452
`·6· · · · · · · · · Operation Protocol Engine (ROPE)
`· · · · · · · · · · for a multiple-layer bypass
`·7· · · · · · · · · architecture"
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 19· · ·Patent Owner's Exhibit 2026,· · · · · 460
`· · · · · · · · · · Declaration of Kevin Almeroth,
`·9· · · · · · · · · Ph.D., Case IPR2017-01405, U.S.
`· · · · · · · · · · Patent 7,124,205
`10
`· · ·Exhibit 20· · ·Curriculum Vitae, Kevin C.· · · · · · 470
`11· · · · · · · · · Almeroth
`
`12· ·Exhibit 21· · ·CS 176 -- Introduction to· · · · · · ·474
`· · · · · · · · · · Computer Communication Networks,
`13· · · · · · · · · Fall 1997
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.003
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--o0o--
`
`·2· · · · Deposition of KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D., taken by
`
`·3· ·Petitioner Intel Corp., at QUINN EMANUEL, 50 California
`
`·4· ·Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111,
`
`·5· ·commencing at 9:04 A.M., on FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018, before
`
`·6· ·me, HOLLY THUMAN, CSR, RMR, CRR.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--o0o--
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES
`
`·9· ·FOR PETITIONER INTEL CORP.:
`
`10· · · · WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`· · · · · 700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`11· · · · Houston, Texas 77002-2755
`· · · · · By:· GARLAND STEPHENS, Attorney at Law
`12· · · · · · ·garland.stephens@weil.com
`
`13· ·FOR PETITIONER CAVIUM,INC.:
`
`14· · · · DUANE MORRIS
`· · · · · 2475 Hanover Street
`15· · · · Palo Alto, California 94304-1194
`· · · · · By:· NIKOLAUS A. WOLOSZCZUK, Attorney at Law
`16· · · · · · ·nawoloszczuk@duanemorris.com
`
`17· ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`18· · · · QUINN EMANUEL
`· · · · · 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`19· · · · San Francisco, California 94111
`· · · · · By:· BRIAN E. MACK, Attorney at Law
`20· · · · · · ·brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.004
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · 9:04 A.M.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--o0o--
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · ·KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · _________________________________
`
`·6· ·called as a witness, who, having been first duly sworn,
`
`·7· ·was examined and testified as follows:
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION BY MR. STEPHENS
`
`10· · · · · · (Deposition Exhibit 10 was marked for
`
`11· · · · · · identification.)
`
`12· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· We're back on the record.
`
`13· · · · Q.· Dr. Almeroth, you understand you're still
`
`14· ·under oath today?
`
`15· · · · A.· Yes, sir.
`
`16· · · · Q.· Thank you.· The court reporter has handed you
`
`17· ·what's been marked as Almeroth Exhibit 10, which is the
`
`18· ·same as Intel Exhibit 1001, and that is the '241
`
`19· ·patent.
`
`20· · · · · · Do you recognize that?
`
`21· · · · A.· I do.
`
`22· · · · Q.· Yesterday we talked about the discussion, the
`
`23· ·background discussion -- excuse me -- the "Background
`
`24· ·of the Invention" discussion which is on Column 35 in
`
`25· ·the '241, which I believe is essentially the same as
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.005
`
`
`
`·1· ·the similar discussion in the '072 patent.· I wanted to
`
`·2· ·come back to that a little bit.
`
`·3· · · · · · I want to walk through the discussion of "Too
`
`·4· ·Many Interrupts" here to make sure that I understand
`
`·5· ·what your view of it is.· It says -- the first sentence
`
`·6· ·says, "A 64K SMB request (write or read-reply)."
`
`·7· · · · · · What does that mean?
`
`·8· · · · A.· I'm not sure I understand the question.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· Well, a 64K SMB request refers to a system
`
`10· ·message block message sent over TCP/IP that's 64K long.
`
`11· ·Right?
`
`12· · · · A.· It does.
`
`13· · · · Q.· And a write would be sent by a host system
`
`14· ·including 64K bytes to a network storage device to
`
`15· ·store that 64K.· Right?
`
`16· · · · A.· From a network perspective, just to a remote
`
`17· ·host.· But --
`
`18· · · · Q.· Okay.
`
`19· · · · A.· But sure.
`
`20· · · · Q.· And a 64K SMB read-reply would be a response
`
`21· ·to read storage, and that would be received by the
`
`22· ·device.· Right?
`
`23· · · · A.· It would be.
`
`24· · · · Q.· So it's talking about both 64K transmissions
`
`25· ·and 64K receptions in that phrase.· Right?
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· It is.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· And then it says that that would typically be
`
`·3· ·made up of 44 TCP segments when running over Ethernet
`
`·4· ·with a 1500-byte MTU.
`
`·5· · · · · · And I think you agreed yesterday that seems
`
`·6· ·roughly right.
`
`·7· · · · A.· Yes.· And -- well, so the point to make is,
`
`·8· ·the request could be one of two things.· So it's only
`
`·9· ·talking about one 64K SMB.· It's not talking about the
`
`10· ·two together.
`
`11· · · · Q.· Right.· It's saying one or the other.· Right?
`
`12· · · · A.· That's correct.
`
`13· · · · Q.· But is it your understanding that the rest of
`
`14· ·the paragraph applies to either one?
`
`15· · · · A.· It may.· I mean, we'll certainly walk through
`
`16· ·it.
`
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· Let's do that.
`
`18· · · · · · Now, it says each of the segments may result
`
`19· ·in an interrupt to the CPU, and it's referring to 44
`
`20· ·TCP segments there.· Right?
`
`21· · · · A.· It is.
`
`22· · · · Q.· And there's no suggestion, in that sentence at
`
`23· ·least, that any segment might result in more than one
`
`24· ·interrupt to the CPU.· Right?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.007
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I certainly don't think that
`
`·2· ·sentence should be interpreted as saying there would
`
`·3· ·only be at most one interrupt.· If anything, I think
`
`·4· ·it's saying that there's at least one interrupt.· It's
`
`·5· ·focusing on at least one interrupt.· I think the
`
`·6· ·reality is there certainly would be more than that.
`
`·7· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`·8· · · · Q.· Well, in fact, it says almost the opposite of
`
`·9· ·what you just said.· Right?· It says each of these
`
`10· ·segments may result in an interrupt to the CPU.· It
`
`11· ·doesn't say that it will result in at least one.
`
`12· · · · A.· I would disagree with that characterization.
`
`13· ·I see where it says may result in an interrupt, but I
`
`14· ·think, reasonably speaking, within a protocol stack you
`
`15· ·would certainly expect it to have multiple interrupts,
`
`16· ·for lots of the reasons we talked about yesterday.
`
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· I understand that's your view.
`
`18· · · · · · Now, let's back up a second.· This is part of
`
`19· ·the "Background of the Invention" section.· Right?
`
`20· · · · A.· It does list this as the "Background of the
`
`21· ·Invention" section.
`
`22· · · · Q.· And it says "Network processing as it exists
`
`23· ·today is a costly and inefficient use of system
`
`24· ·resources."· Right?
`
`25· · · · A.· Yes.· It looks like you're reading at
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.008
`
`
`
`·1· ·Column 35, about line 13.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· Yeah, I'm sorry.· I should have pointed that
`
`·3· ·out.
`
`·4· · · · · · And then the last sentence of that
`
`·5· ·paragraph says, "The reasons that this processing is so
`
`·6· ·costly are described here."· Right?
`
`·7· · · · A.· Yes.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· And you've testified, and you've said in your
`
`·9· ·declarations, that the inventions in the patents at
`
`10· ·issue here solve these problems.· Right?
`
`11· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection to form.
`
`12· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think in a broad context, some
`
`13· ·of the claims do solve some of the problems.· I don't
`
`14· ·know that every claim solves every problem that's
`
`15· ·listed here.
`
`16· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· There's nothing to suggest here in the
`
`18· ·"Background of the Invention" section that Alacritech
`
`19· ·failed to account for a huge quantity of interrupts, is
`
`20· ·there?
`
`21· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't understand the question.
`
`23· ·When you say "failed to account for," do you mean in
`
`24· ·writing this section, or --
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.009
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`·2· · · · Q.· Yes.
`
`·3· · · · A.· -- in their design, or --
`
`·4· · · · Q.· I mean in writing this section.
`
`·5· · · · · · They don't say, "By the way, there's many more
`
`·6· ·interrupts besides the ones we list here as being too
`
`·7· ·many."
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·9· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, I mean, I think this goes
`
`10· ·to an understanding of writing a specification so it
`
`11· ·could be understood by a person of skill in the art.
`
`12· ·And I don't think that it would be necessary to
`
`13· ·identify all of the possible sources of interrupts that
`
`14· ·can be generated during or caused by a network
`
`15· ·transmission.
`
`16· · · · · · I think that, as I testified to yesterday,
`
`17· ·it's laying out a high-level perspective of what the
`
`18· ·problems are, and then, in some cases, giving specific
`
`19· ·examples.· Which is why I think care should be taken in
`
`20· ·trying to read some of the sentences you're reading
`
`21· ·individually and suggest that all Alacritech was saying
`
`22· ·in writing the sentence at Column 36, line 27, is that
`
`23· ·there would only sometimes be at most one interrupt for
`
`24· ·each sender-received TCP segment.
`
`25· · · · Q.· Okay.· Well, let's go back to that.· The next
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.010
`
`
`
`·1· ·sentence says:
`
`·2· · · · · · "Furthermore, since TCP must acknowledge
`
`·3· · · · all of this incoming data, it's possible to
`
`·4· · · · get another 44 transmit-complete interrupts as
`
`·5· · · · a result of sending out the TCP
`
`·6· · · · acknowledgments."
`
`·7· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`·8· · · · A.· I do.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· So what that's referring to is receiving 44
`
`10· ·TCP segments and acknowledging each one of them
`
`11· ·individually.· Right?
`
`12· · · · A.· No.· There's both the receiving of the data
`
`13· ·and the generation of acknowledgments, which may be
`
`14· ·piggybacked on data.· But also in handling the
`
`15· ·acknowledgments at the place where the data was either
`
`16· ·written or requested.
`
`17· · · · · · So if I send out 44 TCP segments, I will get
`
`18· ·acknowledgments for those 44 TCP segments back.· Those
`
`19· ·44 acknowledgments have to individually be processed
`
`20· ·just like a TCP segment, but they wouldn't have any
`
`21· ·data necessarily.
`
`22· · · · · · So, for example, if I'm writing a 64K SMB
`
`23· ·request, I send out 44 TCP segments.· That generates a
`
`24· ·wave of interrupts.· There's a wave of interrupts at
`
`25· ·the receiver.· The receiver generates acknowledgments
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.011
`
`
`
`·1· ·that come back, and then processing those
`
`·2· ·acknowledgments generates another wave of interrupts.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· But that's not what it's talking about here.
`
`·4· ·Right?· Because it's talking about transmit-complete
`
`·5· ·interrupts.
`
`·6· · · · A.· Yeah.· That's absolutely what it's talking
`
`·7· ·about.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· So it's talking about sending acknowledgments
`
`·9· ·to 44 received TCP segments.· Right?· It's not talking
`
`10· ·about receiving acknowledgments to 44 TCP segments,
`
`11· ·because it's talking about another 44 transmit-complete
`
`12· ·interrupts.
`
`13· · · · A.· Yeah --
`
`14· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The transmit complete is an --
`
`16· ·is the reception of an acknowledgment.· So it's a
`
`17· ·reception of the acknowledgment at the sender saying
`
`18· ·that the transmit was complete.· And you get one of
`
`19· ·those for each TCP segment, unless you're doing
`
`20· ·something like ACK delays.
`
`21· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`22· · · · Q.· So it's your testimony under oath here today
`
`23· ·that a transmit-complete interrupt is generated to a
`
`24· ·host processor when it receives an acknowledgment?
`
`25· · · · A.· Ask that again?
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.012
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· It's your testimony that a host computer
`
`·2· ·receives a transmit-complete interrupt when it receives
`
`·3· ·an acknowledgment?
`
`·4· · · · A.· No, no.· You're using the wrong terms.· It --
`
`·5· ·the sender sends out 44 segments.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· Okay.
`
`·7· · · · A.· The receiver gets those segments.· There's
`
`·8· ·interrupts associated with sending the 44 segments.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· Those are on one side.· Right?
`
`10· · · · A.· Right.
`
`11· · · · Q.· Okay.
`
`12· · · · A.· At the receiving side, there's a whole set of
`
`13· ·interrupts with receiving those 44 segments.
`
`14· · · · · · Now, possibly as part of that processing, it
`
`15· ·may generate additional interrupts.· But as part of
`
`16· ·that processing at the receiver, you will send
`
`17· ·acknowledgments back to the transmitter telling the
`
`18· ·transmitter that the reception has been completed at
`
`19· ·the receiver.
`
`20· · · · · · After the host sends the 44 TCP segments, it
`
`21· ·sits there and waits.· It has timers running.· There's
`
`22· ·a lot of processing involved, which is part of what's
`
`23· ·being described here.· And then the acknowledgments
`
`24· ·will start to trickle in.
`
`25· · · · · · The acknowledgments are TCP packets.· They may
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.013
`
`
`
`·1· ·or may not have data.· But now the sender is a receiver
`
`·2· ·of those acknowledgments, and each one of those have to
`
`·3· ·be processed.· It could potentially have data, but you
`
`·4· ·still have to do full processing on the Ethernet, the
`
`·5· ·IP, and the TCP header, and that will generate
`
`·6· ·interrupts as well.
`
`·7· · · · · · So there's really four sets of interrupts that
`
`·8· ·will be created by sending one TCP segment: at the
`
`·9· ·sending side, at the receiving side, generation of
`
`10· ·acknowledgment at the receiver, and then receiving of
`
`11· ·the acknowledgment at the sender.
`
`12· · · · Q.· Okay.· But this isn't talking about -- this
`
`13· ·isn't trying to count interrupts on both sides.· Right?
`
`14· ·It's trying to count interrupts on one side.
`
`15· · · · A.· So --
`
`16· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Even focusing on one side, the
`
`18· ·sender sends out the data that generates a set of
`
`19· ·interrupts, and then receiving the acknowledgments back
`
`20· ·will require a processing of those interrupts and will
`
`21· ·generate -- or processing of those packets and will
`
`22· ·generate interrupts as well.
`
`23· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`24· · · · Q.· But that's not what's being discussed in this
`
`25· ·sentence.· Let me just read it so we make sure we're
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.014
`
`
`
`·1· ·talking about the same sentence:
`
`·2· · · · · · "Furthermore, since TCP must acknowledge all
`
`·3· ·of this incoming data" -- so it's receiving the 44 TCP
`
`·4· ·segments.· Right?
`
`·5· · · · A.· Uh-huh.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· -- "it's possible to get another 44
`
`·7· ·transmit-complete interrupts as a result of sending out
`
`·8· ·the TCP acknowledgments."
`
`·9· · · · A.· Yeah.
`
`10· · · · Q.· So this -- these 44 interrupts that are being
`
`11· ·discussed here are on the side of the write or
`
`12· ·read-reply that's receiving 44 TCP segmenting and
`
`13· ·sending out as many as 44 acknowledgments.· Right?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection to form.
`
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I disagree.
`
`16· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· Well, what is it, then?
`
`18· · · · A.· Because it says as a result of sending out the
`
`19· ·acknowledgments.· So the result of sending out the
`
`20· ·acknowledgments is the reception of those
`
`21· ·acknowledgments.
`
`22· · · · · · Now, frankly, whether or not you want to parse
`
`23· ·it your way or not, my description of where you have
`
`24· ·interrupts on sending, interrupts on receiving,
`
`25· ·interrupts on generating acknowledgments, and
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.015
`
`
`
`·1· ·interrupts on receiving the acknowledgments, is still
`
`·2· ·accurate.· I mean, it still happens.· And so whether or
`
`·3· ·not the statement is focused on that or not is really
`
`·4· ·irrelevant.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· Well, that's for the PTAB to decide.· And I'm
`
`·6· ·asking about this sentence, not about things that are
`
`·7· ·not discussed in this sentence.
`
`·8· · · · · · So when it says that TCP must acknowledge all
`
`·9· ·of this incoming data, it's talking about the side
`
`10· ·that is receiving 44 TCP segments.· Do you agree with
`
`11· ·that?
`
`12· · · · A.· Well, if it used that language.· It's
`
`13· ·different than what's here, but -- I mean --
`
`14· · · · Q.· TCP must acknowledge all of this incoming
`
`15· ·data.· Right?· It's not talking about outgoing data;
`
`16· ·it's talking about incoming data.
`
`17· · · · A.· It is.
`
`18· · · · Q.· Okay.· So that's the 44 TCP segments that are
`
`19· ·being received.
`
`20· · · · A.· After they are sent -- I mean -- okay.· That's
`
`21· ·fine.· I'm trying to answer your questions.· But just
`
`22· ·as long as it's clear that -- I mean, I would be
`
`23· ·surprised if you or Dr. Horst would disagree with the
`
`24· ·fact that receiving an acknowledgment would also
`
`25· ·require a --
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.016
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Garland, we're going to object to
`
`·2· ·this entire line of questioning, because you know this
`
`·3· ·is not a ground of instituted rejection.· It's not --
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· Stop talking.· Make your
`
`·5· ·objection.· Stop talking.
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Stop interrupting me.
`
`·7· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· No.
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. MACK:· I'm making an objection.
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· Make your objection.· But
`
`10· ·don't --
`
`11· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Stop interrupting me.
`
`12· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· You're not entitled --
`
`13· · · · · · (The reporter requested that people not speak
`
`14· · · · · · at once.)
`
`15· · · · · · MR. MACK:· This is not in your expert's
`
`16· ·report.· It's not an instituted ground.· It's not in
`
`17· ·Dr. Almeroth's declaration.
`
`18· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· Absolutely, it --
`
`19· · · · · · MR. MACK:· You know this is beyond the scope.
`
`20· · · · · · (The reporter requested that people not speak
`
`21· · · · · · at once; unreportable crosstalk.)
`
`22· · · · · · MR. MACK:· You're trying to make an entire new
`
`23· ·ground that wasn't instituted.· None of this is
`
`24· ·relevant.· We're going to move to strike all of these
`
`25· ·questions.· You know none of this is coming in your
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.017
`
`
`
`·1· ·reply.· You're wasting my time; you're wasting his
`
`·2· ·time.· This is all beyond the scope.· This is
`
`·3· ·harassment.
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· Are you done?
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Yes.
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. STEPHENS:· Okay.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· So Dr. Almeroth, before we were interrupted by
`
`·8· ·your counsel, or Alacritech's counsel -- let's see
`
`·9· ·here.· Okay.
`
`10· · · · · · So when it says, "Furthermore, since TCP must
`
`11· ·acknowledge all of this incoming data," that
`
`12· ·establishes that this sentence is talking about the
`
`13· ·side of the SMB transaction that is receiving the 44
`
`14· ·TCP segments.· Would you agree with that?
`
`15· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Beyond the scope.
`
`16· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Not necessarily.
`
`17· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`18· · · · Q.· Okay.· Why not?
`
`19· · · · A.· Read the sentence.
`
`20· · · · Q.· Okay.
`
`21· · · · A.· It says, "Furthermore, since TCP must
`
`22· ·acknowledge all of this incoming data" -- it's talking
`
`23· ·about TCP generally -- those acknowledgments would be
`
`24· ·sent by the receiver.· It's possible to get another 44
`
`25· ·transmit-complete interrupts.
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.018
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Okay.· You're -- where do those
`
`·2· ·transmit-complete interrupts happen?· They happen when
`
`·3· ·you receive the acknowledgment.· Those are generated as
`
`·4· ·a result of the sending out of TCP acknowledgments.· So
`
`·5· ·if the receiver sends out acknowledgments, the result
`
`·6· ·is that the original sender has to process those
`
`·7· ·acknowledgments, and those generate interrupts as well.
`
`·8· · · · · · I mean, it's -- you get acknowledgments.
`
`·9· ·They're TCP packets.· They absolutely have to be
`
`10· ·processed.· They absolutely generate interrupts.
`
`11· · · · Q.· Again, I'm just trying to understand what this
`
`12· ·sentence is referring to.
`
`13· · · · · · When it says "incoming data," what does that
`
`14· ·refer to?
`
`15· · · · A.· Look.· The sentence says what it says.· It's
`
`16· ·saying that as a result of sending out the
`
`17· ·acknowledgments, that the transmit-complete
`
`18· ·interrupts -- transmission is not completed until an
`
`19· ·acknowledgment is received.
`
`20· · · · Q.· Can you just answer my question, please?
`
`21· · · · A.· I am answering your question.
`
`22· · · · Q.· Okay.· Go ahead, then.
`
`23· · · · A.· You don't get a transmit-complete until an
`
`24· ·acknowledgment is received.
`
`25· · · · Q.· I didn't ask about a transmit-complete
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.019
`
`
`
`·1· ·interrupt.
`
`·2· · · · A.· Yes, you did.· It's right there in the
`
`·3· ·sentence.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· No.· I asked about incoming data.· What does
`
`·5· ·"incoming data" refer to?
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.· Asked and
`
`·7· ·answered.
`
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The incoming data is what's
`
`·9· ·received at the receiver and what generates
`
`10· ·acknowledgments.
`
`11· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`12· · · · Q.· Does it refer to the 44 TCP segments?
`
`13· · · · A.· Does what refer to the 44 TCP segments?
`
`14· · · · Q.· The incoming data.
`
`15· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection to form.
`
`16· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`17· · · · Q.· The phrase "incoming data."· Does that refer
`
`18· ·to the 44 TCP segments?
`
`19· · · · A.· It does.
`
`20· · · · Q.· And does that mean that it is being received
`
`21· ·by the TCP that's being referred to there?
`
`22· · · · A.· If the data is send by the sender, it will be
`
`23· ·received by the receiver, assuming that there are no
`
`24· ·errors.
`
`25· · · · Q.· But when it says "since TCP must acknowledge
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.020
`
`
`
`·1· ·all the incoming data," does that mean that the TCP
`
`·2· ·that must acknowledge the incoming data is receiving
`
`·3· ·that data?
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.· Beyond the
`
`·5· ·scope.
`
`·6· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It says that there must be
`
`·7· ·transmissions of acknowledgments by the receiver of the
`
`·8· ·data, and those acknowledgments must be processed by
`
`·9· ·the sender of the data.
`
`10· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`11· · · · Q.· Where does it talk about the sender of the
`
`12· ·data?
`
`13· · · · A.· It's possible --
`
`14· · · · Q.· Of the incoming data --
`
`15· · · · A.· -- to get another 44 transmit-complete
`
`16· ·interrupts.
`
`17· · · · · · The only thing that gets transmit-complete
`
`18· ·interrupts is the sender.· A transmit-complete happens
`
`19· ·when an acknowledgment is received at the transmitter.
`
`20· ·And that's -- that reception of an acknowledgment at
`
`21· ·the transmitter is the result of sending TCP
`
`22· ·acknowledgments by the receiver.
`
`23· · · · Q.· I -- you've completely lost me now.· When -- I
`
`24· ·don't know what you mean by sender and receiver.· You
`
`25· ·seem to be mixing them up.
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.021
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· Well, so there's the sender of the data.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· Sending -- excuse me.· Sender of the incoming
`
`·3· ·data.· Right?· So that's the party that's not receiving
`
`·4· ·the incoming data --
`
`·5· · · · A.· Let's --
`
`·6· · · · Q.· -- the outgoing data.
`
`·7· · · · A.· Let's do it this way.· Host A is going to do a
`
`·8· ·write request.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· Okay.
`
`10· · · · A.· So it's going to send 64 bytes of data.· It's
`
`11· ·going to send that 64 bytes of data to Host B.
`
`12· · · · Q.· Okay.
`
`13· · · · A.· There are interrupts generated in the sending
`
`14· ·of 44 TCP segments when --
`
`15· · · · Q.· By --
`
`16· · · · A.· -- when those segments are sent --
`
`17· · · · · · (Reporter requested clarification.)
`
`18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· When Host A sends the data.
`
`19· ·Those interrupts will be on Host A.· Host B, the
`
`20· ·receiver of those 44 TCP segments, will receive -- will
`
`21· ·have interrupts as each of those segments are received
`
`22· ·and processed.
`
`23· · · · · · As a result of receiving each of those
`
`24· ·segments, Host B will generate an acknowledgment to
`
`25· ·Host A.· In some cases, it's one acknowledgment for
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.022
`
`
`
`·1· ·every received TCP segment; in other cases, it's less
`
`·2· ·than that.
`
`·3· · · · · · The generation of the acknowledgments by
`
`·4· ·Host B will have its own set of interrupts.· Those
`
`·5· ·acknowledgments are sent to Host A.· They look like TCP
`
`·6· ·packets.· They may or may not contain data.
`
`·7· · · · · · The acknowledgments that are received back at
`
`·8· ·Host A will generate their own set of interrupts as
`
`·9· ·well, because each of the headers has to be processed,
`
`10· ·whether or not there's data that might generate
`
`11· ·additional interrupts as it's passed to the
`
`12· ·application.· But certainly there are interrupts in
`
`13· ·processing those TCP packets.
`
`14· · · · · · So there's essentially two sets.· There are
`
`15· ·four -- four groups of interrupts that happen: Sending
`
`16· ·the data on Host A, receiving the data on Host B,
`
`17· ·generating acknowledgments on Host B, and receiving the
`
`18· ·acknowledgments on Host A.
`
`19· · · · Q.· And it's your testimony that the
`
`20· ·transmit-complete interrupts refers to the interrupts
`
`21· ·on Host A that are generated in response to receiving
`
`22· ·the acknowledgment packets transmitted by Host B.· Is
`
`23· ·that right?
`
`24· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.· Beyond the
`
`25· ·scope.
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.023
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It's my reading that a
`
`·2· ·transmit-complete interrupt is on the reception of an
`
`·3· ·acknowledgment.· Whether it's referring to the second
`
`·4· ·set, meaning the set that's on the receiver, doesn't
`
`·5· ·really matter.· It doesn't -- it doesn't change the
`
`·6· ·fact that there are four sets of interrupts that happen
`
`·7· ·in a send and a receive.
`
`·8· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`·9· · · · Q.· Okay.· At least I understand what you mean
`
`10· ·now.· Thank you for that.
`
`11· · · · · · Then it says:
`
`12· · · · · · "While this is possible, it's not terribly
`
`13· · · · likely.· Delayed ACK timers allow us to
`
`14· · · · acknowledge more than one segment at a time
`
`15· · · · and delays in interrupt processing may mean
`
`16· · · · that we are able to process more than one
`
`17· · · · incoming network frame per interrupt."
`
`18· · · · · · Does the sentence that says "and delays in
`
`19· ·interrupt prosing may mean that we are able to process
`
`20· ·more than one incoming network frame per interrupt"
`
`21· ·refer only to acknowledgments?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.· Beyond the
`
`23· ·scope.
`
`24· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No.· It can refer to the
`
`25· ·reception of any frame.· So any frame would include the
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.024
`
`
`
`·1· ·original data transmissions as well as -- sorry.
`
`·2· · · · · · The reception of the original data
`
`·3· ·transmissions at Host B and the reception of
`
`·4· ·acknowledgments at Host A.
`
`·5· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`·6· · · · Q.· Okay.· So you can reduce the number of
`
`·7· ·interrupts caused by receiving ACKs through delayed ACK
`
`·8· ·timers.· Is that correct?
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objects form.· Beyond the scope.
`
`10· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`11· · · · Q.· Sorry.· You can reduce the number of ACKs
`
`12· ·transmitted by using a delayed ACK timer.· Is that
`
`13· ·right?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Same objections.
`
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· You can.· And consequently, if
`
`16· ·you're sending fewer ACKs, you're also receiving fewer
`
`17· ·ACKs.
`
`18· ·BY MR. STEPHENS:
`
`19· · · · Q.· Okay.· And then -- and using delays in
`
`20· ·interrupt processing, you may be able to process more
`
`21· ·than one incoming network frame per interrupt of any
`
`22· ·kind, whether it's ACKs or data or both.
`
`23· · · · A.· Exactly.
`
`24· · · · Q.· Got it.· Thank you.· Okay.
`
`25· · · · · · So then it goes on to say:
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.025
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · "Nevertheless, even if we assume four
`
`·2· · · · incoming frames per input and acknowledgment
`
`·3· · · · for every 2 segments (as is typical for" --
`
`·4· · · · "typical per the ACK-every-other-segment
`
`·5· · · · property of TCP), we are still left with 33
`
`·6· · · · interrupts per 64K SMB request."
`
`·7· · · · · · Now, is there anything inaccurate about that
`
`·8· ·paragraph?
`
`·9· · · · A.· Yeah.
`
`10· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`11· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, I don't know if it's
`
`12· ·inaccurate, but I think it's kind of an anecdote and
`
`13· ·represents a general sort of calculation.
`
`14· · · · · · I think, depending on the implementation, you
`
`15· ·could certainly have more interrupts, or you could
`
`16· ·potentially have fewer interrupts.· I mean, depending
`
`17· ·on how large blocks of data are processed.
`
`18· · · · · · I think what is clear, and as I testified to
`
`19· ·yesterday, the concept that there are too many
`
`20· ·interrupts is accurate.· The concept of what happens in
`
`21· ·a transmission, kind of the four portions between
`
`22· ·Host A and Host B that I described and that this
`
`23· ·section is describing, where interrupts can happen in
`
`24· ·that process, is accurate.
`
`25· · · · · · But I don't think that every single
`
`INTEL EX. 1225.026
`
`
`
`·1· ·implementation in that exact scenario would necessarily
`
`·2· ·generate exactly 33 interrupts per 64 kilobyte SMB
`
`·3· ·request.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· Fair enough.
`
`·5· · · · A.· Sorry.· And I don't think a person of skill in
`
`·6· ·the art reading this would understand that that's what
`
`·7· ·the inventors intended.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· Okay.· So in some circumstances, there may be
`
`·9· ·fewer interrupts for 44 TCP segments, and in some cases
`
`10· ·there might be more.· Is that what you're saying?
`
`11· · · · A.· Yes.· That's what I'm saying.
`
`12· · · · Q.· Okay.· What circumstances would result in
`
`13· ·more?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.· Beyond the
`
`15· ·scope.
`
`16· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Situations where there's lost
`
`17· ·data and retransmissions, out-of-order delivery, time
`
`18· ·expiration, congestion constraints.· I mean, there
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
