`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`·
`
`·1· · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· ·INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC.,
`· · ·and WISTRON CORPORATION,
`·4
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`·5· ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·CASE:· IPR2017-01406
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·U.S. PATENT: 7,673,072
`·6
`· · ·ALACRITECH INC.,
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·8
`· · ·_________________________________/
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·San Francisco, California
`
`15· · · · · · · · · ·Monday, May 28, 2018
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported By:
`
`24· ·LINDA VACCAREZZA, RPR, CLR, CRP, CSR. NO. 10201
`
`25· ·JOB NO. SF-178080
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.com
`INTEL EX. 1254.001
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 2
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·May 28, 2018
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·8:58 a.m.
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · Deposition of KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D., held at
`
`·9· ·50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco,
`
`10· ·California, pursuant to Subpoena before Linda
`
`11· ·Vaccarezza, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the
`
`12· ·State of California.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.com
`INTEL EX. 1254.002
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·2· ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`·3· · · · · · WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
`
`·4· · · · · · By: Justin L. Constant, Esq
`
`·5· · · · · · 700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`
`·6· · · · · · Houston, Texas 77002
`
`·7· · · · · · justin.constant@weil.com
`
`·8
`
`·9· ·FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
`10· · · · · · QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`11· · · · · · By:· Brian E. Mack, Esq.
`
`12· · · · · · 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`13· · · · · · San Francisco, California 94111
`
`14· · · · · · brianmack@quinnemanual.com
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.com
`INTEL EX. 1254.003
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`
`·2· ·WITNESS:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·3· · · · · · KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`·4· ·EXAMINATION BY:
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. CONSTANT..........................7
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 22
`
`·9· · · · · · "Third Edition Computer Networks," by
`
`10· · · · · · Andrew S. Tanenbaum...................7
`
`11· ·Exhibit 23
`
`12· · · · · · Declaration of Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. In
`
`13· · · · · · Support of Patent Owner's Reply in
`
`14· · · · · · Support of Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`15· · · · · · Under to 37 C.F.R.....................16
`
`16· ·Exhibit 24
`
`17· · · · · · Patent Owner's Contingent Motion to
`
`18· · · · · · Amend Under 37 C.F.R. 42.121..........17
`
`19· ·Exhibit 25
`
`20· · · · · · United States Patent 5,768,618........25
`
`21· ·Exhibit 26
`
`22· · · · · · Petitioner's Response in Opposition to
`
`23· · · · · · Patent Owner's Contingent Motion to
`
`24· · · · · · Amend under 37 C.F.R. 42.121..........38
`
`25
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.com
`INTEL EX. 1254.004
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· ·EXHIBITS (CONT'D)
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 27
`
`·3· · · · · · Declaration of Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. In
`
`·4· · · · · · Support of Patent Owner's Reply in
`
`·5· · · · · · Support of Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`·6· · · · · · Under to 37 C.F.R 42.121...................42
`
`·7· ·Exhibit 28
`
`·8· · · · · · Patent Owner's Exhibit 2305 Declaration of
`
`·9· · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. In Support of Patent
`
`10· · · · · · Owner's Reply to Patent Owner's Contingent
`
`11· · · · · · Motion to Amend under to 37 C.F.R 42.121...56
`
`12· ·Exhibit 29
`
`13· · · · · · Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief, Bates
`
`14· · · · · · Stamped INTEL Ex. 1033.001 to INTEL Ex.
`
`15· · · · · · 1044.025...................................66
`
`16· ·Exhibit 30
`
`17· · · · · · Patent Owner's Exhibit 2305 Declaration of
`
`18· · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. In Support of Patent
`
`19· · · · · · Owner's Reply in Support of Motion to Amend
`
`20· · · · · · Pursuant to 37 C.F.R 42.121................82
`
`21· ·Exhibit 31
`
`22· · · · · · Article:· A Reduced Operation Protocol Engine
`
`23· · · · · · (ROPE) for a Multiple-Layer Bypass
`
`24· · · · · · Architecture..............................100
`
`25
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.com
`INTEL EX. 1254.005
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· ·EXHIBITS (CONT'D)
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 32
`
`·3· · · · · · United States Patent No. 8,131,880........108
`
`·4· ·Exhibit 33
`
`·5· · · · · · Patent Owner's Exhibit 2305 Declaration of
`
`·6· · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. In Support of Patent
`
`·7· · · · · · Owner's Reply in Support of Motion to Amend
`
`·8· · · · · · Pursuant to 37 C.F.R 42.121...............137
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 34
`
`10· · · · · · Patent Owner's Exhibit 2305 Declaration of
`
`11· · · · · · Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. In Support of Patent
`
`12· · · · · · Owner's Reply to Patent Owner's Contingent
`
`13· · · · · · Motion to amend under 37 C.F.R 42.121.....143
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · · · -o0o--
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.006
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.,
`
`·2· · · · · · · · Having been duly sworn, by the Certified
`
`·3· ·Shorthand Reporter, was examined and testified as
`
`·4· ·follows:
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`·6· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· ·Dr. Almeroth, thank you for being here today.
`
`·8· · · · · · I'm going to hand you what is going to be
`
`·9· ·marked as Exhibit 22.
`
`10· · · · · · (Exhibit 22 was marked for identification.)
`
`11· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`12· · · ·Q.· ·Exhibit 22 has also been marked as Exhibit
`
`13· ·1006 in the IPR proceedings, a copy of the Tanenbaum
`
`14· ·textbook; is that correct?
`
`15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · ·Q.· ·And I recognize that as it's rather large,
`
`17· ·but does it look roughly complete?
`
`18· · · ·A.· ·It does.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· ·Please let me know if you notice any pages
`
`20· ·missing or anything like that.
`
`21· · · · · · So I would like you to turn to the page
`
`22· ·Exhibit 1006.540.
`
`23· · · ·A.· ·Okay.
`
`24· · · ·Q.· ·And I'm looking at the last paragraph there.
`
`25· ·There's a reference to a "TCP entity."
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.007
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`·2· · · ·A.· ·I do.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· ·And what is a TCP entity?
`
`·4· · · ·A.· ·Well, I think this paragraph describes the
`
`·5· ·term "TCP," transport and entity.· And the best I can
`
`·6· ·say is what this reference describes it as, and the
`
`·7· ·first sentence of the paragraph reads, "Each machine
`
`·8· ·supporting TCP has a TCP transport entity, either a
`
`·9· ·user process or part of the kernel, that manages TCP
`
`10· ·streams and interfaces to the IP layer."· And then it
`
`11· ·goes on to describe some additional functionality and
`
`12· ·characteristics of the TCP entity.
`
`13· · · ·Q.· ·One of the functions described of the TCP
`
`14· ·entity is that it accepts user data streams from local
`
`15· ·processes; is that right?
`
`16· · · ·A.· ·That's the first part of the next sentence.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· ·And another one of the functions of the TCP
`
`18· ·entity is that it breaks them up into pieces not
`
`19· ·exceeding 64 kilobytes; is that right?
`
`20· · · ·A.· ·That's what the sentence says.
`
`21· · · ·Q.· ·And why would a TCP entity break user data
`
`22· ·streams up into pieces not exceeding 64 kilobytes?
`
`23· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection to form.
`
`24· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't see where it says here
`
`25· ·why it would be doing that.
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.008
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 9
`
`·1· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·So as a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`·3· ·would you understand why a TCP entity would break up
`
`·4· ·user data streams into pieces not exceeding 64
`
`·5· ·kilobytes?
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.· Incomplete
`
`·7· ·hypothetical.
`
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It would depend.· It would
`
`·9· ·depend on what the actual implementation is, what kind
`
`10· ·of system, what the lower layers are.· I mean, it's
`
`11· ·describing here that it breaks them up into pieces not
`
`12· ·exceeding 64 kilobytes.· In practice, usually about
`
`13· ·1,500 bytes, and sends each piece as a separate IP
`
`14· ·datagram.· So depending on what the implementation
`
`15· ·might be or what the functionality is, that could be
`
`16· ·one of the reasons.
`
`17· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`18· · · ·Q.· ·Do you see where it says, "In practice,
`
`19· ·usually about 1,500 bytes"?
`
`20· · · ·A.· ·I do.
`
`21· · · ·Q.· ·And what is the import of the 1,500 bytes, if
`
`22· ·you know?
`
`23· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`24· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Again, it kind of depends on
`
`25· ·the system.· And 1,500 bytes is not actually accurate,
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.009
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· ·in part because there's an IP layer that has to be
`
`·2· ·added.· Often, 1,500 bytes is what's called the
`
`·3· ·maximum transmission unit for a particular data link
`
`·4· ·layer.· And so that's understood usually by
`
`·5· ·application programmers, for example.
`
`·6· · · · · · But that would be a limit that we would need
`
`·7· ·to send so that IP wouldn't have to do fragmentation
`
`·8· ·and reassembly, but then you have to account for the
`
`·9· ·different headers.· And so again, depending on the
`
`10· ·system, sometimes in order to avoid that
`
`11· ·functionality, applications will send smaller data
`
`12· ·streams than what they would ordinary do.
`
`13· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`14· · · ·Q.· ·You referenced a term "MTU"; is that right?
`
`15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · ·Q.· ·What is the MTU?
`
`17· · · ·A.· ·MTU stands for maximum transmission unit, and
`
`18· ·it's the limit that some data link layer protocols
`
`19· ·will limit sender to how much data it can send at one
`
`20· ·time.
`
`21· · · ·Q.· ·Is that different than an MSS?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`23· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It's certainly a different
`
`24· ·term.· The values can be the same, they can be
`
`25· ·different.· It's kind of apples and oranges.
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.010
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·And what is a MSS?
`
`·3· · · ·A.· ·That stands for maximum segment size.
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·And it's your opinion, reading this, that the
`
`·5· ·1,500 bytes would refer to MTU size and not MSS size?
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·7· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It certainly doesn't say -- I
`
`·8· ·don't think I have an opinion one way or another, as I
`
`·9· ·sit here right now.· It's talking at a very high
`
`10· ·level.· So it's not clear what the implication would
`
`11· ·be as to the origin of a 1,500 bytes being the typical
`
`12· ·size of an IP datagram.
`
`13· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`14· · · ·Q.· ·Is it possible that it's referring to 1,500
`
`15· ·bytes as the size of the TCP segment prior to having
`
`16· ·an IP header attached?
`
`17· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Is it possible?· I would
`
`19· ·suppose so.· It's really hard to say what it would
`
`20· ·specifically be referring to, but it would certainly
`
`21· ·be possible.
`
`22· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·And you had said earlier that the -- I don't
`
`24· ·want to misquote you here, but that in order to avoid
`
`25· ·the IP fragmentation functionality, applications will
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.011
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· ·send smaller data streams than what they ordinarily
`
`·2· ·do.
`
`·3· · · · · · Do you see that or do you remember that?
`
`·4· · · ·A.· ·I do.
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· ·Now, the disclosure in Tanenbaum in this
`
`·6· ·paragraph isn't that the applications are sending
`
`·7· ·smaller data streams, right, but that the TCP entity
`
`·8· ·is breaking it up?
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`10· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What Tanenbaum says is that you
`
`11· ·have a TCP entity that accepts user data streams from
`
`12· ·local processes, and then breaks them up into pieces
`
`13· ·not exceeding 64 kilobytes.· What I was referring to
`
`14· ·at the application layer, I would agree is something
`
`15· ·different than what this is saying.
`
`16· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`17· · · ·Q.· ·Why would a TCP entity need to break up user
`
`18· ·data streams?
`
`19· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`20· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· So it would depend.· It would
`
`21· ·depend on the system whether it would need to do that
`
`22· ·functionality.· It would depend on what that system is
`
`23· ·doing, what it's expecting TCP to do.· TCP, as an
`
`24· ·entity, if you're operating in a system where there
`
`25· ·are constraints on what data can be delivered to a
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.012
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 13
`
`·1· ·lower layer, and there aren't constraints on what data
`
`·2· ·can be delivered to TCP, then TCP has to have some
`
`·3· ·mechanism to resolve the differences in sizes between
`
`·4· ·what it can receive and what it can provide.
`
`·5· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·So just so I understand, so if the data
`
`·7· ·provided by an application is larger than the MTU,
`
`·8· ·then based on this disclosure, the TCP entity would
`
`·9· ·break them up into pieces?
`
`10· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`11· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No.· No.
`
`12· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`13· · · ·Q.· ·Why is that?
`
`14· · · ·A.· ·It would depend, again, on what kind of
`
`15· ·system you had, what functionality you wanted to
`
`16· ·incorporate into TCP.· But the relationship of the MTU
`
`17· ·is something more that IP deals with on fragmentation
`
`18· ·and reassembly.· So it's not something that TCP either
`
`19· ·has to be aware of or has to adjust for.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· ·But not speaking generally; in this
`
`21· ·particular instance, it's the TCP entity that would
`
`22· ·break up the user data streams into pieces; is that
`
`23· ·right?
`
`24· · · ·A.· ·Well, again, I think what this is describing
`
`25· ·is an instance where TCP is limited to sending 64
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.013
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· ·kilobytes.· And so if you had an implementation of a
`
`·2· ·system that allowed for a capability to send greater
`
`·3· ·than 64 kilobytes to TCP, then TCP has to have some
`
`·4· ·mechanism of breaking those up so that they don't
`
`·5· ·exceed 64 kilobytes.
`
`·6· · · · · · As to how it breaks it up and what it breaks
`
`·7· ·it up into, I mean, that's all system dependent or
`
`·8· ·implementation specific.· Within TCP, not something
`
`·9· ·that's really part of the standard.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· ·But this particular implementation requires
`
`11· ·that the TCP entity break them up into pieces not
`
`12· ·exceeding 64 kilobytes, right?
`
`13· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`14· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· This isn't really an
`
`15· ·implementation.· It's describing a functionality. I
`
`16· ·think generally, the functionality is if TCP can
`
`17· ·receive data that are greater than 64 kilobytes, and
`
`18· ·it's limited to 64 kilobytes that can be passed to IP,
`
`19· ·then TCP has to have some mechanism, again, in this
`
`20· ·particular implementation, to ensure that the pieces
`
`21· ·don't exceed 64 kilobytes.
`
`22· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·What kind of mechanisms would a TCP entity
`
`24· ·have to ensure that the pieces don't exceed 64
`
`25· ·kilobytes?
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.014
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 15
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·2· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sorry.· Could you repeat the
`
`·3· ·question?
`
`·4· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· ·What kind of mechanisms would a TCP entity
`
`·6· ·have to ensure that the pieces don't exceed 64
`
`·7· ·kilobytes?
`
`·8· · · ·A.· ·So your question as to "would," I'm not sure
`
`·9· ·that a TCP entity necessarily would have to.· Again,
`
`10· ·it depends on what an implementation might be.· If
`
`11· ·you're -- well, so I'm not sure I can answer the
`
`12· ·question as you've phrased it.· I think I understand
`
`13· ·what you're trying to get at.· But probably have to
`
`14· ·ask it, a different question.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· ·In this particular instance, what kind of
`
`16· ·mechanisms does the TCP entity disclosed in Exhibit 22
`
`17· ·have to ensure that the pieces don't exceed 64
`
`18· ·kilobytes?
`
`19· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`20· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It doesn't say.
`
`21· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`22· · · ·Q.· ·But it does include that one of those
`
`23· ·functionalities would be to break them up; is that
`
`24· ·right?
`
`25· · · ·A.· ·There is a sentence here that says that a TCP
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.015
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· ·entity can break data streams up into pieces not
`
`·2· ·exceeding 64 kilobytes.
`
`·3· · · · · · (Exhibit 23 was marked for identification.)
`
`·4· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· ·You've just been handed what's been marked
`
`·6· ·Exhibit 23.· Declaration of Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D., In
`
`·7· ·Support of Patent Owner's Reply In Support of
`
`·8· ·Contingent Motion to Amend under 37 CFR, Section
`
`·9· ·42.121 for U.S. Patent 7,673,072.· It's also marked as
`
`10· ·Alacritech Exhibit 2305; is that right?
`
`11· · · ·A.· ·It is.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· ·And is this the declaration that you
`
`13· ·submitted in the case number ending with 1406?
`
`14· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· I believe it is.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· ·Now, I would like you to turn to Paragraphs
`
`16· ·51 and 52.
`
`17· · · ·A.· ·Okay.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· ·Now, Substitute Claim 22, which is
`
`19· ·pre-printed in Paragraph 50, for the last two elements
`
`20· ·substitutes the term "protocol header" for "context";
`
`21· ·is that right?
`
`22· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· ·So now it's referring --
`
`24· · · ·A.· ·And sorry.· Paragraph 50, I don't think is
`
`25· ·the complete claim.· So you said the last two
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.016
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 17
`
`·1· ·limitations.· Those are the last two that are shown in
`
`·2· ·Paragraph 50.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· ·Absolutely.· Yes.· Thank you.
`
`·4· · · · · · So referring to those last two elements, they
`
`·5· ·now refer to a "context information"; is that correct?
`
`·6· · · ·A.· ·They do.
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· ·And that term is not used earlier in the
`
`·8· ·claim; is that right?
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`10· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't recall that "context"
`
`11· ·and "information," that those two words were
`
`12· ·juxtaposed next to each other earlier in the claim.
`
`13· ·They may not be.
`
`14· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`15· · · ·Q.· ·Would you like me to get the original motion
`
`16· ·so that you can confirm that the term "context
`
`17· ·information" didn't appear earlier?
`
`18· · · ·A.· ·Sure, or the patent probably would be fine,
`
`19· ·either way.
`
`20· · · · · · (Exhibit 24 was marked for identification.)
`
`21· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`22· · · ·Q.· ·You've been handed what's been marked as
`
`23· ·Exhibit 24, the Patent Owner's Contingent Motion to
`
`24· ·Amend under 37 CFR, section sign 42.121.· And in the
`
`25· ·space ending 1406 regarding the '072 patent; is that
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.017
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· ·right?
`
`·2· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· ·Do you mind just confirming for me?
`
`·4· · · · · · Turning to turn to Appendix A.· Looking at
`
`·5· ·Claim 22, can you confirm that the Substitute Claim 22
`
`·6· ·does not have the term "context information" prior to
`
`·7· ·the second and third claim limitations?
`
`·8· · · ·A.· ·I don't see the word "context information."
`
`·9· ·I see it described, context that has information in
`
`10· ·it.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· ·Now, looking at the first element of Claim
`
`12· ·22, do you see where it refers to creating a context?
`
`13· · · ·A.· ·I do.
`
`14· · · ·Q.· ·Now, the context in this instance must
`
`15· ·include a MAC layer address, IP address and a TCP
`
`16· ·state information; is that right?
`
`17· · · ·A.· ·I see that, yes.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· ·Can it include something other than these
`
`19· ·three things?
`
`20· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`21· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The language of the claim is
`
`22· ·the word "includes," so presumably, if there was a
`
`23· ·context that was created that included things beyond
`
`24· ·what's identified here, as long as it had the required
`
`25· ·information, it would potentially still be a context.
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.018
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·Now, in reference to context information in
`
`·3· ·the Claim Elements 2 and 3.· Does that require the MAC
`
`·4· ·layer address, the IP address, Internet protocol
`
`·5· ·address, and transmission control protocol state
`
`·6· ·information that's referenced in Limitation 1?
`
`·7· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think that ends up being a
`
`·9· ·question of claim scope.· I don't believe I've
`
`10· ·addressed it in the declaration.· And so whether or
`
`11· ·not a hypothetical system could transfer all of the
`
`12· ·context or some of the context isn't really a question
`
`13· ·I've thought about.· So I can't really say one way or
`
`14· ·another.
`
`15· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`16· · · ·Q.· ·So just to confirm, in Exhibit 23 of your
`
`17· ·declaration, you express no opinion as to whether or
`
`18· ·not context information must include the media access
`
`19· ·control layer address, the IP address and TCP state
`
`20· ·information?
`
`21· · · ·A.· ·I don't have the declaration memorized. I
`
`22· ·think it speaks for itself.· As I sit here right now,
`
`23· ·I don't recall one way or the other if I did.
`
`24· · · ·Q.· ·Take just a moment to look through it, and
`
`25· ·let me know if you see anything regarding your opinion
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.019
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·as to whether or not context information must include
`
`·2· ·those three pieces of information.
`
`·3· · · ·A.· ·So if you look on Page 22 at the bottom, it's
`
`·4· ·dealing with the second limitation of Claim 22, and it
`
`·5· ·identifies reasons why the original instituted ground,
`
`·6· ·which would be the combination of Erickson and
`
`·7· ·Tanenbaum, don't disclose the limitation.· And it's
`
`·8· ·addressed then on Page 23 in Paragraph 66 and 67.
`
`·9· · · · · · I would just start by referring you to those
`
`10· ·paragraphs.· There are other limitations that
`
`11· ·reference a context information and they continue on
`
`12· ·the subsequent pages.
`
`13· · · ·Q.· ·So just confirming, based on Paragraph 66,
`
`14· ·it's your opinion that context information referenced
`
`15· ·in the proposed Substitute Claim 22 requires the MAC
`
`16· ·layer address, the IP address and the TCP state
`
`17· ·information referenced in the establishing limitation?
`
`18· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't remember the first part
`
`20· ·of your question.· There's a difference between
`
`21· ·context and context information.· This paragraph is
`
`22· ·really saying that -- two things.· It has two
`
`23· ·sentences.· Right?· The petitioner argues that context
`
`24· ·information refers to at least one of the fields from
`
`25· ·the first limitation.· And my point in that paragraph
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.020
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 21
`
`·1· ·is that if you look at the context that's described in
`
`·2· ·the first limitation, it has an "and," and so requires
`
`·3· ·all three of the elements.· I'll stop there, and you
`
`·4· ·can ask another question.
`
`·5· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·So referring to the "and," that's about
`
`·7· ·what's required for the context to include; is that
`
`·8· ·right?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· From the first limitation, it's talking
`
`10· ·about what has to be in the context.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· ·And you said that context and context
`
`12· ·information are different?
`
`13· · · ·A.· ·Well, they are different terms.· As this
`
`14· ·second limitation says, "Transferring the context
`
`15· ·information to an interface device," and it's
`
`16· ·referring to the context and the information in the
`
`17· ·context from the first limitation.· And the extended
`
`18· ·opinions that I'm offering with respect to what's
`
`19· ·described in Erickson in view of Tanenbaum is what's
`
`20· ·described, for example, in Paragraph 67.
`
`21· · · · · · So I'm more focused on the fact that there is
`
`22· ·no discussion of TCP in the context of Erickson. I
`
`23· ·don't think I go so far as to offer opinions as to
`
`24· ·what the claims scope would be and the relationship
`
`25· ·between the context information and the second
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.021
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· ·limitation, and it's referenced to the context in the
`
`·2· ·first limitation.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· ·In your declaration, do you express an
`
`·4· ·opinion as to whether or not the context information
`
`·5· ·-- let's just take the second limitation, where it
`
`·6· ·says, "The transferring of the context information to
`
`·7· ·an interface device."
`
`·8· · · · · · Is it okay if I refer to that as the second
`
`·9· ·limitation?
`
`10· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· ·So the -- do you express an opinion in your
`
`12· ·declaration as to whether or not the transferring of
`
`13· ·the context information to an interface device would
`
`14· ·need to include the media access control layer address
`
`15· ·referenced in the first limitation?
`
`16· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· At least looking at these
`
`18· ·Paragraphs 66 and 67, I don't see that as a
`
`19· ·distinction I've identified between Erickson and
`
`20· ·Tanenbaum.· I'm focused on other reasons why I don't
`
`21· ·think the limitation is disclosed.· Ultimately, I
`
`22· ·think the declaration speaks for itself.· But I don't
`
`23· ·see anything in Paragraphs 66 and 67 that mention the
`
`24· ·MAC address specifically.
`
`25· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.022
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· · · ·Q.· ·Do you express an opinion in your declaration
`
`·2· ·that the second limitation requires the transferring
`
`·3· ·of the Internet protocol address referenced in the
`
`·4· ·first limitation?
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Same objection.
`
`·6· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think it would essentially be
`
`·7· ·the same answer as to what I said for the MAC address,
`
`·8· ·which is essentially that I don't see anything in
`
`·9· ·Paragraphs 67 or 67 where I focus on that aspect of
`
`10· ·the claim.
`
`11· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`12· · · ·Q.· ·And the same applies for the TCP state
`
`13· ·information?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Same objection.
`
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· So with respect to TCP state
`
`16· ·information, there is the sentence that says Erickson
`
`17· ·only concerns UDP.· There's no teaching regarding TCP.
`
`18· ·But ultimately, there is no disclosure transferring
`
`19· ·the context information to an interface device or
`
`20· ·second processor.· And for that reason alone, I don't
`
`21· ·think the limitation is disclosed by a combination.
`
`22· ·It certainly is relevant as to this limitation and its
`
`23· ·relationship to the first limitation, which does
`
`24· ·require that the context contain TCP state
`
`25· ·information, that that limitation is not present.
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
`
`1-800-869-91321-800-869-9132
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`INTEL EX. 1254.023
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D. - 05/28/2018
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·Is it your opinion that the transferring of
`
`·3· ·context information that did not include a MAC layer
`
`·4· ·address could meet the limitation, the second
`
`·5· ·limitation?
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·7· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't think I've offered an
`
`·8· ·opinion on that in the declaration.· I would have to
`
`·9· ·give it some thought, one way or another, whether a
`
`10· ·hypothetical system that did or didn't transfer the
`
`11· ·MAC layer address would be within the scope of the
`
`12· ·claims.
`
`13· ·BY MR. CONSTANT:
`
`14· · · ·Q.· ·Could transferring a context information to
`
`15· ·interface device where the context information did not
`
`16· ·include the IP address in Limitation 1 meet the
`
`17· ·limitation of the second limitation?
`
`18· · · ·A.· ·I think it would be the same answer with
`
`19· ·respect to the MAC address.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· ·And could transferring context information to
`
`21· ·an interface device where the context information did
`
`22· ·not include the TCP state information referenced in
`
`23· ·the first limitation meet the second limitation?
`
`24· · · · · · MR. MACK:· Same objection.
`
`25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think it would be the same
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - San FranciscoEpiq Court Reportin