`
`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
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
