Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
`vs. IPR20018-00234
`ALACRITECH,
` Patent Owner.
`------------------------------/
`
` DEPOSITION OF ROBERT HORST, Ph.D.
` Redwood Shores, California
` Tuesday, August 28, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`JANIS JENNINGS, CSR, CCRR
`Job No. 146788
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.001
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
`vs. IPR20018-00234
`ALACRITECH,
` Patent Owner.
`------------------------------/
`
` DEPOSITION OF ROBERT HORST, Ph.D.
` Redwood Shores, California
` Tuesday, August 28, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`JANIS JENNINGS, CSR, CCRR
`Job No. 146788
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.001
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` DEPOSITION OF ROBERT HORST, Ph.D., taken on
`behalf of the Patent Owner, at Weil, Gotshal & Manges,
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Redwood Shores, California,
`beginning at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, August 28, 2018,
`before Janis Jennings, Certified Shorthand Reporter
`No. 3942, CLR, CCRR.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.002
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` For the Patent Owner ALACRITECH:
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
` 50 California Street
` San Francisco, California 94111
` BY: SEAN LI, Esq.
`
` For the Petitioner, INTEL CORPORATION:
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
` 2001 M Street, NW
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` BY: SUTTON ANSLEY, ESQ.
`
` For the Petitioner, CAVIUM:
` DUANE MORRIS
` 2475 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` BY: KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN, ESQ.
` DAVID XUE, ESQ.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.003
`
`
`
` I N D E X
`
`Page 4
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`ROBERT HORST, Ph.D.
`
`BY MR. LI 6
`BY MR. ANSLEY 52
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.004
`
`
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Page 5
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1 Declaration of Robert Horst, Ph.D. in 13
` Support of Petition for Inter Partes
` Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,850,948
`
`Exhibit 2 Third Edition Computer Networks; 18
` Intel Ex. 1006.001 - 2006.594
`
`Exhibit 3 Article "A Reduced Operation Protocol 31
` Engine for a multiple-layer bypass
` Architecture;
` Intel Ex. 1015.001 - 1015.016
`
`Exhibit 4 TCP/IP Illustrated Volume; 46
` INTEL Ex. 1013.001 (excerpts)
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.005
`
`
`
` REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA;
` TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2018; 9:45 A.M.
`
`Page 6
`
` MR. LI: This is Sean Li from Quinn Emanuel
`representing Alacritech.
` MR. ANSLEY: Oh, sorry. Sutton Ansley of
`Weil Gotshal & Manges here on behalf of Intel and
`the witness.
` MS. KHACHATOURIAN: Karineh Khachatourian
`and David Xue from Duane Morris on behalf of Cavium.
`
` ROBERT HORST, Ph.D.,
` the witness herein, was sworn and testified
` as follows
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Horst.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Nice to see you again.
` Could you state your name and address for
`the record.
` A. Robert Horst, 1182 Glen Avenue in San Jose.
` Q. Before I do our deposition, let me go
`through the ground rules so we're on the same page.
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.006
`
`
`
`Page 7
` In this deposition I'm going to ask a lot of
`questions and the court reporter is going to record
`all the questions and answers. If we talk over each
`other, it will be hard for the court reporter to
`record the answers so I would suggest we do not talk
`over each other.
` Do you understand?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the court reporter cannot transcribe
`non-audible responses; such as nods or, you know,
`gestures. Can you avoid doing that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So during this deposition we can take a
`break every hour or so. Let me know if you need a
`break. But if there's a pending question, we have
`to finish the question before I give a break.
` Do you understand?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you taking any medication that could
`impede your ability to tell the truth?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Over a dozen. I don't know how many total.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.007
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. How many times did you work with Intel?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you're
`asking. How many different cases or how many
`different...
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Right. Let's start with how many different
`cases you worked for Intel.
` A. I believe there have been several, but I'm
`not sure how many total.
` Q. Okay. When was your first time you worked
`for Intel?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Was that in the 1990s?
` A. Are you asking about litigation on behalf of
`Intel or are you asking actually working for Intel?
` Q. I'm asking litigation.
` A. Okay. There have been some cases where
`Intel was a party and I was primarily retained by
`some others, so it's hard for me to remember which
`ones Intel was part of.
` Q. Did you work on any cases that -- you know,
`with Cavium before this case?
` A. Before this case, I've not worked with
`Cavium.
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.008
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. What is your hourly rate?
` A. $550 per hour.
` Q. How much time have you spent on this case so
`far?
` A. I haven't added up the hours so I don't know
`for sure.
` Q. Has it been over 300 hours? Is it fair to
`say over 300 hours?
` A. I'm not sure what you mean by "this case."
`Again, there's been different proceedings here, so
`what are you referring to?
` Q. So let me ask you this: Do you have an
`engagement letter with Intel?
` A. I have an engagement letter with Weil on
`behalf of Intel.
` Q. Do you have an engagement letter with
`Cavium?
` A. I have an engagement letter with
`Duane Morris on behalf of Cavium, yeah.
` Q. Do you bill them separately --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- for this petition? Specifically I'm
`talking about IPR2018-00234 -- -236?
` DEPOSITION REPORTER: It's 234.
`/ / /
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.009
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. 234. For this petition working on the '948
`patent, how long did you bill to Intel?
` A. I don't divide my hours separately by which
`patents I'm working on so it's hard for me to know
`the total number for this one proceeding.
` Q. Okay. How often do you send a bill to
`Intel?
` A. Once a month.
` Q. When was the last time you sent a bill to
`Intel?
` A. It was in early August.
` Q. And how much was that?
` A. I don't remember the exact number, but it
`was only a few hours for last month.
` Q. What petition is that for?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't remember which things
`I covered during the last month. I'm involved with
`a lot of different IPRs.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Did you prepare for this IPR -- I mean, did
`you prepare for this deposition?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you prepare?
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.010
`
`
`
`Page 11
` A. Over the last few days I read materials and
`met at the law firm.
` Q. How much time did you spend on the
`preparation?
` A. Yesterday I was here for a full day, and
`before that I spent several days with just a few
`hours per day preparing.
` Q. Did you meet with counsel on this case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Who did you meet?
` A. I met with two of the attorneys from Weil
`and two of the attorneys from -- representing Cavium
`in this.
` Q. Did you meet with them together or
`separately?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: At different points of the day
`the attorneys came and went, so sometimes there were
`multiple and sometimes only one or two.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Is there any -- is there a certain point you
`were meeting with counsel for both Intel and Cavium?
` A. There were times when they were all in the
`room, yes.
` Q. Did you speak to any non-lawyers to prepare
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.011
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`for this deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you talk with Dr. Lin --
` A. No.
` Q. -- for this deposition?
` A. Not for this deposition.
` Q. Did you talk with Dr. Lin ever in this case?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I was -- early on in this
`case. Dr. Lin and I were both at the law firm at
`the same time so I spoke with him briefly at that
`time.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. When was that?
` A. I don't remember exactly when that was.
`It was early in the preparation of some of the IPRs.
` Q. Did you speak with any current or former
`Intel employee?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
` MR. LI: I'm going to introduce the first
`exhibit, Exhibit No. 1.
` (Exhibit 1 marked for identification.)
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Do you recognize this exhibit?
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.012
`
`
`
`Page 13
` A. Yes. This is my declaration in the '948.
` Q. Do you see on the lower right corner:
`"Intel Exhibit 1003"? Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know which petition this is related
`to?
` A. This is related to a petition on the '948.
`I don't recall the exact number of that petition.
` Q. Can you go to page 78 of this document.
` A. Yes, I'm there.
` Q. And do you see your signature there?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that your signature?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you see the date?
` A. Yes. April 18th, 2017.
` Q. When did you prepare this declaration?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I prepared it in the time
`before this signature so it would have been in early
`2017.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Do you know when this declaration was filed
`in this case?
` A. I believe in this case the same declaration
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.013
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`was filed in a later IPR.
` Q. It was filed after April 18th, 2017. Is
`that fair to say?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear
`you.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Is it fair to say this was filed after
`April 18th, 2017?
` A. I'm still not sure what you're referring to.
`What is filed?
` Q. Okay. Let me ask you this: Did you add new
`stuff to this declaration after April 18th, 2017?
` A. No. This declaration is -- the substance of
`this declaration has not changed.
` Q. Let's go to the page A-14 of this
`declaration. If you look at the top of this page,
`there's:
` "[1.4], checking, by the network interface,
` whether the packets have certain exception
` conditions, including checking whether the
` packets are IP fragmented, and checking
` whether the packets have a FIN flag set,
` and checking whether the packets are out
` of order."
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.014
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does it mean, "IP fragmented"?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` Go ahead.
` THE WITNESS: "IP fragmented" means a packet
`which has been sent as separate IP fragments. In
`other words, the full TCP packet hasn't been sent
`at one time, but it's sent in smaller pieces in
`separate IP datagrams.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. How do you tell if something is IP
`fragmented or not?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The IP fragmented packets do
`not contain a full TCP packet. So, in other words,
`the TCP checksum would not be able to be computed
`over that IP fragment, so that would be a packet
`that's fragmented because it doesn't have a complete
`TCP packet.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. How do you determine whether a packet is
`IP fragmented?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The packet is not fragmented
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.015
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`if the TPDU is a full one; so if there's a full
`transaction TCP protocol data unit.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. How do you determine if a TPDU is a full
`one?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: A full TPDU has the format of
`a TCP segment which has the -- all the parts of the
`TCP, including the -- everything from the source to
`the data to the checksum.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. What is the difference between a full TCP
`TPDU and not a full TCP TPDU?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: One that's not full doesn't
`have the complete -- all the parts of the protocol
`data unit.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Which part doesn't it have?
` A. It doesn't have all the data.
` Q. How about headers?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: In TCP, it's unusual for TCP
`to be IP fragmented, and the fragments are just all
`of the pieces that would make up a normal frame. So
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.016
`
`
`
`Page 17
`the first part -- the first fragment would have the
`first part of at least the header of the TCP packet
`and then the subsequent IP datagrams would have the
`rest of it.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Is there anything in the TCP header that can
`tell you if the packet is IP fragmented or not?
` A. Can you repeat that? I didn't understand.
` Q. Is there anything in the TCP header that can
`tell you if the TCP packet is IP fragmented or not?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: By just looking at the header
`you can't tell that because it could be fragmented
`after the header.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Then how do you tell if a packet is
`IP fragmented or not?
` A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
` Q. Okay. So if you read the claim elements as:
` "Checking, by the network interface,
` whether the packets have certain
` exception conditions, including checking
` whether the packets are IP fragmented..."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.017
`
`
`
`Page 18
` Q. Where is this checking whether the packets
`are IP fragmented that's disclosed in the prior art?
` A. If there's an entire TCP segment, and TCP
`segments can be validated to know that they're
`complete. So if it's complete, it's not fragmented;
`and if it's incomplete, it's fragmented.
` Q. And where is that in the prior art cited in
`your declaration?
` A. I cite it on page 99 of my report where it
`says:
` "Neither side is trying to close the
` connection. The TPDU is a full one,
` e.g., no IP fragmentation," and then it
` goes on: "No special flags," et cetera."
` Q. Right. So my question is: Where in the
`prior references? I mean, what prior references did
`you cite to anticipate or make this patent obvious?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That's cited in Tanenbaum 96.
` MR. LI: I'm going to introduce the next
`exhibit, Exhibit No. 2.
` (Exhibit 2 marked for identification.)
` MR. ANSLEY: Thank you.
` MS. KHACHATOURIAN: Thank you.
` MR. ANSLEY: This is just an excerpt of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.018
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1006? Is it 1006?
` MR. LI: Let me ask the witness first.
` MR. ANSLEY: Okay.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. This is at least part of Tanenbaum 96, the
`reference I was speaking of.
` Q. Okay. If we look back to your declaration,
`A-14, you cite to Tanenbaum 96 page No. 565, 566,
`and 567, as well as 585, 545, 542. Is that right?
` A. That's what it says in my report, yes.
` Q. Okay. Can you find in this reference on the
`cited pages where it discloses checking whether the
`packets are IP fragmented?
` A. On page 56- -- sorry, 585, the second full
`paragraph, it says:
` "The TPDU is then checked to see if it is
` a normal one: The state is ESTABLISHED,
` neither side is trying to close the
` connection, the TPDU is a full one, no
` special flags are set, and the sequence
` number is the one expected."
` Q. Is there any other places that discloses
`this checking whether packets are IP fragmented?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.019
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` THE WITNESS: I haven't read the full
`thousand-page reference since you asked me the
`question --
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. No. Right.
` A. -- so I can't tell you if there are other
`places.
` Q. But let me ask you this: In the pages cited
`in your report, do you have any other disclosure in
`these pages cited in your report disclosing checking
`whether the packets are IP fragmented or not?
` A. Starting on page 545 it talks about the
`checksum field and that it checksums the data -- I'm
`sorry -- it checksums the header, the data, and the
`conceptual pseudo header as shown in Figure 6.25.
`And it goes on to say on the next page:
` "As a consequence, when the receiver
` performs the calculation on the entire
` segment, including the Checksum field,
` the result should be 0."
` So that checksum field is the way that the
`segment is validated and that checksum will not be
`correct if it's been IP fragmented.
` Q. Is this checksum IP checksum or is it
`TCP checksum?
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.020
`
`
`
`Page 21
` A. That's a TCP checksum that's being referred
`to in this paragraph.
` Q. So if a packet is IP fragmented, the TCP
`checksum would not be correct. Is that what you
`said?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that always the case?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: If it's been fragmented and
`the entire TCP segment isn't there, then the TCP
`checksum can't be computed correctly.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Then how do you transmit an IP fragmented
`packet if the TCP checksum can't be correct?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The TCP checksum is not
`correct until the IP fragments have been put
`together to build the entire TCP segment.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. So let's explain more about IP fragmented.
`Why does there need to be IP fragmented in the first
`place?
` A. In TCP there doesn't really need to be
`IP fragments because a large transfer is broken up
`into separate TCP segments, and each TCP segment
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.021
`
`
`
`Page 22
`is a full IP datagram. It's a single IP datagram.
`IP fragmentation is used for other protocols that
`don't do segmentation at the network -- at the
`network layer.
` Q. And how do you do an IP fragmentation from
`the sending side?
` A. The sending side will build up packets with
`less than the full data to be transferred, so it
`will break up the data into smaller packets and send
`them individually.
` Q. Okay. So when there is a large TCP packet
`to be fragmented, would the TCP header be copied to
`each fragmented IP packet or it would only in one IP
`packet?
` A. The entire TCP segment just looks like
`data to IP, so it just looks like one long string of
`bytes. So the fragments -- the IP fragments divide
`up that complete TCP segment into however many
`pieces it needs to be divided into.
` Q. And if we look back to the claim of 1.4
`of A-14, is there anything else on the pages you
`cited talking about checking whether packets are
`IP fragmented or not?
` A. You're asking if there's any more on this
`page than the part that I read?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.022
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. The part that I read is the part that talks
`about the TCP fragments -- I mean the IP fragments.
` Q. Let's look at the Tanenbaum reference on
`page Bates No. 047.
` Do you see this Figure 1-16?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does this figure show?
` A. This figure shows the OSI reference model
`and shows levels 1 through 7 of the OSI model.
` Q. So what is the OSI model?
` A. The OSI model, it was a standard way of
`describing the layering in networks.
` Q. And so do you see on the left side and right
`side there are both seven layers?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And on the bottom it says: "Physical."
`What does that mean?
` A. The physical layer is the layer having to
`do with the signals that get sent over the wires,
`the electrical or optical signals.
` Q. And what does the physical layer do?
` A. The physical layer communicates between the
`endpoints through electrical or optical means.
` Q. Can you give an example of a physical layer.
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.023
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. For instance, in Ethernet, 100Base-T is
`100 megabit Ethernet which is signaled with
`differential pairs over wiring; like CAT5 wiring.
` Q. Okay. And do you see on the right side of
`the figure, do you see next to "Physical" it says:
`"Bit"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does that mean?
` A. That's the unit that's transmitted at
`a time. In the physical layers sometimes it's
`a single bit and with later protocols they use
`multilevel signaling and communicate multiple
`bits at a single time.
` Q. What is multilevel signaling?
` A. Normally in logic there are two different
`voltages. For instance, 0 volts may communicate a
`logical 0, and 5 volts may communicate a logical 1.
`But it's possible to have, say, four different
`voltages that is 0, 2, 4, and 6 volts, for instance,
`and with 4 voltages you can communicate 2 bits
`instead of a single bit.
` And that's the way some of the later
`versions of Ethernet work.
` Q. Okay. And right above "Physical" you see
`"data link."
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.024
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does "data link" mean?
` A. The next page describes the data link layer
`on page 30.
` "The main task of the data link layer
` is to take the raw transmission facility
` and transform it into a line that appears
` free of undetected transmission errors to
` the network layer."
` And goes on to describe how it does that.
` Q. Can you give me an example of data link
`layer protocol.
` A. The one I'm most familiar with is the data
`link layer in Server Net, which is a network that I
`worked on, that used a coding of bits to communicate
`packets of data across the network with error
`detection as part of that protocol.
` Q. Do you have other examples of data link
`layer protocol?
` A. Well, every network has a data link layer so
`there are lots of other examples.
` Q. Can you give me one.
` A. Fibre Channel uses a sequence of 8B, 10B
`encoded groups of signals that are then grouped into
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.025
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`packets that are sent across the network.
` Q. And then do you see next to "Data link"
`there's "Frame"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does "frame" mean?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: "Frame" is kind of another
`word that sometimes -- a synonym with "packet." It
`just means a group of bits that are sent together.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. And do you see the network -- the word
`"Network" above "Data link"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what does "network" mean?
` A. The network layer is commonly a layer like
`the IP layer, which is the IP packets that are sent
`across the network.
` Q. Is IP protocol a network layer protocol?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you know any other example --
`examples of network layer protocol?
` A. There are other layers -- layered protocols,
`like Fibre Channel, for instance, that have a
`network layer.
` Q. What was the name of the network layer for
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.026
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Fibre Channel?
` A. Fibre Channel's layers are in -- are
`numbered. I can't recall which number is the
`network layer.
` Q. Have you heard of a term called "ATM"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does "ATM" mean to you?
` A. "ATM" is asynchronous transfer mode, and
`that's a network layer.
` Q. Do you see "Transport" above "Network"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does "transport" mean?
` A. The transport layer is another layer
`which may, for instance, be used to send reliable
`communications across the network.
` Q. What's the difference between a transport
`layer and a network layer?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: The transport layer is
`encapsulated inside the network, and it offers
`other capabilities depending on what the particular
`transport layer you're talking about.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. So what other capabilities does the
`transport layer have in addition to the IP or
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.027
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`network layer?
` A. For instance, TCP offers reliable and
`out-of-order transmit of packets so that the packets
`can be lost and still recovered based on TCP.
` Q. How does TCP do that?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's a pretty long discussion
`to talk about this. I'm not sure what part of it
`you're asking about.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Can you summarize the answer; like how does
`TCP offer its reliable and out-of-order transmit of
`packets?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: There are sequence numbers
`associated with the packets, and if the receiving
`end gets a packet that's not in order, it knows it
`because the sequence numbers are not sequential,
`and then it can buffer the packets or ask for the
`packets to be retransmitted.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. And do you see "Session" above "Transport"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does "session" mean there?
` A. The session layer can be another layer on
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.028
`
`
`
`Page 29
`top of TCP that offers more services and has its own
`header and packet format.
` Q. And what is the "Presentation" above
`"Session"?
` A. And that's another usually optional layer
`that's on top of the session layer; again, with its
`own protocol.
` Q. And what is the "Application" above
`"Presentation"?
` A. And the application is the actual work
`that's trying to be performed.
` Q. What do you mean by "actual work"?
` A. If there's a program that's running
`that's accessing the network, the application is the
`program that's using the network to get some mission
`accomplished.
` Q. Can we turn to page with the Bates No. 052.
` Do you see Figure 1-17?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does this figure show?
` A. It shows an OSI model for sending -- between
`a sending process and a receiving process.
` Q. Do you see there's a data link layer there?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in the data link layer there are "DH"
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.029
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`and the "DT." What do they mean?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: That's the data link layer
`header and the data link layer trailer.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. What does a "trailer" mean?
` A. "Trailer" are some bits that follow the
`data, typically used for a checksum or a CRC.
` Q. Would IP layer have a trailer?
` A. I'd have to look at the format to tell you
`exactly what the format is.
` Q. So if you go to the page with Bates No. 054.
` And do you see Figure 1.18?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what does that figure show?
` A. This shows a rough correspondence between
`the OSI layering and the TCP/IP layering.
` Q. Do you see the line which is not present in
`the model?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does that mean?
` A. This -- that shows the presentation and
`session layers of the OSI model are not always
`present in the TCP/IP, although the same functions
`that are in the session and presentation layer can
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.030
`
`
`
`Page 31
`be still present in TCP/IP as protocols between the
`transport layer and the application.
` Q. Why are they not always present in TCP/IP?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's possible to write an
`application that directly uses the transport layer
`that doesn't have an intermediate layer, so they
`don't always have to be present.
` MR. LI: I'm going to introduce the next
`exhibit which is Exhibit No. 3.
` (Exhibit 3 marked for identification.)
` MS. KHACHATOURIAN: Thank you.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is this document?
` A. This document is a paper by Thia and
`Woodside titled "A Reduced Operation Protocol Engine
`(ROPE) for a multiple-layer bypass architecture."
`And this is one of the primary prior art references
`related to the '948 declaration.
` Q. Okay. If you look at page 1 of this
`document, in the first section, "Introduction," the
`first sentence of the second paragraph, it says:
` "The key problems associated with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.031
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` offboard processing include:"
` Do you see that sentence?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What means "offboard processing"?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Offboard processing is the way
`they're describing what's in the previous sentence,
`which is it talks about "offloading all or part of
`the protocol functions to an adapter."
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. Okay. And what are the problems they're
`describing here?
` A. They have five paragraphs that describe
`these different issues. Do you want me to read
`those paragraphs?
` Q. So let's talk about the first paragraph
`then. I'll start with:
` "Partitioning the functionality between
` the host and the adapter is difficult and
` may easily lead to complex additional
` protocol between the two parts, which may
` cancel out or offset the potential gain
` from offloading."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.032
`
`
`
`Page 33
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Do you agree with that?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: In any electronic design
`you have to be careful of partitioning, so they're
`pointing out that however you're doing the
`partitioning, you have to be careful to avoid
`problems.
`BY MR. LI:
` Q. What means "partitioning" here?
` A. The host processor has the application
`that's trying to communicate and it has to do that
`communication via the adapter, so some of the
`function can be done in the host processor and some
`of the function can be done in the adapter. So
`this paragraph is just talking about making the
`determination of what should be done in the host
`and what should be done in the adapter.
` Q. If you look at the second paragraph it says:
` "Non-protocol-specific processing is a
` large part of the total load...Examples
` include interrupt handling, context
` switching and data copying at layer
` boundaries in deeply layered protocol
` stacks."
` What does this paragraph mean?
`
`INTEL EX. 1440.033
`
`
`
`Page 34
` A. This paragraph is talking about the need to
`reduce the number of interrupts and contact switches
`and data copies in order to make the implementation
`efficient.
` Q. And why is that a problem of offboard
`processing?
` A. It's
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
