9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Nomadix, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00253 Patent 8,626,922
`Case IPR2019-00211 Patent 7,953,857
`
` Deposition of DR. PETER DORDAL, taken at
` One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, and
` CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:29 a.m. on
` Friday, September 13, 2019.
`
`________________________________________________
`DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
`1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Nomadix, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00253 Patent 8,626,922
`Case IPR2019-00211 Patent 7,953,857
`
` Deposition of DR. PETER DORDAL, taken at
` One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, and
` CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:29 a.m. on
` Friday, September 13, 2019.
`
`________________________________________________
`DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
`1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 2
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
` BY: JEFFREY W. LESOVITZ, ESQ.
` 2929 Arch Street
` 12th Floor
` Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-2891
` 215.564.2406
` jlesovitz@bakerlaw.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
` BY: KENDALL LOEBBAKA, ESQ.
` 2040 Main Street
` 14th Floor
` Irvine, California 92614
` 949.760.0404
` kendall.loebbaka@knobbe.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`DR. PETER DORDAL
` Examination by Ms. Loebbaka 4
` Examination by Mr. Lesovitz 96
`
` EXHIBITS
`NUMBER PAGE
`Exhibit 1002 Corrected Declaration of 43
` Dr. Peter Dordal
` (IPR2019-00253)
`Exhibit 1002 Corrected Declaration of 37
` Dr. Peter Dordal
` (IPR2019-00211)
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 5,864,540 50
` Bonomi et al.
` (IPR2019-00211)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent 7,392,279 40
` Chandran et al.
` (IPR2019-00211)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent 6,587,433 89
` Borella et al.
` (IPR2019-00211)
`Exhibit 1007 Index: A platform for 26
` determining how people
` value the quality of their
` internet access,
` (IPR2019-00211)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` DR. PETER DORDAL,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MS. LOEBBAKA:
` Q. Dr. Dordal, my name is Kendall
`Loebbaka. Thank you for coming in today.
` Have you been deposed before?
` A. No.
` Q. No, you have not, okay. So I'd like
`to go over a couple of ground rules since you
`haven't been deposed before. That way we make it
`as easy and simple as possible.
` So the court reporter is going to
`be recording everything that you and I say today
`and your counsel if he has objections. So try
`best not to talk over each other. Wait until I
`finish my question before you answer. That way
`she can record the questions and answers.
` You need to give verbal answers.
`So a "yes" or a "no," not nodding your head. That
`way she can record that.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 5
`Your counsel may object from time
`to time. You still need to answer the question
`when he objects, unless he instructs you not to.
`Have you consumed any substance,
`drugs or alcohol, that would prevent you from
`giving your truthful testimony today?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`And if at any time any of my questions
`are unclear, please ask me to clarify the
`question.
`
`Do you understand that the
`deposition today is to cover two IPRs for which
`you have given declarations?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And so in those two IPRs, do you
`understand that there are some shared exhibits
`between the IPRs.
`A.
`Yes. These are the '857 and '922
`Patents.
`Q.
`Patents.
`
`Yes, correct. Nomadix's '857 and '922
`
`So, for instance, there are some
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 6
`exhibits for prior art that you have relied upon
`that are shared between the two IPRs, and I will
`introduce with agreement upon counsel just one of
`those exhibits to make it simpler for you.
`Dr. Dordal, could you give me an
`overview of your educational background after high
`school?
`I went to the University of Chicago as
`A.
`an undergraduate. I went to Harvard University
`and received a Ph.D. in mathematics in the field
`of mathematical logic.
`Q.
`And what did you do after you received
`your degrees?
`A.
`In the course of receiving my Ph.D., I
`learned a certain amount about programming. And
`when I applied for my first job at Loyola
`University, they needed someone to teach
`programming. So I got increasingly drawn into
`computer science.
`Q.
`And have you been a professor at
`Loyola ever since you graduated from Harvard?
`A.
`Since 1982, yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 7
` Q. What are the courses? Can you give me
`an overview of the courses that you teach at
`Loyola?
` A. I teach two sections of computer
`networks each year. I usually teach a course
`in -- I'm trying to recall the precise title.
`"Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues in Computing."
` I teach introductory courses of
`introductory programming at different levels. I
`teach a certain number of database courses. And
`that would be I think almost everything. There's
`isolated special cases.
` Q. And do any of those courses -- or, do
`you have experience with network bandwidth
`management?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you give me an overview of what
`that experience is?
` A. Normally in a network, for example, in
`the TCP/IP network, there's no built-in bandwidth
`management. So typically some router along the
`path is called into service to support some method
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 8
`of managing traffic typically by verifying whether
`the traffic flow is in accord with a pre-arranged
`traffic contract so that users cannot use more
`bandwidth than they have paid for in effect.
` Most home ISPs impose a maximum
`bandwidth and then home subscribers can pay more
`for a higher service level. That happens for
`companies too at usually a somewhat higher level.
` Q. And what has -- you've kind of given
`me an overview of bandwidth management. What's
`your work experience with respect to bandwidth
`management?
` A. I used to run the department network
`up until -- the network was first installed in
`1986 and then through 2003. But during that
`period I never actually installed bandwidth
`management software. That was seldom done. But
`I've implemented experimental and demonstration
`systems.
` Q. Can you give me some examples of
`experimental and demonstration systems with
`bandwidth management?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. I currently have a thesis student
`who's finishing up his thesis, and our work
`together involved using the mini-net network
`emulation test bed to implement a mechanism by
`which various TCP connections could have their
`flows, their bandwidths, either measured or
`constrained.
` Q. Okay. I understand that you submitted
`a corrected declaration in both of the IPRs that
`we're talking about today, the '857 Patent IPR and
`the '922 Patent IPR. Does that sound familiar?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What did you correct in those two
`declarations?
` A. The only change was an addition of a
`statement that everything was true and that I
`understood under subject of penalties of perjury.
`That's all I can recall in that wording. But if I
`were to look at the declaration, I would be able
`to read it back to you.
` Q. Okay. So it was just that last
`paragraph --
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. That was the only change.
` Q. There was no substance change to the
`declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Are you familiar with ATM
`networks?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does "ATM" stand for?
` A. Asynchronous transfer mode.
` Q. Can you describe what an ATM network
`is for me?
` A. Essentially all networks involve
`transmission of so-called packets, small buffers
`of data. For ethernet, "small" means up to 1500
`bytes. And these packets contain a header that
`contains the information as to where the packet is
`to be delivered. For ATM, packets are rather
`small, 53 bytes total: 5 bytes of header and 48
`bytes of data.
` ATM was originally developed as a
`one-size-fits-all approach that would handle both
`data networking and voice, telephones.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` ATM uses the concept of virtual
`circuits where as part of setting up an ATM
`connection all the routers or switches -- I'll use
`the term interchangeably -- along the path of the
`connection negotiate among themselves, first to
`determine that path and then to determine that
`that connection is allowed to transmit.
` So then the packets are -- the
`address is the form of a circuit identifier. So
`that is recognized then by all the
`switches/routers in the path.
` Q. All right. Can you clarify what do
`you mean by a circuit identifier?
` A. It's an address field that indicates
`to which circuit this particular packet belongs.
`It indicates that to the routers involved and also
`to the end system.
` The routers may, and almost always
`do, reassign the circuit identifier in accordance
`with their own rules.
` So, for example, a packet coming in
`as part of a circuit with identifier 57 from the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 12
`left, that identifier is updated to 118 as it goes
`out on the right in accordance with a precise
`understanding by all switches of the particular
`circuit identifier.
` The circuit identifier is unique
`only on each link, in other words, and it is
`updated as the packet moves from link to link.
`But at any given point it uniquely identifies the
`entire path that that packet has been assigned,
`that that connection has been assigned.
` Q. I was kind of going to ask you about
`that. So for an ATM network, is it assigned a
`particular path for each connection?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. And for that connection, do all of the
`packets travel that connection?
` A. Yes, for the duration of that
`connection.
` Q. When you're describing the circuit
`identifier, you threw out some numbers, 57 and
`118. I'm not quite sure what you were meaning by
`that.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. ATM has some complexities, but the
`straight forward concept of the virtual circuit
`identifier is that it is a relatively small
`number. In ATM it varies from 16 bits to a total
`of I think 28 bits are available. So those
`numbers are in effect arbitrary. They are not
`like IP addresses that are permanently assigned to
`individual nodes.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And in that sense an ATM connection is
`maybe a little more akin to a telephone connection
`as opposed to a TCP/IP connection that a browser
`might manage to download a remote website.
` Q. Can you kind of elaborate? What do
`you mean by it's akin to a telephone connection?
` A. In that the connection has to be
`negotiated on startup and all the intermediate
`switches are involved in the decision as to
`whether the connection is allowed.
` And in ATM they must, because each
`pair of adjacent switches negotiates what
`identifier is to be used for that connection on
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that particular link.
` Q. Okay. Earlier you mentioned that ATM
`has some complexities. Can you elaborate on some
`of those complexities?
` A. There are different options. There's
`a virtual channel identifier and something called
`a VPI -- which I don't remember. It's virtual
`something identifier. Different modes of usage
`can mean that different numbers of those bits are
`used for addressing.
` For example, within a site you
`would almost never need more than 12 bits for the
`address. 16 is plenty. For intercontinental
`traffic, the full address would be needed.
` Q. Do you have any other ideas that come
`to mind about other complexities for an ATM
`network?
` MR. LESOVITZ: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I would not recall any
`at the moment.
`BY MS. LOEBBAKA:
` Q. Okay.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. I mean ATM -- the full ATM
`specification is enormously detailed.
` Q. Are you familiar, I assume, with an IP
`network?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you give me an overview of what
`an IP network is?
` A. The letters "IP" come from
`inter-network protocol. The idea is that every
`device is assigned an IP address and that routers
`are devices that have multiple connections and
`each router contains a table, a forwarding table.
`And when a packet arrives, the router examines the
`destination IP address and figures out the next
`hop. That is, the neighboring router or final
`destination to which the packet is forwarded.
` That's known as datagram
`forwarding. In distinction to virtual circuits
`commonly used by ATM, datagram forwarding does not
`require that routers along the path negotiate the
`connection before the connection can actually
`begin.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 16
` Q. Can you elaborate on that? What does
`that result in? How is that different?
` MR. LESOVITZ: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: It's not all that
`different. One advantage of the ATM approach is
`that since all routers participate in the decision
`as to whether to allow a certain connection, they
`can also make service guarantees as to, say,
`bandwidth or, somewhat less commonly, delay.
` There have been -- there was a
`major initiative, the so-called integrative
`services suite of protocols, that added virtual
`circuits to the top of IP to achieve that same end
`of service guarantees, quality of service
`guarantees.
` Integrative services is seldom
`used. But certainly the general idea of making IP
`look a little bit more like a virtual circuit
`system was successful in principle.
` I'm not sure if I answered your
`original question.
` Q. Let me go back.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 17
` So you mentioned that IP networks,
`they added a virtual circuit system to the IP
`networks?
` A. That was the specific integrative
`services set of protocols. You may regard it as
`an experimental protocol because it did not
`receive widespread adoption.
` Q. Okay. So in general it's not widely
`used today?
` A. No.
` MR. LESOVITZ: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: That being integrative
`services is not widely used today, neither is ATM.
`BY MS. LOEBBAKA:
` Q. Would you consider the IP network a
`connectionless network?
` A. That word is used in the IP world to
`describe this fundamental idea that each router
`has this table of instructing it what to do for
`each destination, what is the next hop, what is
`the neighboring router to which the packet should
`be forwarded. Routers generally are not aware of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`any particular connection.
` So if I am downloading a large
`file, there might be a thousand packets passing
`through as part of that file transfer. One
`router -- and each packet has a destination looked
`up independently, and the router has no large
`scale view, has no view at all, of what number of
`connections are passing through.
` Some routers in the interests of
`bandwidth management, among other things, do try
`to record and track some of that information. But
`the basic principle of a router is that a packet
`comes in, its destination address is looked up in
`this table, and the packet is then forwarded, and
`the next single hop, next single step of the path,
`in accordance with that lookup.
` Q. So for the example that you gave of
`downloading a document, a thousand packets, is it
`possible that those packets go different routes to
`arrive at the destination?
` A. It is possible. It very seldom occurs
`in practice that a route changes on any kind of
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`short-term basis.
` An early theoretical advantage of
`this forwarding approach was that if a router does
`fail, traffic can be rerouted around it without
`involving any other than the immediately adjacent
`nodes.
` Whereas, it was long known that for
`circuit and virtual circuit forwarding mechanisms,
`such as used by ATM, the entire path would have to
`be renegotiated. And in practice the circuit
`would fail and then would have to be renegotiated
`from scratch.
` Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier that
`ethernet is I believe 1500 bits; is that correct?
` A. Bytes.
` Q. Bytes. Sorry.
` A. Maximum packet size.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And it might be 1502. There's some
`strangeness in the early ethernet specifications.
`There's a couple different versions.
` Q. And that is referring to the IP
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 20
`network that we were talking about just a minute
`ago?
` MR. LESOVITZ: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Ethernet is commonly
`used with IP networks.
` In here Wi-Fi is used, which is --
`except it's transmitted over radio waves instead
`of wires, very similar to ethernet, and Wi-Fi
`packets can inter-operate with ethernet. They can
`travel partway through the radio waves and partway
`through the ethernet cables.
`BY MS. LOEBBAKA:
` Q. How many bytes are in an IP packet?
` A. The absolute minimum is the size of
`the IP header, which is 20. Normally there is a
`local area network header. An ethernet header is
`14 bytes. The IP header can be more than 20
`bytes. There's space for some options. And then
`if TCP is used to manage a specific connection,
`then that's another 20 bytes.
` So that brings us to 54 bytes.
`There is an official rule for ethernet that the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`minimum packet size must be at least a certain
`amount. The original ethernet, it was 64 bytes.
`Other ethernets have chosen somewhat different
`values. But there is sometimes some need to pad
`out the barebones IP packet.
` The most common barebones packets
`are TCP acknowledgments which contain nothing but
`the IP header and TCP header and the possible LAN
`header.
` Q. So from your explanation I understand
`that IP packets can very widely on size.
` A. They do --
` MR. LESOVITZ: Objection to form.
` I'm sorry. Is there a question?
`BY MS. LOEBBAKA:
` Q. Do IP packets vary in size?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you explain to me how they vary in
`size?
` A. They contain the amount of data that
`the sender chose to include. And the sender may
`be the sending application or it may be the TCP
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 22
`layer which generally makes its own decisions as
`to how packets, how data is to be packetized, how
`data is to be divided into packets.
` As a general rule, for long data
`transfers larger packet size is preferred. There
`are some drawbacks to going above 1500 bytes in
`some experiments in that direction but they've
`generally not met with widespread adoption.
`Whereas, interactive traffic or, say, voice
`telephony traffic tends to involve smaller
`packets.
` Then there are the acknowledgment
`packets to confirm receipt of data. Those are
`probably the smallest of all.
` Q. What is the packet size for ATM
`networks?
` A. 53 bytes.
` Q. And is that a fixed packet size?
` A. ATM specification spells out a fixed
`packet size, yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with an IP stack or
`IP layer?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is an IP stack or IP -- do you
`have a preference between the two?
` A. The stack refers somewhat informally
`to the software that the IP layer -- that is
`necessary to implement the IP layer.
` The IP layer is a conceptual layer
`in the system software that -- well, it attaches,
`for outgoing traffic, it attaches the IP header,
`makes sure that the destination IP address is
`appropriate, attaches the sender, the appropriate
`sender or source IP address, and determines where
`to send the packet as its own next hop.
` For machines in this room, assuming
`a packet is being addressed outside of the Baker
`Hostetler network, that would mean sending a
`packet to a local router, which somewhere is in
`the building but we don't know where.
` For incoming traffic for an
`endpoint, end user computer, the IP layer
`determines that the destination address is one
`that's acceptable for this computer and then
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 24
`delivers the packet up to the application, often
`through the TCP layer, which is reassembling
`packets.
` Probably the most important point
`for the IP layer is in routers where packets are
`forwarded on their next hop, according to this
`table of destinations and next hops, corresponding
`next hops. And that's done at each step of the
`way which typically for cross-continental traffic
`10 to 20 steps.
` Q. Okay. How many layers are there in an
`IP packet?
` A. In the packet, layers apply to the
`system software, not so much to the packet.
`Packets typically have a LAN header, an IP header,
`and almost always a transport header.
`Corresponding to the LAN layer, the IP layer and
`the transport layer.
` There is frequent separation within
`the LAN layer into the logical layer and physical
`layer. For Wi-Fi, for example, the physical layer
`requires that radio waves be used to transmit the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 25
`packet instead of wires. But the logical layer,
`the layout of bits and bytes of the packet is,
`well, not exactly the same as ethernet but quite
`similar.
` Q. Okay. What information is contained
`within the ATM header?
` A. Their primary piece of information is
`what I will refer to as the virtual circuit
`identifier. There's some ATM specific terms like
`virtual channel identifier that are related to
`that, that identifies the circuit that this packet
`is traveling on.
` The circuits are these logical
`constructs that are created by negotiation among
`all the routers, switches, along the path, and
`then each packet must be assigned one of those
`circuits to be sent at all.
` Other information in the ATM header
`includes an 8-bit checksum for error detection and
`some miscellaneous other management bits. Some of
`those bits are sometimes used for running the IP
`protocol on top of ATM.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 26
` The IP packet would then be divided
`into small chunks. And some bits in the ATM
`header might signal, for example, when that
`particular IP packet was starting and ending.
` Q. Now, earlier you mentioned that ATM
`networks are not used as frequently anymore. Do
`you have an understanding about why that is?
` A. Marketplace issues primarily. The
`telecommunications industry developed ATM in the
`1980s, which is about roughly the same time that
`IP networking was being developed. I don't think
`there's any compelling technical reason to choose
`one or the other, but IP networking won out in the
`marketplace.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Dordal, I'm going to hand
`you what's marked as Exhibit 1007. This is
`Exhibit 1007 in both IPRs. So the IPR for the
`'857 Patent and the '922 Patent. (Document
`tendered to the witness.)
` A. Okay.
` Q. So I refer to this reference as Rupp,
`but I'd like to refer to it as how you know this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`reference. Is there a name that --
` A. Rupp is fine.
` Q. Rupp, okay.
` If you could turn to Page 3 of Rupp
`that has Figure 1. Could you please explain to me
`how the Rupp system works with respect to Figure
`1?
` A. The primary network goal for
`established connections in the Rupp system was to
`limit users to a pre-selected bandwidth level. In
`fact, Figure 2 shows the interface by which users
`could choose their bandwidth level.
` So two things would happen. One is
`that users would be billed according to what their
`bandwidth choice was. The higher the bandwidth,
`the higher the permitted cost.
` And, two, the hardware involved --
`and the paper doesn't spell out specifically which
`hardware does what. But the hardware involved
`would enforce these bandwidth constraints, so that
`a user who signed up for 32 kbits per second would
`genuinely be limited to that. In attempting to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal, Ph.D.
`
`Page 28
`download a very large file, they would not receive
`more bandwidth than that 32 kilobits per second
`limit.
` Q. So if a user in Figure 1 is trying to
`download a file and is sending that request, how
`does that request go through the system?
` A. The request to download a file?
` Q. Yes. I'm wondering how the packets
`travel through.
` A. Okay. The --
` MR. LESOVITZ: I'm sorry, Dr. Dordal,
`you have to wait for me to get in my objections.
`Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: So I will imagine that
`the user is using a browser and is clicking on a
`file to be downloaded.
` So that travels -- the
`connection -- the request travels through the
`network to the internet, the cloud at the lower
`right, and a TCP connection, a transmission
`control protocol, is set up exactly as would be
`the case without an index scheme involved, and the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`NOMADIX 2005
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`9/13/2019
`
`Guest Tek Interactive v. Nomadix, Inc.
`
`Peter Dordal
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
