RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`IPR2021-0054
`
`Patent No. 10,534,382
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`(Reported Remotely via Video & Web Videoconference)
`
` Indianapolis, Indiana (Deponent's location)
`
`Wednesday, August 11, 2021
`
`Volume I
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
`
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR, CCR
`
`California CSR No. 12546
`
`Nevada CCR No. 827
`
`Oregon CSR No. 20-0466
`
`Washington CCR No. 3491
`
`JOB NO. 4756850
`
`PAGES 1 - 96
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`IPR2021-0054
`
`Patent No. 10,534,382
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`(Reported Remotely via Video & Web Videoconference)
`
` Indianapolis, Indiana (Deponent's location)
`
`Wednesday, August 11, 2021
`
`Volume I
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
`
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR, CCR
`
`California CSR No. 12546
`
`Nevada CCR No. 827
`
`Oregon CSR No. 20-0466
`
`Washington CCR No. 3491
`
`JOB NO. 4756850
`
`PAGES 1 - 96
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 1
`
`
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _______________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _______________
`
` GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _______________
`
` IPR2021-0054
`
` Patent No. 10,534,382
`
` ZOOM DEPOSITION OF RAJENDRA SHAH, taken
`
`on behalf of the Patent Owner, with the deponent
`
`located in Indianapolis, Indiana, commencing at
`
`11:20 a.m., Wednesday, August 11, 2021, remotely
`
`reported via Video & Web videoconference before
`
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, a Registered Professional
`
`Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Certified
`
`Court Reporter.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 2
`
`
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`(All parties appearing via Web videoconference)
`
`For the Petitioner:
`
` SMITH BALUCH LLP
`
` BY: MATTHEW A. SMITH
`
` Attorney at Law
`
` 1100 Alma Street
`
` Suite 109
`
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
` (202) 669-6207
`
` smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
`
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
` BY: REZA MIRZAIE
`
` Attorney at Law
`
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`
` 12th Floor
`
` Los Angeles, California 90025
`
` (310) 826-7474
`
` rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Scott Slater, Videographer
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 3
`
`
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` I N D E X
`
`DEPONENT EXAMINATION
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH PAGE
`
`VOLUME I
`
` BY MR. MIRZAIE 8
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NUMBER PAGE
`
` DESCRIPTION
`
`Exhibit 1001 US Patent 10,534,382 B2; 5
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Rajendra Shah; 5
`
`Exhibit 1004 US Patent 8,196,185 B2. 5
`
`/////
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 4
`
`
`
`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
`
` Indianapolis, Indiana; Wednesday, August 11, 2021
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` 11:20 a.m.
`
` ---o0o---
`
` (Exhibit 1001 was marked for
`
`identification by the court reporter and is
`
`attached hereto.)
`
` (Exhibit 1002 was marked for
`
`identification by the court reporter and is
`
`attached hereto.)
`
` (Exhibit 1004 was marked for
`
`identification by the court reporter and is
`
`attached hereto.)
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`
`on the record at 11:20 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time 11:20:34
`
`on August 11th, 2021.
`
` Please note that the microphones are
`
`sensitive and may pick up whispering, private
`
`conversations or cellular interference. Audio and
`
`video recording will continue to take place unless 11:20:51
`
`all parties agree to go off the record.
`
` This is media unit 1 of the
`
`video-recorded deposition of Rajendra Shah taken by
`
`counsel for the Patent Owner in the matter of
`
`Google LLC versus EcoFactor, Inc., filed before the 11:21:08
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 11:21:12
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00054, Patent No. 10,534,382.
`
` This deposition is being held as a
`
`virtual deposition via Zoom with the witness
`
`located in Indianapolis, Indiana. 11:21:35
`
` My name is Scott Slater from the firm
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions, and I am the
`
`videographer. Our court reporter is Rebecca Romano
`
`from the firm Veritext Legal Solutions.
`
` I am not related to any party in this 11:21:49
`
`action, nor am I financially interested in the
`
`outcome.
`
` Counsel and all present will now state
`
`their appearances and affiliations for the record.
`
` If there any objections to proceeding, 11:21:59
`
`please state them at the time of your appearance,
`
`beginning with the noticing attorney.
`
` MR. MIRZAIE: This is Reza Mirzaie of
`
`Russ August & Kabat, and I represent the Patent
`
`Owner, EcoFactor. 11:22:12
`
` MR. SMITH: And this is Matthew Smith of
`
`Smith Baluch LLP, and I represent the Petitioner,
`
`Google.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you very much.
`
` Will the court reporter please administer 11:22:22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 6
`
`
`
`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 oath. 11:22:24
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: At this time, I will
`
`ask counsel to agree on the record that there is no
`
`objection to this deposition officer administering
`
`a binding oath to the deponent via remote 11:22:24
`
`videoconference, starting with the noticing
`
`attorney, please.
`
` MR. MIRZAIE: Yes, no objection.
`
` MR. SMITH: No objection.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: If you could raise 11:22:43
`
`your right hand for me, please.
`
` THE DEPONENT: (Complies.)
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: You do solemnly
`
`state, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony
`
`you are about to give in this deposition shall be 11:22:43
`
`the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
`
`truth?
`
` THE DEPONENT: I do.
`
` 11:22:43
`
`///// 11:22:58
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 7
`
`
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` RAJENDRA SHAH 11:22:58
`
`having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION 11:22:58
`
`BY MR. MIRZAIE:
`
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Shah.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
`
` A. Once before. 11:23:08
`
` Q. And was that in a patent infringement
`
`matter?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Was it in an IPR proceeding or a
`
`District Court proceeding? 11:23:18
`
` A. I believe it was an IPR proceeding.
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` Was it on behalf of Google, like this one
`
`is?
`
` A. Yes. 11:23:30
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` Well, just short recitation of the ground
`
`rules, even though I'm sure you know them well.
`
` We'll probably take breaks every 60 to 90
`
`minutes. But if you need a break sooner than that, 11:23:41
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`happy to cut for a break. 11:23:45
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` If I am in the middle of a line of
`
`questioning, I'd probably just ask that you finish
`
`the answer to my line of questioning and then we
`
`can take a break; is that okay? 11:23:55
`
` A. Yeah, that's good.
`
` Q. And if you don't understand any question
`
`that I ask, please just let me know and I'll try to
`
`rephrase it; is that okay?
`
` A. Yeah. 11:24:09
`
` Q. And you were hired by the Petitioner,
`
`Google, to provide a declaration in this IPR
`
`matter, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And we talked about this before we got on 11:24:45
`
`the video, but you have access to a share drive
`
`there on your computer, correct?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. Okay. And we'll -- we'll probably be
`
`referencing certain exhibits from the share drive 11:24:58
`
`during today's deposition.
`
` And if you look at that share drive, the
`
`first document -- at least on my screen -- the --
`
`the title of the actual link is just a seven-digit
`
`number, 153306 [sic]. 11:25:31
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
` Do you see that? 11:25:33
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` A. Yes. That's third on my list, but I see
`
`that.
`
` Q. Okay. If you could open that one up.
`
` And is -- my question is, is this the 11:25:49
`
`declaration that you provided in this matter?
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form. And to the
`
`exhibit.
`
` And -- and specifically, Reza, this looks
`
`like the Ecobee declaration. I'm not sure if it's 11:26:04
`
`any different, but...
`
` MR. MIRZAIE: Okay. I don't think it is,
`
`but --
`
` MR. SMITH: I don't know if I have the
`
`right copy, but... 11:26:12
`
` MR. MIRZAIE: Yeah, I don't think it is.
`
`But I'll -- I'll introduce the -- the other one as
`
`well.
`
` MR. SMITH: Oh, can you -- can you tell
`
`me which one we're looking at then? 11:26:17
`
` I have -- 1533306 is the one I pulled up.
`
` MR. MIRZAIE: Yeah, that's the one that I
`
`just stated on the record. And it does appear to
`
`be the Ecobee copy.
`
` So you could peruse that, but I'll 11:26:29
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 10
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`introduce another exhibit for your attention right 11:26:31
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`now, sir, which is the -- I -- I believe
`
`it's the -- it's perfectly identical verbatim, but
`
`the one with -- that is the Google copy.
`
` Okay. So if you refresh your Egnyte 11:27:09
`
`share drive folder, you should see a sixth document
`
`there and the -- the first portion of the title is
`
`PTAB, P-T-A-B.
`
` THE DEPONENT: Okay.
`
` MR. MIRZAIE: Okay. And -- and for the 11:27:35
`
`record, this is Exhibit 1002 from this IPR
`
`proceeding.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) And my question to you,
`
`sir, is, do you recognize this document?
`
` A. Yes. This appears to be my declaration. 11:28:03
`
` Q. And did you review this document in
`
`preparation for your deposition today?
`
` A. I did look over parts of it.
`
` Q. And in doing so, did you notice any
`
`mistakes or anything you need to correct? 11:28:23
`
` A. No, I'm not aware of any like that.
`
` Q. Okay. Yeah, if -- if you catch any
`
`mistakes -- if you caught any mistakes, I was just
`
`going to ask you, feel free to correct them on the
`
`record right now. 11:28:45
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 11
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` But I guess you have not caught any 11:28:45
`
`mistakes in -- that you want to correct, any -- any
`
`typos, or anything like that, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And this is a complete statement of the 11:28:53
`
`opinions in your declaration, correct?
`
` A. Yes. This is the declaration, yes.
`
` Q. And as I understand it -- let's take a
`
`look at this. It's a fairly long declaration.
`
` But you provide opinions on one ground, 11:29:18
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And that ground is an obviousness ground,
`
`not an anticipation ground, correct?
`
` A. Correct. 11:29:35
`
` Q. And specifically, the obviousness
`
`combination for all the claims that you provided
`
`opinions on is Geadelmann plus Ehlers, correct?
`
` A. Ehlers, yes. Ehlers '330 is the specific
`
`publication, yes. 11:30:00
`
` Q. Thanks for that clarification.
`
` And I'll make sure that I try to remember
`
`to say Ehlers '330. But if I ever slip and just
`
`say Ehlers, please assume that I mean Ehlers '330,
`
`unless I give you another Ehlers number. 11:30:14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 12
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
` Is that okay? 11:30:18
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` A. Yeah, that's okay.
`
` Q. And the -- I wanted to flip to the part
`
`of your report -- I think it's Roman numeral X --
`
`that starts on page 19. It might be better just 11:30:38
`
`to -- for me to point to paragraph numbers.
`
` It's paragraphs numbers 38 through 41.
`
` Are you there?
`
` A. Okay. I'm on 38.
`
` Q. Yes. 11:31:01
`
` And as I understand it, you interpreted
`
`the claim language as a necessary predicate to
`
`providing the -- the opinions in your declaration,
`
`correct?
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form. 11:31:09
`
` THE DEPONENT: I -- yeah. In order to
`
`give the opinions, I had to interpret the claim
`
`language, and I used certain construction
`
`information already available.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) And what's that certain 11:31:24
`
`construction information already available?
`
` A. That's listed in here. I believe it's --
`
`I guess we have to go to the top to see the...
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` A. Okay. I've -- I've been through a number 11:32:36
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 13
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 13
`
`
`
`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
`
`of these and maybe this one doesn't have any 11:32:37
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`preconstruction information.
`
` Q. Uh-huh.
`
` A. So I -- I'll just go with my earlier
`
`statement. I interpreted it -- the language of the 11:32:47
`
`claims.
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` And as you state here, I believe you
`
`used -- strike that.
`
` You interpreted the language of the 11:33:00
`
`claims in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of those terms, as understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the
`
`intrinsic record, including the specification and
`
`so forth, correct? 11:33:17
`
` A. That is all correct, yeah. And the time
`
`frame that we had to deal with on this patent.
`
` Q. And what -- what time frame is that?
`
` A. I believe it was -- it's listed in here.
`
` I think it was -- July of 2008 was the 11:33:36
`
`earliest date.
`
` Q. Okay. And I note that here on -- in
`
`paragraph 40, you recite your understanding of the
`
`concept of extrinsic evidence.
`
` Do you see that? 11:33:58
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 14
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
` A. Yes. 11:33:59
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` Q. And I -- I don't believe you rely on any
`
`extrinsic evidence in -- in your analysis, but let
`
`me know if I'm mistaken about that.
`
` A. So -- 11:34:16
`
` Q. For instance, I don't believe you rely on
`
`any dictionary definitions, but please let me know
`
`if I'm mistaken about that.
`
` A. No, not on any dictionary -- it's like we
`
`said earlier, as understood by a person of skill in 11:34:31
`
`the art in the time frame. I was interpreting the
`
`language in the claims.
`
` Q. And specifically, if I look to your
`
`paragraph 38, you're interpreting it in accordance
`
`with the ordinary and customary meaning, as 11:34:50
`
`understood by one of skill in the art, in light of
`
`the claim language, the specification and the file
`
`history of the patent.
`
` Otherwise known as the intrinsic record,
`
`correct? 11:35:04
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So you used the intrinsic record to
`
`inform yourself about how a -- one of skill in the
`
`art would understand claim terms in the patent
`
`scope as a whole, fair? 11:35:19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 15
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
` A. I -- I agree, yes. 11:35:26
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` Q. Okay. I wanted to take a look at the --
`
`some of the -- the claim language, and we could
`
`start on page 15, paragraph 33.
`
` There's a recitation of one example of 11:36:12
`
`patent -- it's just claim 1, I believe, of the
`
`'382 patent there in your paragraph 33, correct?
`
` A. I'm -- I'm on 33 now.
`
` What was your question again?
`
` Q. Whether that is a recitation of 11:36:27
`
`independent claim 1 of the patent?
`
` A. Yeah, that is.
`
` Q. And I wanted to understand -- strike
`
`that.
`
` Can you take a look at -- at the bottom 11:38:05
`
`of page 16, for example, where the bottom half of
`
`claim 1 is recited in your declaration?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. There is a piece of the claim that begins
`
`with "the one or more processors with circuitry and 11:38:30
`
`code designed to execute instructions to determine
`
`whether the building is occupied or unoccupied."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And what was the ordinary and customary 11:38:48
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 16
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`meaning, in light of the specification of the 11:38:51
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`'382 patent, that you employed for the phrase
`
`"occupied or unoccupied"?
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: What the claim is stating 11:39:07
`
`is to determine whether the building is occupied or
`
`unoccupied. And in the context of this patent and
`
`the general HVAC heating, ventilating and air
`
`systems that operate typically under the control of
`
`thermostats, the occupied and unoccupied would 11:39:31
`
`represent whether there were occupants or people
`
`present in the building or not.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) Got it.
`
` And in this case, the one or more
`
`processors are required to have "circuitry and code 11:39:52
`
`designed to execute instructions to determine
`
`whether the building is occupied or unoccupied,"
`
`according to the meaning you applied, correct?
`
` A. Let me -- while we're on that phrase,
`
`that phrase is repeated. The "one or more 11:40:14
`
`processors with circuitry and code designed to
`
`execute instructions" is repeated in just about
`
`every element.
`
` And it appears to me, interpreting it,
`
`that in the context of all the elements in here, 11:40:28
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`some of them do not suggest the -- the executed 11:40:32
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`instructions do something with the rest of the
`
`claim.
`
` So my interpretation is that that whole
`
`phrase, as it's repeated, simply describes the 11:40:46
`
`processors, and repeatedly describes them as
`
`opposed to saying the instructions to determine.
`
` But either way, it doesn't make too much
`
`difference. I just wanted -- since you asked me
`
`how to interpret it, it seems me the entire 11:41:05
`
`sentence or -- or the phrase is a description of
`
`the one or more processors and is repeated in -- in
`
`all elements. And sometimes it doesn't continue in
`
`the rest of the sentence in some elements. Here it
`
`does. 11:41:21
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` And what's an example of where it doesn't
`
`continue in -- in some of the elements, in contrast
`
`to the element we were just talking about?
`
` A. So let's say the -- the last element on 11:41:33
`
`page 16, "wherein the one or more processors" --
`
`sorry. That is a little different. I'll have to
`
`find one.
`
` But I -- as I went through it, it seemed
`
`like the intent was to use the -- the whole phrase 11:41:51
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 18
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`as a description of the processors. But sometimes 11:41:55
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`it continued into the rest of the sentence and you
`
`could interpret it that way as well. It's not a --
`
`to me, it's not a big difference either way.
`
` Q. Got it. 11:42:08
`
` And so in your opinion, the "with
`
`circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`instructions" is describing the processors,
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's the way I -- I saw it when reading 11:42:20
`
`through all the claim elements.
`
` Q. Going back to the claim element we were
`
`talking about a moment ago, just as one example,
`
`the "circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`instructions to determine whether the building is 11:42:38
`
`occupied or unoccupied."
`
` Do you see that phrase?
`
` A. To determine whether the building is
`
`occupied; is that the question?
`
` Q. Yes. 11:42:49
`
` A. Yeah, I see the phrase.
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` And the -- strike that.
`
` So this requires the circuitry and code
`
`to be designed to execute instructions to make that 11:43:04
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`determination; namely, whether the building is 11:43:08
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`occupied or unoccupied, correct?
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: Depending on, again, on
`
`how you interpret, the language is a little bit 11:43:21
`
`vague in here.
`
` If you interpret it as a description of
`
`the processors as repeated, so the processors have
`
`circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`instructions, period. And then the processor to 11:43:33
`
`determine whether the building is occupied or
`
`unoccupied is one way of looking at it.
`
` And the other one is if you want to
`
`consider that sentence as a continuation, then it's
`
`the instructions running on the processor to 11:43:51
`
`determine whether the building is occupied. But
`
`both interpretations are highly similar.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) So just to understand
`
`the distinction a little bit better that you're
`
`drawing, in the first instance, the processors 11:44:05
`
`would have circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`instructions, and the processors would determine
`
`whether the building is occupied or unoccupied, but
`
`not necessarily through circuitry and code designed
`
`to execute instructions to make that determination. 11:44:26
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 20
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
` And in the second instance, everything is 11:44:28
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`the same except there's an additional restriction
`
`that the circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`instructions would make that determination; is that
`
`correct? 11:44:39
`
` A. That -- that's correct. Because the --
`
`depending on, you know, what a POSA -- person of
`
`skill in the art would look at this, the processor
`
`makes the determination. How does it make the
`
`determination. It could be through execution of 11:44:55
`
`code and the instructions because that's what
`
`processors do.
`
` Now, does it need the circuitry to do
`
`something when it's determining this? That's a
`
`little bit of a stretch. 11:45:11
`
` So, again, I -- I don't want to make a
`
`big deal of it. It's just how you interpret it
`
`slightly different.
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` And which of those two interpretations 11:45:27
`
`did you apply for your analysis in this IPR?
`
` A. I don't think the -- the conclusions
`
`would have been different. But I -- I did apply
`
`the one I felt was more appropriate, in light of
`
`all the claims, which is that -- that whole phrase 11:45:46
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 21
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`is a description -- repeated description of the 11:45:51
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`processors. And --
`
` Q. Got it. So --
`
` Sorry. Please continue.
`
` A. No. I -- and what I'm saying is -- yeah, 11:46:01
`
`if you want to go through all -- all the claim
`
`elements, I'm sure I'll find instances where the
`
`sentence doesn't continue, like it does in this
`
`element. But I -- I would have to read through
`
`the -- all the claims to find those. 11:46:14
`
` Q. So the -- just going back to your last
`
`answer, you did apply the one you felt was more
`
`appropriate, in light of all the claims, which is
`
`that the whole phrase is a description -- repeated
`
`description of the processors. 11:46:45
`
` So you -- the one that you applied --
`
`strike that.
`
` So the claim interpretation that you
`
`applied is the one where the processors would have,
`
`in general, circuitry and code designed to execute 11:47:04
`
`instructions. But that circuitry and code designed
`
`to execute instructions isn't necessarily designed
`
`to make the determination of whether the building
`
`is occupied or unoccupied, for example, just
`
`looking at that element -- 11:47:34
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 22
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form. 11:47:36
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) -- correct?
`
` A. As I said, in that particular element,
`
`the circuitry, I don't think, is associated with
`
`making the determination of the code, you know, 11:47:46
`
`is -- the code and the instructions are, because
`
`that's how the processor operates.
`
` Q. Got it.
`
` And just looking at this -- strike that.
`
` Okay. And if we move down to the next 11:48:23
`
`element.
`
` A. Okay. Well, can you recite it.
`
` Q. Yes. Absolutely. Sorry. Yeah.
`
` The next element after the semicolon, so
`
`it's the "wherein" clause. I'll recite the whole 11:48:39
`
`element.
`
` "wherein the one or more processors
`
`compromises a first processor with circuitry and
`
`code designed to execute instructions, which is
`
`located remotely from the memory and is not 11:48:55
`
`electrically connected to the memory;"
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And I'd like to understand your customary
`
`and ordinary meaning, in light of the patent 11:49:14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 23
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`specification for "located remotely from the 11:49:18
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`memory."
`
` A. The -- so with --
`
` MR. SMITH: Objection. Sorry.
`
` THE DEPONENT: Go ahead. 11:49:31
`
` Talking about the location of the first
`
`processor with respect to the memory, and the
`
`"located remotely" would say that they are like not
`
`next to each other. They're separated by some --
`
`some amount of space. 11:49:54
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) There's also an
`
`additional requirement right after that, that the
`
`first processor cannot be "electrically connected"
`
`to that memory, correct?
`
` A. Right. I see it. 11:50:10
`
` Q. And what's your ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of "electrically connected"?
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I would -- as I would
`
`think any person of skills in the art would have 11:50:24
`
`interpreted this in that time frame, when something
`
`is electrically connected, it is intended to
`
`signify that there is a hardwired electric
`
`connection and/or they're just physically
`
`electrically connected through circuit or some 11:50:46
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`other electrical connection as opposed to they are 11:50:50
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH
`
`not connected at all.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) But to be clear, you --
`
`you're not saying that it requires a hardwired --
`
`strike that. 11:51:10
`
` Referring to the "electrically connected"
`
`phrase, you're not saying that it requires a
`
`hardwired electrical connection directly between
`
`two components, fair?
`
` MR. SMITH: Object to form. 11:51:23
`
` THE DEPONENT: I'm not sure if I
`
`understand that.
`
` Let me repeat what -- what an electrical
`
`connection for a POSA would be, is that there is
`
`actual electric current or electrons, or some form 11:51:35
`
`of electrical connection between the two items that
`
`are electrically connected, as opposed to if they
`
`are just separated and -- and there is no direct
`
`electron flow between one and the other.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Mirzaie) Got it. 11:51:55
`
` So -- so under your definition, if there
`
`is an intervening component between the two items,
`
`that would break direct electron flow and it would
`
`no longer be electrically connected; is that right?
`
` MR. SMITH: Objection to form. 11:52:17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 25
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2021-00054
`Exhibit 2016
`Page 25
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
