·1· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`·3
`
`·4· · GOOGLE LLC,· · · · · · · · · ·)
`
`·5· · · · · · Petitioner,· · · · · ·)· ·Case No.
`
`·6· · · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · ·)· ·IPR2021-00054
`
`·7· · ECOFACTOR, INC.,· · · · · · · )· ·Patent No.
`
`·8· · · · · · Patent Owner,· · · · ·)· ·10,534,382 B2
`
`·9· · · · · · Defendants.· · · · · ·)
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· ·Page 1-51
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · REMOTE DEPOSITION OF JOHN A. PALMER, PH.D
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·TAKEN ON
`
`16· · · · · · · ·FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2021
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`
`24· ·BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR
`
`25· ·CSR NO. 12563
`
`GOOGLE 1025
`
`
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`·3
`
`·4· · GOOGLE LLC,· · · · · · · · · ·)
`
`·5· · · · · · Petitioner,· · · · · ·)· ·Case No.
`
`·6· · · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · ·)· ·IPR2021-00054
`
`·7· · ECOFACTOR, INC.,· · · · · · · )· ·Patent No.
`
`·8· · · · · · Patent Owner,· · · · ·)· ·10,534,382 B2
`
`·9· · · · · · Defendants.· · · · · ·)
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· ·Page 1-51
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · REMOTE DEPOSITION OF JOHN A. PALMER, PH.D
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·TAKEN ON
`
`16· · · · · · · ·FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2021
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`
`24· ·BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR
`
`25· ·CSR NO. 12563
`
`GOOGLE 1025
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10· · · · ·Remote deposition of JOHN A. PALMER, PH.D
`
`11· ·taken via Zoom or teleconference in Los Angeles,
`
`12· ·California, on Friday, October 29, 2021, before
`
`13· ·Brenda R. Countz, CSR No. 12563.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`·2· · · · · · (All counsel and participants present
`
`·3· · · · · · ·via Zoom and/or teleconference.)
`
`Page 3
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·FOR THE PETITIONER GOOGLE
`
`·6· · · · · · SMITH BALUCH
`
`·7· · · · · · BY:· MATTHEW SMITH, ESQ.
`
`·8· · · · · · 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
`
`·9· · · · · · Washington, D.C. 20003
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER ECOFACTOR
`
`15· · · · · · RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`16· · · · · · BY:· JONATHAN LINK, ESQ.
`
`17· · · · · · 800 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`
`18· · · · · · Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· ·ALSO PRESENT:
`
`23· · · · · · CHESTER DAY, In-house counsel for
`
`24· · · · · · Google LLC
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`
`Page 4
`
`·2· ·WITNESS· · · · · · · EXAMINATION BY· · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·3· ·JOHN A. PALMER, PH.D
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · Mr. Smith· · · · · · · · · ·5, 47
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · Mr. Link· · · · · · · · · · · ·46
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
`
`10· ·NO.· · · · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · (none marked)
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · LOS ANGELES, CA - FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2021
`
`Page 5
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·8:10 A.M.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·JOHN A. PALMER, PH.D,
`
`·5· · · · · ·having been first duly sworn, was
`
`·6· · · · · ·examined and testified as follows:
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`·9· ·BY MR. SMITH:
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· Good morning, Dr. Palmer.
`
`11· ·Let me state for the record this is a deposition
`
`12· ·in IPR2021-00054, Google versus EcoFactor, being
`
`13· ·conducted by Zoom.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Your name is Dr. John Palmer, correct?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·And by now you must have been deposed
`
`17· ·dozens of times, right?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·I have.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Okay, good.· I will spare you the rules
`
`20· ·of the deposition with which I'm sure you are
`
`21· ·intimately familiar.
`
`22· · · · · · ·You understand you are under oath today
`
`23· ·though?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Of course.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Great.· Is there any reason you can't
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· ·testify accurately today?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·And without going into any details, are
`
`·4· ·there any medical or other issues that would
`
`·5· ·interfere with your testimony?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay, great.· Did you prepare for the
`
`·8· ·deposition today?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I did.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·And what did you do?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·I reviewed my report.· I reviewed most
`
`12· ·of Mr. Shaw's report and I reviewed the prior art
`
`13· ·references and the subject patent and I had a
`
`14· ·chat with Mr. Link.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·I see.· And about how long did you
`
`16· ·spend speaking with Mr. Link?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Maybe an hour, maybe a little longer.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·The subject patent you are referring to
`
`19· ·is U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382, correct?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And can we call that the 382 patent
`
`22· ·today?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I'm absolutely fine with that.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Now we had a little problem with the
`
`25· ·sharefile upload so I just want to confirm with
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· ·you that you have three exhibits that would be
`
`·2· ·relevant today.· One is Exhibit 2013 which is
`
`·3· ·entitled the Declaration of John H. Palmer, Ph.D.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Do you have that with you?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I'm glad you said John H. Palmer.· It's
`
`·6· ·John A. Palmer but yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Great.· Do you also have Exhibit 1001
`
`·8· ·which is the 382 patent?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·And do you have Exhibit 1004 which is
`
`11· ·the Geadelmann prior art reference?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. SMITH:· And just for the court
`
`14· ·reporter's benefit, these are exhibits that have
`
`15· ·already been filed in the case and so we are just
`
`16· ·going to refer to them with the already-assigned
`
`17· ·exhibit numbers, okay?· If we mark any new ones
`
`18· ·we will assign them a new exhibit number.· There
`
`19· ·is a rule governing how the exhibit numbering
`
`20· ·goes.
`
`21· ·BY MR. SMITH:
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·So in your preparation for the
`
`23· ·deposition did you review the 382 patent again?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·I did; not in great detail but I did
`
`25· ·run through it.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Are you pretty familiar with how it
`
`Page 8
`
`·2· ·works?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Reasonably, yes.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·We had a deposition where I asked you
`
`·5· ·questions back in August, correct?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And just to short-cut this process a
`
`·8· ·bit, we talked about your background.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Has anything that would be relevant to
`
`10· ·these sets of cases dealing with HVAC systems
`
`11· ·changed about your background in that time?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. LINK:· Object to the form.
`
`13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, nothing has changed
`
`14· ·significantly since then.
`
`15· ·BY MR. SMITH:
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Could you turn to paragraph 20
`
`17· ·of your declaration and this is in the section
`
`18· ·entitled "Legal Principles."
`
`19· · · · · · ·Let me know when you are there.
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Okay, I'm on paragraph 20.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·By the way, did you write this section
`
`22· ·yourself or is this something you got from
`
`23· ·counsel?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·The information on legal principles was
`
`25· ·based on information received from counsel.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you edit this section at
`
`Page 9
`
`·2· ·all?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·It's been long enough I don't remember
`
`·4· ·for sure.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·It has been some time.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Did you feel you understood this
`
`·7· ·section; how about that?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I did.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Okay, good.· In paragraph 20 you are
`
`10· ·talking about the concept of obviousness and you
`
`11· ·state there -- and this is starting in the last
`
`12· ·line of page 12 -- "I understand that a patent
`
`13· ·cannot be properly granted for subject matter
`
`14· ·that would have been obvious to a person of
`
`15· ·ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`16· ·alleged invention and that a patent claim
`
`17· ·directed to such obvious subject matter is
`
`18· ·invalid under 35 USC Section 103."
`
`19· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And do you have an understanding of
`
`22· ·what the time of the alleged invention is?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I believe that the priority date is --
`
`24· ·I will just look at Exhibit 1001 real quick to
`
`25· ·make sure that I'm responding correctly.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·The claim priority back to provisional
`
`Page 10
`
`·2· ·application filed on July 14 of 2018.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·And during your obviousness analysis,
`
`·4· ·is that the date you applied as the time of the
`
`·5· ·alleged invention?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So can we refer to the timeframe
`
`·8· ·around then as the relevant timeframe?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·That would be fine.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·This section entitled "Legal
`
`11· ·Principles," does it reflect your understanding
`
`12· ·of the law that you applied when you were doing
`
`13· ·the analysis in your declaration?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·It does.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Now, at the start of paragraph 19 you
`
`16· ·state, "I further understand that when a specific
`
`17· ·prior art reference was before the examiner
`
`18· ·during prosecution, e.g. as noted on the face of
`
`19· ·the patent, the burden of proving invalidity is,
`
`20· ·quote, "'especially difficult,'" unquote.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·And does that principle come to bear in
`
`24· ·your analysis at all?· Did you apply that
`
`25· ·principle?
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. LINK:· Object to the form.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't have a specific
`
`·3· ·recollection of consciously applying that
`
`·4· ·principle.· Whether it played a role in the back
`
`·5· ·of my mind or not I can't say with certainty but
`
`·6· ·I don't have a specific recollection of
`
`·7· ·consciously applying that concept.
`
`·8· ·BY MR. SMITH:
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Was there any prior art reference that
`
`10· ·you were thinking of when you read or wrote this?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Just the prior art references that are
`
`12· ·listed in the patent.· But other than that, no.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Did you consider the obviousness case
`
`14· ·in the present interparties review to be one that
`
`15· ·is especially difficult because the prior art is
`
`16· ·stated on the face of the patent?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·I'm not seeing that it was listed as a
`
`18· ·prior art reference on the patent.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Yes, my question was did you find the
`
`20· ·obviousness case here to be especially difficult
`
`21· ·because prior art is listed on the face of the
`
`22· ·patent?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry?
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·At the time you did your analysis?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·No, I don't believe that I had any
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· ·specific application of the issue of the
`
`·2· ·Geadelmann reference being cited on the patent.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·What about the Ehlers 330 reference?
`
`·4· ·I'm not asking you whether it is cited to on the
`
`·5· ·face of the patent, I'm asking you whether you
`
`·6· ·applied an especially difficult standard to your
`
`·7· ·analysis of obviousness at the time of your
`
`·8· ·declaration?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I wouldn't say that I specifically
`
`10· ·applied that issue.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· If you could go to paragraph 20
`
`12· ·again?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·(Perusing.)
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·On page 13 of your declaration, and
`
`15· ·this is getting towards the end of paragraph 20,
`
`16· ·you testify, "Obviousness may be found where
`
`17· ·there is clear and convincing evidence that the
`
`18· ·differences between the subject matter sought to
`
`19· ·be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`20· ·subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`21· ·at the time that the invention was made to a
`
`22· ·person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`23· ·the subject matter pertained."
`
`24· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Does the sentence still accurately
`
`·2· ·reflect your understanding of the law?· I'll
`
`·3· ·withdraw the question.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Did that sentence accurately reflect
`
`·5· ·your understanding of the law at the time you did
`
`·6· ·the analysis going into your declaration?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·I would say yes.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Do you know what clear and convincing
`
`·9· ·evidence means or do you have an understanding of
`
`10· ·what that means?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·And what is that understanding, sir?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·As I understand it, clear and
`
`14· ·convincing evidence is evidence that is strongly
`
`15· ·indicative of the point at issue.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·You read Mr. Shaw's declaration filed
`
`17· ·in this case, correct?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·And did you not find that his case for
`
`20· ·obviousness was clear and convincing?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I did not find that his case for
`
`22· ·obviousness was clear and convincing or
`
`23· ·persuasive at all.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Did you also read, in addition to
`
`25· ·Mr. Shaw's declaration the petition document was
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· ·drafted by the attorneys, petition for
`
`·2· ·interparties agreement?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·I did read it, not in great depth but
`
`·4· ·it was provided to me and I read it.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·But my assignment was specifically to
`
`·6· ·respond to Mr. Shaw's report and so that's where
`
`·7· ·my focus was.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·So you read it but you didn't do a lot
`
`·9· ·of analysis concerning the petition, is that
`
`10· ·fair?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·That is fair.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let's talk about some technical
`
`13· ·concepts.
`
`14· · · · · · ·First, do you know what a web server
`
`15· ·is?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·And what is your understanding of what
`
`18· ·a web server is?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·A web server is a computer that is
`
`20· ·capable of providing an internet interface,
`
`21· ·including providing web pages through a browser.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Do you know how a web server provides
`
`23· ·web pages to a browser?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·I'm not sure I understand what
`
`25· ·specifically you are asking there.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Um-hum, sure.· Let's suppose there is a
`
`Page 15
`
`·2· ·user with a browser who sends a request to a web
`
`·3· ·server to retrieve a particular page.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·What in general happens in response to
`
`·5· ·that request?· Do you understand that process?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·In a general sense, yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And what's your understanding?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·The request for a web page goes to the
`
`·9· ·web server.· The web server provides the data
`
`10· ·back to the requester in a format that can then
`
`11· ·be interpreted, typically in an HTML or PHP type
`
`12· ·format, that can then be processed into the
`
`13· ·browser.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·You said HTML or PHP, right?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Where is this HTML or PHP information
`
`17· ·stored by the web server?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·It can be stored on the web server
`
`19· ·itself or it can be stored on other sites and
`
`20· ·brought in by links or by pointers of sorts from
`
`21· ·other sources.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And were you familiar with web
`
`23· ·servers in the relevant timeframe?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·I was.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·And did the operation of web servers in
`
`
`
`·1· ·the relevant timeframe, was it still consistent
`
`Page 16
`
`·2· ·with the way you just described it?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·I'm not sure, looking back, if the PHP
`
`·4· ·-- it certainly wasn't as common back then but
`
`·5· ·certainly the HTML was pretty common in that
`
`·6· ·timeframe.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Now the 382 patent uses a web server,
`
`·8· ·correct?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·It does use a server and I believe it's
`
`10· ·described as a web server in at least one
`
`11· ·location.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Let me point you to paragraph 15 in
`
`13· ·your declaration.· And this is on page 9 of the
`
`14· ·declaration.
`
`15· · · · · · ·In the last sentence on page 9 you
`
`16· ·testify, quote, "The preferred embodiment
`
`17· ·requires," quote, "Data used to generate the
`
`18· ·content delivered in the form of the website to
`
`19· ·be stored on one or more servers 106 within the
`
`20· ·one or more databases," end quote.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Does that indicate that the server 106
`
`22· ·is acting as a web server?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·It could be.· But as I said, the web
`
`24· ·server itself may be pulling from another source
`
`25· ·and so it's not necessarily a web server but it
`
`
`
`·1· ·certainly could be.
`
`Page 17
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Does this statement in your declaration
`
`·3· ·that I just read in paragraph 15 still accurately
`
`·4· ·reflect your views, sir?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Actually, it's a quotation.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. LINK:· Objection, vague.
`
`·7· ·BY MR. SMITH:
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·And you answered it's a quotation, Dr.
`
`·9· ·Palmer, is that correct?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·The sentence that you read, the first
`
`11· ·four words, "A preferred embodiment requires,"
`
`12· ·were my words but then the quotation was from the
`
`13· ·382 patent.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·And where is that quotation from
`
`15· ·specifically?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·It looks like it was from column 6,
`
`17· ·lines 7 through 15.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Could you take out the 382 patent which
`
`19· ·is Exhibit 1001 and just look at that citation
`
`20· ·for a second?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Sure.· (Perusing.)
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Let me know when you are there.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I'm there.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·This passage talks about the server
`
`25· ·106, correct?
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·It does.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Is there any indication there that
`
`·3· ·server 106 itself is storing the information
`
`·4· ·within one or more databases?· I'm just going
`
`·5· ·back to your quote in 15.· I'm sorry, I will
`
`·6· ·rephrase the question.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Stored on one or more servers 106
`
`·8· ·within one or more databases, the last line on
`
`·9· ·page 9 in paragraph 15 of your declaration.
`
`10· · · · · · ·Is there any indication that the server
`
`11· ·itself is storing those databases in that
`
`12· ·package?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·I think that's what it says, yes.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Do you have an understanding of what
`
`15· ·the term "occupancy sensor" means?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·And what does it mean to you?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·An occupancy sensor is a device that
`
`19· ·senses the presence of occupants in a space.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Did that term have the same meaning in
`
`21· ·the relevant timeframe, in your opinion?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·I believe so.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Now, in the context of the 382 patent
`
`24· ·what do you consider to be meant by the word
`
`25· ·"processor"?
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·The word "processor" refers to
`
`·2· ·something such as a computer that
`
`·3· ·includes -- that is able to perform computational
`
`Page 19
`
`·4· ·analysis or processing in a computer sense.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·So I would think you could define
`
`·6· ·processor as something more specific like a
`
`·7· ·microprocessor computer chip.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·But your view seems to be it's more
`
`·9· ·akin to something like a machine that processes,
`
`10· ·is that right?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·No.· I would be more specific that the
`
`12· ·processor is an element of a machine as opposed
`
`13· ·to the machine as a whole.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And in your mind is it a single
`
`15· ·chip or is it some combination of things or is it
`
`16· ·just more general than that?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·I would say, in general, that the
`
`18· ·processor is usually on one chip.· I have
`
`19· ·certainly heard of some complex processing
`
`20· ·systems where you may have multiple chips that
`
`21· ·are paralleled or something of the sort.
`
`22· · · · · · ·But in general, yes, they would be
`
`23· ·contained on one chip.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Now, would you consider two
`
`25· ·microprocessors in different housings, so
`
`
`
`·1· ·effectively in two computers, to be one processor
`
`Page 20
`
`·2· ·under any circumstances?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Could you turn to paragraph 32
`
`·5· ·of your declaration?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Okay.· All right, I'm there.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·In paragraph 32 you are talking about
`
`·8· ·language in the claim.· Actually you have it here
`
`·9· ·as quoted both located remotely and remotely
`
`10· ·located.· I think it's located remotely in the
`
`11· ·claim.
`
`12· · · · · · ·But generally are you oriented in your
`
`13· ·declaration as to what you are talking about
`
`14· ·here?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· The last two lines read -- and
`
`17· ·this is of paragraph 32 -- "A POSITA would have
`
`18· ·understood 'remotely located' to mean not in the
`
`19· ·same building."
`
`20· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Now in paragraph 33 I think you're
`
`23· ·continuing the analysis of remotely located and
`
`24· ·in the last sentence on page 19 of your
`
`25· ·declaration you state, "As disclosed, the memory,
`
`
`
`·1· ·i.e. the databases, in servers 106 are remote
`
`·2· ·from and not located in the same building as the
`
`·3· ·thermostats 108 and computers 104."
`
`Page 21
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And does that sentence still accurately
`
`·7· ·reflect your views?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Okay, the sentence begins with, quote,
`
`10· ·"As disclosed."
`
`11· · · · · · ·Did you mean as disclosed in the 382
`
`12· ·patent or something else?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·As disclosed in the 382 patent, yes.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And the fact that you are saying
`
`15· ·it is disclosed in the 382 patent is that the
`
`16· ·databases 300 and servers 106 are remote from and
`
`17· ·not located in the same building as the
`
`18· ·thermostats and computers 104, that is right?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·And there's no citation to this
`
`21· ·sentence.· I'm wondering where is that disclosed
`
`22· ·in the 382 patent and specifically I'm wondering
`
`23· ·where the connection is made between located
`
`24· ·remotely and not in the same building in the 382
`
`25· ·patent?
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Well, the concept is certainly
`
`Page 22
`
`·2· ·illustrated in Figure 2.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·So, is there anything else you can
`
`·4· ·point to before we start talking about Figure 2,
`
`·5· ·or is Figure 2 the basis of your support?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·(Perusing.)· I don't have another
`
`·7· ·specific reference at this point.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And does Figure 2 indicate a
`
`·9· ·building anywhere?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Not specifically, no.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·And does it indicate where the
`
`12· ·boundaries or exterior walls of the building
`
`13· ·might be?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Not specifically, no.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Could you turn to paragraph 35 of your
`
`16· ·declaration?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·(Perusing.)· Okay.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·And here it seems like you are talking
`
`19· ·about claim limitations that begin with the
`
`20· ·language, "One or more processors with circuitry
`
`21· ·and code designed to execute instructions."
`
`22· · · · · · ·Is that right?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And it goes on for a couple of
`
`25· ·paragraphs and I just wanted to get your
`
`
`
`·1· ·explanation of what you are trying to say here.
`
`Page 23
`
`·2· · · · · · ·Let me point you to paragraph 37 toward
`
`·3· ·the end of the paragraph.· So this is page 21 of
`
`·4· ·your declaration.
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·(Perusing.)
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And starting about five lines up from
`
`·7· ·the end of that paragraph there's a sentence that
`
`·8· ·reads, "This is because a POSITA would recognize
`
`·9· ·that the processors execute instructions to
`
`10· ·perform different tasks.· This is done by the
`
`11· ·circuitry and code in the processor."
`
`12· · · · · · ·First of all are you referring to
`
`13· ·processors in the relevant timeframe here?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And are you essentially just
`
`16· ·saying here that the whole point of a processor
`
`17· ·is that it has circuitry that executes
`
`18· ·instructions to do different tasks?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·Well, that's part of it but
`
`20· ·specifically I'm saying that when the limitation
`
`21· ·says that the one or more processors with
`
`22· ·circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`23· ·instructions to do something, that to execute
`
`24· ·instructions to do something is not disconnected.
`
`25· · · · · · ·That is to say that the limitation
`
`
`
`·1· ·requires that the processors execute -- it's not
`
`Page 24
`
`·2· ·just that they are processors, it's that they are
`
`·3· ·processors that are expressly -- that have
`
`·4· ·circuitry code expressly for the purpose of the
`
`·5· ·thing that they are to do in that claim
`
`·6· ·limitation.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I notice that you are referring
`
`·8· ·to Mr. Shaw's testimony.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Are you offering this explanation just
`
`10· ·to clarify something that might be confusing or
`
`11· ·is this something that you actually applied in
`
`12· ·your analysis and it made a difference somewhere?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·I was specifically -- the way that
`
`14· ·Mr. Shaw described it in his deposition, I got
`
`15· ·the impression that basically he was saying that
`
`16· ·the phrase, "One or more processors with
`
`17· ·circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`18· ·instructions" was, itself, just basically a
`
`19· ·euphemism that said a computer.
`
`20· · · · · · ·And I believe -- well, what my
`
`21· ·explanation in these paragraphs was intended to
`
`22· ·do was to say it's not just a generic way of
`
`23· ·saying a computer, it's specifically saying that
`
`24· ·there are particular instructions that need to be
`
`25· ·executed by this combination of processors with
`
`
`
`·1· ·circuitry and code.
`
`Page 25
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Is there any place you can think
`
`·3· ·of later in the declaration where you apply this
`
`·4· ·concept?· For example where you say, well,
`
`·5· ·Mr. Shaw thinks of this too broadly but if we
`
`·6· ·interpret it correctly, actually the prior art
`
`·7· ·doesn't meet the claim limitation?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Off the top of my head, no, but I'm
`
`·9· ·sure if it's in there you will ask me.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Okay, very good.· We'll agree on that.
`
`11· · · · · · ·In paragraph 39 I think we're talking
`
`12· ·about the same limitation, "One or more
`
`13· ·processors with circuitry and code designed to
`
`14· ·execute instructions."
`
`15· · · · · · ·And I understand the gist of your
`
`16· ·analysis in this paragraph to be that certain
`
`17· ·claim elements begin with this phrase and then
`
`18· ·have a thing that the one or more processors have
`
`19· ·to do, and that in fact the same one or more
`
`20· ·processors have to do all of the elements that
`
`21· ·begin that way.
`
`22· · · · · · ·Is that right?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·And those elements, you list them out
`
`25· ·here as [1d], [1e], [1f], [1g], [1i], [1k] and
`
`
`
`·1· ·[1l].
`
`Page 26
`
`·2· · · · · · ·And I wonder if there's some shorthand
`
`·3· ·that we can refer to them as so I don't have to
`
`·4· ·repeat those each time.· Can I call those the
`
`·5· ·processor limitations or something and we will
`
`·6· ·understand that we mean the limitations you are
`
`·7· ·listing out in paragraph 39?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·It sounds like a reasonable shorthand.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let me ask you too about some
`
`10· ·additional places where this language turns up.
`
`11· · · · · · ·Is your analysis, as reflected in
`
`12· ·paragraph 39, also intended to apply to the
`
`13· ·dependent claims that have this language, "One or
`
`14· ·more processors with circuitry and code designed
`
`15· ·to execute instructions"?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·And the same language is used in places
`
`18· ·in independent Claim 17.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Is your analysis intended to apply to
`
`20· ·independent Claim 17 as well?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·And in Claim 1 of the 382 patent, you
`
`23· ·refer to this several times in your declaration
`
`24· ·but there is a limitation at the end.· I believe
`
`25· ·it's limitation [1l].· (Perusing.)
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`·1· · · · · · That says, quote, "Wherein the one or
`
`·2· ·more processors comprises a first processor with
`
`·3· ·circuitry and code designed to execute
`
`·4· ·instructions."
`
`·5· · · · · · So, would you agree with me that
`
`·6· ·limitation [1l] is saying that one of the one or
`
`·7· ·more processors has to be a first processor, and
`
`·8· ·that first processor has to have circuitry and
`
`·9· ·code designed to execute instructions for the
`
`10· ·limitation there?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Well, that's not the whole thing,
`
`12· ·actually.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`14· · · · A.· ·It continues, "Which is located
`
`15· ·remotely from the memory and is not electrically
`
`16· ·connected to the memory."
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Um-hum.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·And so, I'm sorry, maybe I lost your
`
`19· ·question.· I apologize.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·No problem at all.
`
`21· · · · · · ·In paragraph 39 you include limitation
`
`22· ·[1l] in your list of processor limitations on
`
`23· ·which your analysis is conducted, correct?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·And limitation [1l] is dealing with the
`
`
`
`·1· ·first processor which is one of the one or more
`
`Page 28
`
`·2· ·processors, correct?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Now there's a limitation [1m] which
`
`·5· ·states, "The first processor with circuitry and
`
`·6· ·code designed to execute instructions to
`
`·7· ·communicate with the memory."
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Did you mean to include [1m] in your
`
`·9· ·analysis in paragraph 39 or is that somehow an
`
`10· ·exception?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Well, the first processor designed to
`
`12· ·execute instructions to communicate with the
`
`13· ·memory is expressly referencing the one or more
`
`14· ·processors comprising the first processor which
`
`15· ·is referenced in [1l] as opposed to it being the
`
`16· ·broader one or more processors referenced in
`
`17· ·Claim 1-C.
`
`18· · · · · · ·And that's why it was not called out
`
`19· ·specifically.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yeah, 1-C.· No.· 1-B.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Let me rephrase that for a second and
`
`23· ·tell me whether you agree.
`
`24· · · · · · ·[1m] is directed to the first processor
`
`25· ·and that is a specific processor within the group
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`·1· ·of one or more processors?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Limitation [1l] is also directed to the
`
`·4· ·first processor and you included that.· So is
`
`·5· ·there some difference between [1l] and [1m]?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Well, the difference is that [1l]
`
`·7· ·refers to the one or more processors and then is
`
`·8· ·specifically calling out the first processor that
`
`·9· ·is part of or may be all of but may be part of
`
`10· ·the one or more processors.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·And in limitation [1l], is it the first
`
`12· ·processor or the one or more processors that
`
`13· ·needs to carry out the function -- oh, I see.
`
`14· · · · · · ·In limitation [1l] essentially there is
`
`15· ·no function, right?· You are just saying it's
`
`16· ·located remotely from the memory and not
`
`17· ·electrically connected to the memory?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· That makes sense.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Now at the end of paragraph 39 in your
`
`21· ·declaration you say, "A POSITA would understand
`
`22· ·that all of the 'one or more processors' must be
`
`23· ·able to perform the functions recited in claim
`
`24· ·elements [1d], [1e], [1f], [1g], [1i], [1k] and
`
`25· ·[1l]."
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Does that still accurately represent
`
`Page 30
`
`·4· ·your view?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And then you say, "That is, there needs
`
`·7· ·to be at least a single processor that meets all
`
`·8· ·of the limitations of claim elements [1d], [1e],
`
`·9· ·[1f], [1g], [1i], [1k] and [1l]."
`
`10· · · · · · ·And does that still accurately
`
`11· ·represent your view, Dr. Palmer?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·And the last time I'll do this, the
`
`14· ·last sentence of this paragraph is, quote, "Put
`
`15· ·another way, if a processor only met the
`
`16· ·limitations of claim elements [1d] and [1f], it
`
`17· ·would not meet the full limitations of Claim 1."
`
`18· · · · · · ·And does that still represent your
`
`19· ·view, Dr. Palmer?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So it seems to me like the
`
`22· ·upshot of this is that in your view, in order to
`
`23· ·meet the limitations of Claim 1 it's necessary to
`
`24· ·have a single processor that has circuitry and
`
`25· ·code designed to execute instructions to perform
`
`
`
`·1· ·all of these so-called processor limitations; is
`
`Page 31
`
`·2· ·that correct?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And what if a system has two
`
`·5· ·processors; is it necessary for both processors
`
`·6· ·to perform all of the processor limitations for
`
`·7· ·the claim to meet Claim 1?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·To meet the requirements of Claim 1, at
`
`·9· ·least one of the processors needs to perform all
`
`10· ·of the limitations.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So if we have a system with two
`
`12· ·processors and processor number one performs all
`
`13· ·the processor limitations and processor number
`
`14· ·two, say, performs only [1d] and [1e], that would
`
`15· ·still not be knocked out of contention for
`
`16· ·meeting Claim 1 because there isn't the requisite
`
`17· ·one or more processors, correct?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. LINK:· Objection, vague.
`
`19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry, I kind of lost
`
`20· ·your question.· I apologize.
`
`21· ·BY MR. SMITH:
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·No worries.
`
`23· · · · · · ·If we have a system with two processors
`
`24· ·and one of them meets all the processor
`
`25· ·limitations, it really doesn't matter what the
`
`
`
`·1· ·other processors are doing, correct?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·I think that's a fair summary.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Could you turn to paragraph 45 of your
`
`Page 32
`
`·4· ·declaration?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Now I'm going to refer -- this is a
`
`·7· ·long paragraph that goes on for almost a page and
`
`·8· ·a half.· I'm going to refer to the section on
`
`·9· ·page 25 which is maybe two-thirds of the way
`
`10· ·through.
`
`11· · · · · · ·In paragraph 45 of your declaration you
`
`12· ·are t
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
