`
`·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