throbber
IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
` APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
` and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
` Petitioners,
` v.
` ARENDI S.A.R.L.
` Patent Owner.
` ____________
` Cases:
` IPR2014-00206 (Patent No. 7,496,854)
` IPR2014-00207 (Patent No. 7,496,854)
` IPR2014-00208 (Patent No. 7,917,843)
`
` Thursday, August 7, 2014
` 9:03 a.m.
`
` DEPOSITION OF DANIEL A. MENASCÉ, Ph.D.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`4
`
`2
`
`12
`
`678
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`123
`
` Deposition of DANIEL A. MENASCÉ, Ph.D,
`4 taken by Patent Owner at the Offices of Morrison &
`5 Foerster LLP, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest,
`6 Washington, D.C. before Randi J. Garcia, Registered
`7 Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for
`8 the District of Columbia, beginning at approximately
`9 9:03 a.m., when were present on behalf of the
`10 respective parties:
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` I N D E X
`3 DANIEL A. MENASCÉ, Ph.D
`4 DIRECT EXAMINATION PAGE
`5 By Mr. Asher 4
`
` ***No exhibits were marked.
`
`3
`
`5
`
`1 Thereupon,
`2 DANIEL A. MENASCÉ, Ph.D
`3 after having been first duly sworn, was
`4 examined and testified as follows:
`5 EXAMINATION
`6 BY MR. ASHER:
`7 Q Please state your full name for the
`8 record.
`9 A Daniel Alberto Menascé.
`10 Q I am going to show you a Notice of
`11 Deposition of Daniel A. Menascé, Ph.D.
`12 Are you the Daniel Menascé identified in
`13 this notice, which is paper number 11 in
`14 IPR2014206? It's paper number 11 in IPR2014207.
`15 It's paper number 13 in IPR2014208.
`16 A Yes, I am.
`17 MR. YAP: Counsel, are you going to label
`18 this at all as an exhibit? No?
`19 MR. ASHER: I just identified it by its
`20 paper number, to keep it clear.
`21 Q May I refer to IPR2014206 and 207 and
`22 208 as the 206IPR, the 207IPR and 208IPR?
`
`1
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`2
`COUNSEL FOR
`PETITIONER APPLE, INC.
`3
`ALEX S. YAP, ESQUIRE
`MEHRAN ARJOMAND, ESQUIRE
`4 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
`5
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`(213) 892-5200
`6 marjomand@mofo.com
`ayap@mofo.com
`
`78
`
`COUNSEL FOR
`PETITIONERS MOTOROLA
`9 MOBILITY, LLC AND GOOGLE,
`INC.
`10
`JULIE TURNER, ESQUIRE
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`11
`2570 W. El Camino Real, Suite 380
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`12
`(650) 265-6109
`turner@turnerboyd.com
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER, ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`ROBERT M. ASHER, ESQUIRE
`JOHN J. STICKEVERS, ESQUIRE
`SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`125 Summer Street, 11th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110-1618
`(617) 443-9292
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 2
`
`

`
`6
`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`8
`1 litigation cases I have been deposed several
`2 times.
`3 Q So I will quickly run through some
`4 reminders. I will be asking the questions and
`5 the court reporter needs to take down everything
`6 that both of us say.
`7 We should not speak over one another,
`8 because it makes it difficult for her to write
`9 everything down.
`10 Do you understand?
`11 A I do.
`12 Q When I am asking a question, please wait
`13 for me to finish before responding. I will do
`14 the same. If I pause, please wait for me to
`15 finish asking the question.
`16 A Sure.
`17 Q Please answer the questions aloud and do
`18 not nod or shake your head, as the court
`19 reporter cannot write that down.
`20 A I will do it.
`21 Q If you do not -- if you don't understand
`22 the question, please make me aware of it. I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A Right. I may not have a nice -- good
` identification of those numbers. It will be
` easier if you talk about the '843 patent and
` '854, and I used to refer to the '854 inserting;
` '854 performing. So it would make life easier
` for me, you know, unless, you know, you allow me
` to do some kind of small table here mapping
` those numbers. So, otherwise, we are going to
` get in trouble.
` Q Are you the Daniel Menascé who filed the
` declaration in the IPRs with respect to the '843
` patent and with respect to the '854 patent?
` A Yes, I am.
` Q And there were two declarations for the
` '854 patent, one in each of the IPRs, is that
` correct?
` A That is correct.
` Q Do you understand that today's testimony
` will be used as cross examination of your
` declarations for use in these three inter partes
` reviews?
` A I do.
`
`7
`
`9
`
`1 Q Have you ever been deposed before?
`2 A Yes.
`3 Q About how many times?
`4 A Maybe eight or nine times.
`5 Q What sort of cases have you been deposed
`6 in?
`7 A The majority -- most of them were patent
`8 infringement cases. There was only one trade
`9 secret, misappropriation case.
`10 Q When was the most recent time you have
`11 been deposed?
`12 A It was this year. I don't remember the
`13 exact date. It was the first semester of this
`14 year.
`15 Q Who was your -- who were you hired by
`16 for that deposition?
`17 A I was hired by Oracle. The law firm was
`18 Wilmer Hale.
`19 Q So are you generally familiar with the
`20 procedure for conducting depositions?
`21 A Yes, I am. I should say that this is
`22 the first deposition for an IPR case, but for
`
`1 will rephrase the question.
`2 A I will do that.
`3 Q Your attorney may want to object to
`4 certain questions. The way that will work is I
`5 will ask a question; your attorney might object.
`6 Then there will be an answer. Under the federal
`7 rules and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`8 rules you will need to answer the question
`9 unless your attorney instructs you not to
`10 answer.
`11 A I understand that.
`12 Q We will take periodic breaks during the
`13 day for convenience and comfort. There will be
`14 a lunch break as well. It is my practice that
`15 there are no breaks while there is a question
`16 pending. Only following an answer. If you need
`17 a break, please bring that to my attention.
`18 A I will do that.
`19 Q According to the -- now, this is with
`20 respect to the inter partes review -- according
`21 to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board practice
`22 from here on out you may not discuss the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`12
`
`10
`1 substance of the inter partes review proceedings
`2 and the patents at any time with your counsel
`3 until after the deposition has been completed.
`4 Is that understood?
`5 MS. TURNER: I don't think that is an
`6 accurate statement of the rule. I think it's
`7 while cross examination is continuing.
`8 We could obviously talk about that
`9 later, since I don't anticipate you will
`10 finish cross examination within the next
`11 hour.
`12 MR. ASHER: What I was going to point out
`13 next is exactly from the appendix of the Patent
`14 Office Trial Practice Guide it reads as
`15 follows, so we can all understand: "Once the
`16 cross examination of a witness has commenced,
`17 and until cross examination of the witness has
`18 concluded, counsel offering the witness on
`19 direct examination shall not consult or confer
`20 with the witness regarding the substance of the
`21 witness' testimony already given or anticipated
`22 to be given except for the purposes of
`
`1 A Four times.
`2 Q Which cases were those?
`3 A One case was the case I referred to, the
`4 trade secret, misappropriation case. The other
`5 three cases were cases related to patent
`6 infringement.
`7 Q What was the technical subject matter
`8 involved in those three patent infringement
`9 cases?
`10 A Okay. Let me try to remember, because I
`11 -- the first one, I believe, was a case
`12 involving CollegeNet. And the technology was
`13 technology for applying to college online or
`14 online applications.
`15 Q To call what?
`16 A When you apply for college, they have an
`17 online system for doing that. So that was the
`18 technology.
`19 The second time was the ePlus case, was
`20 a electronic sourcing technology. The other one
`21 -- the other case was a case of the multivariate
`22 negotiation system.
`
`11
`
`13
`
`1 conferring on whether to assert the privilege
`2 against testifying or on how to comply with the
`3 court order, or suggest to the witness the
`4 manner in which any questions should be
`5 answered."
`6 So do you understand that guideline?
`7 THE WITNESS: I do. I mean, I will leave
`8 that to the attorneys to figure out what is the
`9 -- whatever you tell me, you know, it's the
`10 right way to do it, I will.
`11 Q I guess you're right, until cross
`12 examination is concluded.
`13 What is your address?
`14 A 6477 Wishbone Terrace, Cabin John,
`15 Maryland 20818.
`16 Q Have you ever been involved in a
`17 litigation as a plaintiff or defendant?
`18 A As a plaintiff, no, no. Just as an
`19 expert witness.
`20 Q Have you testified at trial in the past?
`21 A Yes.
`22 Q How many times?
`
`1 Q So have you been engaged as an expert
`2 witness in this case?
`3 A In this case?
`4 Q In this case.
`5 A Well, in this IPR?
`6 Q Yes.
`7 A Well, yes. I believe that's -- I really
`8 want to make sure that I am giving you the right
`9 answer, because typically expert witness are for
`10 the litigations. I don't know if I am also
`11 called an expert witness. I guess I am.
`12 Q Who contacted you to work on these
`13 cases?
`14 A Well, I was contacted by a expert
`15 witness placement firm. They put me in touch
`16 with the attorneys for the case.
`17 Q Which attorneys were they -- were you
`18 put in touch with?
`19 A Mr. Alex Yap was the first one I talked
`20 to.
`21 Q And what was your assignment in this
`22 case?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`16
`
`14
`
`1 MR. YAP: Objection to the extent it calls
`2 for work product information.
`3 You may answer.
`4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, my assignment,
`5 what I was told they were filing these
`6 petitions, and there was a need for a
`7 declaration from my part. And from that point
`8 on, you know, I started doing the work and
`9 interacting with them, reading the patents,
`10 studying them, studying the prior art, the
`11 usual thing.
`12 Q Who prepared your declaration?
`13 A I did.
`14 Q What role did the attorneys play?
`15 A Well, they gave me feedback. They had
`16 interactions, but it was my declaration.
`17 Q This is a portion of Exhibit 1002 in
`18 both IPRs, the 206 and 207. Do you recognize
`19 the document?
`20 A It seems to be my CV.
`21 Q And was the same CV submitted in all
`22 three IPRs?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` science at the same place. And then I got a
` Ph.D in computer science at UCLA.
` Q What was your field of specialty at
` UCLA?
` A My dissertation dealt with the issue of
` distributed databases. At that time networking,
` computer networking was really starting to
` become ubiquitous. So there was an issue
` whereby databases that were replicated over many
` different nodes of a computer network had to be
` synchronized. When you updated one node you had
` to make sure that the replicas of the data were
` synchronized with the other nodes in light of
` network of failures, node crashes and so on. So
` these distributed algorithms were really
` challenging, and my dissertation solved those
` problems.
` Q I hand you what is marked as Exhibit
` 1002. It comes from IPR2014-00207.
` Is this your declaration?
` A Yes. It seems to be.
` Q Do you have an understanding of the
`
`15
`
`17
`
`1 A The same CV, yes.
`2 Q Are there any corrections you believe
`3 should be made to the CV?
`4 A No. There were some additions. Since
`5 December of last year to now, you know, there
`6 were things that were added to my CV.
`7 Q Is the CV a true and accurate account of
`8 your work experience and accomplishments?
`9 A This is a true account up to December of
`10 2013, yes.
`11 Q Where did you go to college for your
`12 undergraduate degree?
`13 A The Catholic University in Rio de
`14 Janeiro, Brazil.
`15 Q What was your field of study?
`16 A Electrical engineering.
`17 Q What degree did you obtain?
`18 A Bachelor's, BS in electrical
`19 engineering.
`20 Q Did you go on to get any further college
`21 degrees?
`22 A Yes. I also got a Master's in computer
`
`1 meaning of a person of ordinary skill in the
`2 art?
`3 A I do.
`4 Q Is your understanding set forth in
`5 paragraph 28 of this declaration?
`6 A Yes. It is set forth in this paragraph.
`7 Q Do you have experience working with
`8 people of ordinary skill in the art?
`9 A I do.
`10 Q What is your experience in that respect?
`11 A I have been in academia as a professor
`12 in computer science since 1978. I have been
`13 teaching at all levels, Bachelor's, Master's,
`14 Ph.D. I was the advisor of 23 Ph.D students, 52
`15 Master students. I taught close to 100 courses
`16 over my career. So I deal with people of
`17 ordinary skill all the time.
`18 Q Can we agree that when I refer to a
`19 person of ordinary skill in the art or one of
`20 ordinary skill in the art I am referring to a
`21 person having experience described in your
`22 paragraph 28 of your declaration at the time of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`20
`
`18
`
`1 the invention of the '854 patent?
`2 A That is agreed. Thank you.
`3 Q I show you Exhibit 1008 --
`4 A Uh-huh.
`5 Q -- from the IPR 2014-00207.
`6 Do you recognize this as the
`7 Hachamovitch patent?
`8 A I do.
`9 Q Are you familiar with the Hachamovitch
`10 patent?
`11 A Yes, I am.
`12 Q Do you agree that Hachamovitch discloses
`13 a Word Completion Utility?
`14 A A Word Completion System.
`15 Q Are you uncomfortable with the term
`16 utility?
`17 A Well, if you read the first sentence of
`18 the abstract it says "a Word Completion System
`19 that can automatically predict unrestricted Word
`20 completions for data entries in an unstructured
`21 portion of a data file."
`22 So Hachamovitch refers to his invention
`
`19
`1 as a Word Completion System. In some portions
`2 he also refers as a utility.
`3 Q What is a utility?
`4 A Utility is a program.
`5 Q What distinguishes a utility from an
`6 operating system?
`7 A Well, an operating system has a very
`8 special purpose, and programs that are not part
`9 of the operating system run on top of the
`10 operating system and they require the resources
`11 provided by the operating system. These are
`12 very different types of programs in the sense
`13 that an operating system has unfettered access
`14 to the hardware resources. It can execute
`15 privilege instructions, such as halting the
`16 machine.
`17 Programs that run at the user level that
`18 are not system-level programs do not have those
`19 privileges. Everything they need has to be
`20 provided by the operating system. So if they
`21 need to access a file they need to go through
`22 the file system which is provided by the
`
`1 operating system, and so on and so forth.
`2 If they need memory, memory has to be
`3 allocated through the operating system, et
`4 cetera.
`5 So the operating system abstracts the
`6 resources of the machine and provides these
`7 abstractions to the programs that run on top of
`8 the operating system.
`9 Q Can a user launch and interact with a
`10 utility program?
`11 A It can if that utility is programmed to
`12 interact with users.
`13 Q Does Hachamovitch describe a utility
`14 that interacts with users?
`15 A Hachamovitch describes a program that
`16 interacts with other programs.
`17 Q So in order for the utility of
`18 Hachamovitch to interact with a user it has to
`19 first interact with another program, is that
`20 right?
`21 A Well, Hachamovitch is designed as a
`22 program that can interact and serve other
`
`21
`
`1 programs, and it is independent of the other
`2 programs that may use Hachamovitch.
`3 One thing that I think is important to
`4 understand in this whole context is as I was
`5 referring before what an operating system does
`6 is in order for you to run a program the
`7 operating system needs to create a process. A
`8 process is where a program runs, and the process
`9 has resources allocated to it by the operating
`10
` system, for example, memory and many other
`11
` resources.
`12
` So the invention of Hachamovitch is a
`13
` program that will run as a program as -- inside
`14
` the process provided by the operating system,
`15
` and there may be other programs that they refer
`16
` to here, like it could be a Word processor, for
`17
` example, would be a different independent
`18
` program.
`19
` Q So can the Word processing program
`20
` create a process that runs on the operating
`21
` system?
`22
` A The Word processing program does not
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`24
`
`22
`
`1 create processes. When it is launched by the
`2 user, for example, when you double click on
`3 Word, what happens is that the operating system
`4 creates a process, assigns a process ID to the
`5 process, allocates resources to the process,
`6 memory, et cetera, and then loads the image of
`7 the Word program into memory. And from that
`8 point on the operating system dispatches, the
`9 CPU allocates time slices of the CPU to the
`10
` running program or running programs, so
`11
` basically you have many programs that are
`12
` running concurrently sharing the CPU. Each one
`13
` of them being given a time slice of the CPU by
`14
` the operating system.
`15
` So when, for example, if you have your
`16
` laptop; you're running, let's say, in one window
`17
` you're running Word, in the other Excel, in the
`18
` other your Outlook. All of these programs are
`19
` running at the same time.
`20
` By that I mean that if you have only one
`21
` processor, the operating system is providing a
`22
` time slice, let's say 100 milliseconds to the
`
`23
`1 Word processor. So it goes there and does some
`2 actions within 100 milliseconds. Then it loses
`3 control of the CPU and the operating system will
`4 give a time slice to your Outlook program and so
`5 on so forth.
`6 But for you, as a user, you have an
`7 impression that all are running concurrently.
`8 That's in a nutshell one of the things,
`9 important things that an operating system does.
`10 It is shared resources among different
`11 processes.
`12 Q As you described, Excel would run on one
`13 process?
`14 A Yes.
`15 Q And Word would run on another process?
`16 A Right.
`17 Q And Outlook would run on a third
`18 process?
`19 A Right.
`20 Q And the operating system would time
`21 slice and divide its time between several
`22 slices -- between several application programs?
`
`1 A Yes. Basically it will -- because the
`2 CPU is a shared resource, it will provide shares
`3 of the CPU to each of those programs in the
`4 sense that it will time slice. Time that will
`5 give slices of a time to each running process.
`6 So it does that in a way that the user
`7 does not proceed. For example, if the duration
`8 of time slice were to be too long, then one
`9 program could monopolize the CPU for too long
`10 and then as a user you would not have the
`11 impression that these programs are running
`12 concurrently.
`13 And there are other considerations, but
`14 if you want I can go into that but...
`15 Q When the Word processor described in
`16 Hachamovitch calls its Word Completion Utility,
`17 is a new process created?
`18 A No. Typically the Word Completion
`19 System would be running in a separate process.
`20 And in operating systems -- in fact, one of the
`21 things that operating systems do is they provide
`22 what is called inter-program communication
`
`25
`
`1 mechanisms or inter-process communication
`2 mechanisms. These are mechanisms by which one
`3 process can communicate with another process.
`4 For example, you could have a Word
`5 processor running in process A; Hachamovitch
`6 running in process B and they can communicate.
`7 So there are many inter-process
`8 communication mechanisms. One of them could be
`9 a remote procedure call, another could be a
`10
` service code. This process would be providing
`11
` some services to another program. And there are
`12
` message passing. This is another exactly of a
`13
` service provider mechanism, I should say
`14
` provided by the operating system, to allow
`15
` programs to communicate with one another.
`16
` So the actual way by which the
`17
` communications implemented can vary. It was
`18
` known to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`19
` way, way before 1998. I mean, any operating
`20
` system textbook would talk about that.
`21
` Q So if the Word processing program calls
`22
` the Word Completion Utility, the two of them
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`28
`
`26
`
`1 share the same process on the operating system?
`2 A No. They don't. No. They don't. As I
`3 explained before, each one is running on its own
`4 process. And they can communicate and they are
`5 still running on their separate processes. They
`6 can exchange messages through the operating
`7 systems, for example, by which, for example, the
`8 process in which Word is running can send a
`9 message to the other process with some
`10
` parameters. The other process can act on that
`11
` and send parameters back. That is one example
`12
` of inter-process communication.
`13
` But they are independent in the sense
`14
` that the operating system is time slicing these
`15
` processes. It's sharing the CPU among these
`16
` processes.
`17
` Q So when the Word processing program is
`18
` running, it has a process assigned by the
`19
` operating system, is that right?
`20
` A Right. Correct.
`21
` Q And if it calls a Word Completion
`22
` Utility, what happens in terms of the process?
`
`1 with a process that is being used to run
`2 Hachamovitch.
`3 So by doing that, these processes, Word
`4 Excel, Outlook, they can request Hachamovitch to
`5 perform some tests, such as, for example, give
`6 me a suggested list of completions for this
`7 partial entry. Hachamovitch would then do its
`8 job and return that list to whoever requested.
`9 Could be Microsoft Word, could be Excel. Could
`10
` be Outlook.
`11
` Q If I refer to Figures 2A through C of
`12
` Hachamovitch, do you see items 208, 208 prime
`13
` and 208 double prime?
`14
` A I do.
`15
` Q What are 208, 208 prime and 20 double
`16
` prime?
`17
` A Well, this is showing that the user is
`18
` typing here. For example, let's take a look at
`19
` 208. The user is typing today is June, and the
`20
` user typed only JUN. And at this point the Word
`21
` processor makes a request to Hachamovitch and
`22
` asked for a suggested completion, list of
`
`27
`
`29
`
`1 A Well, typically this Word Completion
`2 Utility or program is running on a separate
`3 process. And one of the deployments that
`4 Hachamovitch discloses here -- let me go to the
`5 citation for you.
`6 So, for example, if you go to column
`7 seven, starting on line 65 it says
`8 "alternatively, the Word Completion System may
`9 be deployed within an operating system or as a
`10
` standalone utility that may operate on an
`11
` application independent basis.
`12
` Application independence is the ability
`13
` of the same Word Completion System to work with
`14
` several different application programs, such as
`15
` a Word processing program, an e-mail program, a
`16
` spreadsheet program, a personal calendar program
`17
` and so forth."
`18
` So in this embodiment disclosed by
`19
` Hachamovitch what that means is that
`20
` Hachamovitch is running as a separate process,
`21
` and other processes such as the ones on which
`22
` Word, e-mail, Excel are running, can communicate
`
`1 completions.
`2 A completion list pops up on top of the
`3 word JUN to indicate that a completion can be
`4 done using June 26, 1997.
`5 In the next figure we have something
`6 similar. We have MIC being typed, and then a
`7 pop-up window will show a possible completion,
`8 being Microsoft Corporation and that's again
`9 provided by Hachamovitch.
`10
` In the last one, Figure 2C shows that
`11
` you are typing VER probably, you know, you're
`12
` typing a letter, and then Hachamovitch is
`13
` requested for completion and it returns "very
`14
` truly yours."
`15
` Q Does the request to the utility program
`16
` happen after, you said, JUN?
`17
` A After you type JUN the Word processor in
`18
` this case will make a request to Hachamovitch to
`19
` the program, and then Hachamovitch will then go
`20
` through a possible list of completions and
`21
` provide completion back to the Word processor.
`22
` So this is what user sees. The user
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`9 (Pages 30 to 33)
`32
`
`30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` sees this pop-up window.
` Q What about after you type just JU, is
` there a request at that point?
` A Well, typically, I mean, Hachamovitch
` contemplates some mechanisms and some rules by
` which it will, for example, say if we go -- let
` me go -- let's go to Figure 5, for example. In
` Figure 5, if you look at step 504, here
` Hachamovitch is asking the question minimum
` number of characters since less delimiter.
` Basically the idea is that maybe if you
` just type one letter, you don't want to be, you
` know, looking for other completion for just one
` letter, because you could have a humongous list,
` right?
` So I think that one parameter that can
` be used by Hachamovitch is the minimum number of
` characters. After two letters or after three
` letters, then you can get another completion,
` something like that.
` If you follow this flowchart in Figure 5
` you will see after Hachamovitch comes up with
`
`31
`1 the completion in the Word Completion Field, if
`2 the user says, okay, user selects one of those
`3 completions in that list, then Hachamovitch
`4 replaces the current data, current data meaning
`5 the partial entry with the completion on step
`6 518 of Figure 5.
`7 Q Which program is performing that step
`8 504 minimum number of characters since last
`9 delimiter?
`10
` A Hachamovitch.
`11
` Q That would be the Word Completion
`12
` Utility?
`13
` A It would be the Hachamovitch program.
`14
` So if you look at Figure 5, Figure 5 is
`15
` Hachamovitch. It's a flowchart of what is going
`16
` on here. There is a -- when the Word processor
`17
` or someone is typing something in the Word
`18
` processor these partial entries are being passed
`19
` to Hachamovitch, and Hachamovitch will execute
`20
` its algorithm, its flowchart which is shown in
`21
` Figure 5.
`22
` So it is looking at what is being typed.
`
`1 It says "minimum number of characters, yes or
`2 no. Is there an unambiguous match to a name
`3 entry?" This is something else that
`4 Hachamovitch does when it provides a list of
`5 completions. It makes sure that at least one of
`6 those could be an unambiguous match. That is
`7 the way they decide to do it.
`8 There are some other questions here.
`9 "Does context and capitalization match?"
`10
` Finally, step 514 you display completion
`11
` in the Word completion field, and you receive a
`12
` completion code and then Hachamovitch replaces
`13
` the current data item with the completion.
`14
` Q So is that it each time one enters a
`15
` character into the Word processing program, that
`16
` process stops and moves to the Hachamovitch
`17
` process?
`18
` A It doesn't have to stop. It doesn't
`19
` have to stop. I mean, like I explained before
`20
` to you, you have two processes running
`21
` concurrently, and they can be communicating with
`22
` each other and a process does not have to stop
`
`33
`
`1 -- I mean, there are several -- in operating
`2 systems are there several ways of communicating.
`3 One is called synchronous communication.
`4 And the other is asynchronous communication.
`5 Synchronous communication would mean
`6 that you send a message or you make a request to
`7 another program and you wait for that reply to
`8 move on.
`9 Asynchronous means that you make a
`10
` request and keep doing what you're doing, and
`11
` eventually you may receive a reply and you act
`12
` on that reply.
`13
` These are just implementation details.
`14
` These are just things that were known to a
`15
` person of ordinary skill in the art, so they
`16
` could choose many different ways to implement
`17
` this interaction. And that would be up to
`18
` whoever is doing the implementation. These were
`19
` all known techniques by -- actually way before
`20
` 1998.
`21
` Q If the machine has a single processor,
`22
` are you saying it can run more than one process
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1012 - Page 9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, IPR2014-00208
`August 7, 2014
`Menasce, Ph.D., Daniel A.
`10 (Pages 34 to 37)
`36
`
`34
`
`1 at the same time?
`2 A Oh, yes. At the same time. And when I
`3 say at the same time I mean, logically speaking,
`4 if you only have one processor, you have many
`5 processes using the CPU at the same time,
`6 logically speaking.
`7 In the sense that, because the time
`8 slice is typically very short, what happens is
`9 that users do not perceive t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket