Page 110
`
`Page 112
`
`1 4 probably away from you.
`2
`A Exhibit 2, page 16?
`3
`Q Wait, I'm sorry. One housekeeping
`4 matter before we move on, I apologize. I didn't
`5 mark Exhibit 4 quite yet. Here is Exhibit 4. It
`6 might make a little more sense now.
`7
`(Exhibit 4 marked for identification
`8 by the court reporter.)
`9
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) And this will be
`10 brief. I just want to make sure that in Exhibit 4,
`11 the interpretations that are in paragraph 35, 74,
`12 81, and 82 of Exhibit 2 are not present anywhere in
`13 Exhibit 4.
`
`A Can you refresh me again roughly,
`14
`15 what are we looking for?
`16
`Q Sure. Paragraph 35 was the
`17 definition of distinguish.
`18
`A Okay.
`19
`Q 74 was arranging impedance within the
`20 at least one path meaning placing an impedance in a
`21 path between contacts. And 81 and 82 were placing
`22 the impedance in the path for the purpose of with
`23 respect to claims 67 and 31 respectively.
`24
`A No, I don't see it in here.
`25
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`
`1 well?
`
`A Yes, they depend on that one, yeah.
`2
`3 But that's sort of the general meaning of it that I
`4 think it has, yes.
`5
`Q Okay. All right. Sorry for the
`6 little sidetrack there. Let's go to page 16 of
`7 Exhibit 2, please.
`8
`A Okay.
`9
`Q Okay. In paragraph 59 you -- oh, I
`10 think you have the wrong one. Exhibit 2. That's
`11 Exhibit 3.
`
`12
`13
`14 16.
`
`A Page 16, paragraph which?
`Q 59. Starts on 59 and goes on to page
`
`A Okay.
`15
`Q So in paragraphs 53 through 60, you
`16
`17 are talking about Ethernet Connectors With Multiple
`18 Contacts?
`
`A Right.
`19
`Q And you show this picture on page 59
`20
`21 [sic] that represents a front view looking into a
`22 Base-T Ethernet connector at the contacts.
`
`A Right.
`23
`Q And you state in paragraph 56 that
`24
`25 "One of ordinary skill in the art knows the scope
`
`Page 111
`
`Page 113
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) And I'm sorry to
`1
`2 belabor this one point because we've been bantering
`3 on it back and forth.
`I just want to make sure the
`4 record is clear for later.
`5
`MR. BLUESTONE: And Tim, I'll give
`6 you your asked and answered objection right now for
`7 you.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) On 35 we talked
`8
`9 about "The plain and ordinary meaning of
`10 ‘distinguish’ is ‘to separate into kinds, classes,
`11 or categories."'
`12
`I am just asking again, is that your
`13 understanding of the plain meaning of distinguish
`14 as read in context of the intrinsic evidence?
`15
`A That is my -- I'm not sure exactly
`16 what you mean by that. That's my understanding of
`17 the plain and ordinary meaning of distinguish in
`18 ordinary English --
`19
`Q Okay.
`20
`A -- and the way would I use it in that
`21 claim.
`
`1 of the above phrases," and those are the phrases in
`2 53 and 54, "as they were concepts well known in the
`3 art at the time the '012 patent was filed. " This
`4 is a lot of background for my question here.
`5
`So what you're showing in figure --
`6 or under paragraph 59, this figure, is an Ethernet
`7 connector comprising a plurality of contacts;
`8 right?
`9
`A Correct.
`10
`Q And this is simply a two-dimensional
`11 cross-reference of what the IEEE standard would
`12 show for the connector; correct?
`13
`A Right. It's looking into the front.
`14
`Q Okay. And it would be the same
`15 connector that was adopted at least in 1993;
`16 correct?
`17
`A Correct.
`18
`Q Okay. So this figure is known, an
`19 Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of
`20 contacts is known; correct?
`21
`A Yes.
`
`Q In the claim of the ‘O12 patent?
`22
`A The way I interpret it in claim 31
`23
`24 and 67.
`25
`Q And the asserted dependent claims as
`
`Q Now we're going to mm to paragraph
`22
`23 61 through 65. And under 64 you have a nice
`24 picture of the same Ethernet connector but with a
`25 line going across from pins 1 to 8; is that
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`29 (Pages 110 - 113)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0029
`
`

`
`Page 114
`
`Page 116
`
`1 correct?
`2
`A It is.
`
`Q And what is this showing in paragraph
`3
`4 64, this figure?
`5
`A This is showing a path between pin 1
`6 and pin 8.
`7
`Q Okay. And when you say in paragraph
`8 63 that "One of ordinary skill in the art would
`9 understand this to mean that a path is coupled
`10 between the specific contacts," does that mean that
`11 what is shown in paragraph 64 was also known?
`12
`A I am not sure I follow what the
`
`13 question is. This is an example of a path between
`14 contacts.
`
`Q Okay. So if we're looking at --
`15
`16 looking at these claims as of the time of the
`17 invention, right, which is what you said you're
`18 supposed to do before; correct?
`19
`A Mm-hmm.
`
`Q And you say a person would understand
`20
`21 what it means to have a path coupled between
`22 contacts of an Ethernet connector; correct?
`23
`A Mm-hmm.
`
`Q When you say that, does that equate
`24
`25 that someone would -- that basically the schematic
`
`1 Let's go on to paragraph 66 through 78. And now
`2 we're talking about impedance within the path
`3 between the contacts of the Ethernet connector.
`
`A Right.
`4
`Q And I'm going to refer to you
`5
`6 paragraph 77. Would a person of ordinary skill in
`7 the art at the date of filing of the earliest
`8 patent application or the date of invention have
`9 already seen something similar to the schematic in
`10 paragraph 77?
`11
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`12
`A Whether they would have seen this
`13 exact schematic or not, I don't know, but certainly
`14 you would be familiar with what the Ethernet
`15 connector is, what an impedance is, and what a path
`16 is.
`
`So I think those are very familiar
`17
`18 concepts to anyone of skill in the art at that time
`19 and since Ethernet, you know, twisted pairing had
`20 been around for some years, certainly they would
`21 have seen schematics that had connections across
`
`22 the contacts of a modular jack.
`23
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. I'll show
`24 you what we'll mark as Exhibit 5.
`25
`(Exhibit 5 marked for identification
`
`Page 115
`
`Page 117
`
`in paragraph 64 already existed prior to the date
`1
`2 of invention; correct?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3
`A You mean had anyone ever actually
`4
`5 hooked pin 1 to pin 8 like that? I don't know.
`6 That's an example of a path between contacts.
`7
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) How did you
`8 select this schematic to be used?
`
`A I wanted to show a path between two
`9
`10 contacts, so I selected 1 and 8 and I made a
`11 connection with them.
`
`Q But you're not asserting that the
`12
`13 inventors invented having a path across the two
`14 contacts; right?
`15
`A No.
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form. You
`16
`17 got to wait. Give me a second.
`18
`THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay, sorry.
`19
`MR. KRIEGER: Also I noticed before
`
`20 there's a couple of mm-hmms, they need to be yes or
`21 no, so it's clear.
`
`1 by the court reporter.)
`2
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So on the right
`3 of Exhibit 5 I believe is an accurate copy of the
`4 figure in paragraph 77.
`5
`A Okay.
`6
`Q Is that correct? Would you say it's
`7 accurate?
`8
`A Yes.
`
`Q Okay. And on the left we've just
`9
`10 taken the independent claim language and
`11 highlighted certain elements in green. What I'd
`12 like you to do is, starting with claim 31, tell me
`13 whether any aspect of what's in green isn't shown
`14 in your schematic on the right.
`15
`MR. KRIEGER: Are we just talking
`16 about 31 right now?
`17
`MR. BLUESTONE: Yeah, just 31.
`18 Thanks, Tim.
`19
`MR. KRIEGER: Okay.
`20
`A Okay. And what is it you want to
`21 know?
`
`THE WITNESS: Okay.
`22
`MR. KRIEGER: Thank you.
`23
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So sitting here
`24
`25 today you can't tell me whether -- forget that.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Is there anything
`22
`23 -- you go through in the report how the schematic
`24 correlates to the claim language.
`25
`A Right.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`30 (Pages 114 - 117)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0030
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0030
`
`

`
`Q My question for you is does the
`1
`2 highlighted language in green correlate accurately
`3 to what's shown in the schematic? Or is there
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Good afternoon,
`Mr. Baxter.
`
`A Good afiemoon.
`
`Page 118
`
`Page 120
`
`4 something I need to remove fi'om highlighting in
`5 green that isn't correlated?
`6
`A I guess the only thing I would
`7 quibble with is the last -- the last highlight
`8 there because it -- "associated to impedance" is
`9 really sort of one phrase, I mean.
`10
`Q Okay. But is there -- well,
`11 "associated" isn't highlighted. Is there impedance
`12 within the at least one path shown on the right?
`13
`A There is, but you need to unhighlight
`14 impedance I think is what I'm saying. It's
`15 "associated to impedance" is the phrase. It's not
`16 just "associated."
`17
`Q Okay. Okay. So we'll come back to
`18 whether distinguishing information is associated
`19 to, but we do know that, according to your
`20 schematic, this has an impedance within the path
`21 because you have that resistor symbol; right?
`22
`A Right.
`23
`Q Okay. Can you do the same analysis
`24 on claim 67 below, please?
`25
`OUTSIDE INTERRUPTION: I'm sorry, can 25
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Q I'm going to direct your attention to
`Exhibit 2 again, your Declaration, and point you to
`paragraph 82, please.
`A Paragraph 80 what?
`Q 82.
`A Oka .
`
`Q Just let me know when you've gotten a
`chance to review it.
`
`A Okay.
`Q This paragraph discusses defendants‘
`position that distinguishing information about the
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment being
`associated to impedance is some active step that
`needs to happen by an actor. And your position, as
`it states in paragraph 82, is the claim "does not
`require an active step or action on the part of the
`user."
`
`My question to you is, how is it --
`how does one place an impedance into the circuit
`but not have that be an active step?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A Well, the manufacturing a product is
`
`Page 119
`
`Page 121
`
`1 I talk to you just for one quick second?
`2
`MR. BLUESTONE: Can we just have him
`3 finish this one question and we'll take a break?
`4
`OUTSIDE INTERRUPTION: Yeah, go ahead.
`5
`MR. BLUESTONE: Okay, yeah.
`6
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`7
`A And what was the question you
`8 objected to?
`9
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Are all the items
`10 shown in green reflected upon the schematic picture
`11 on the right?
`12
`A Yeah, I think that's roughly
`13 accurate. Once again, it's the "arranging" and
`14 "distinguishing" sort of go together. So I don't
`15 -- other than that I think, yeah, that...
`16
`Q But you have put a impedance within
`17 that path on the right; correct?
`18
`A Yeah.
`
`MR. BLUESTONE: You guys wanted to
`19
`20 take a break?
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off
`21
`22 the record at approximately 12:06 p.m.
`23
`(Off the record.)
`24
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on
`
`25 record at approximately 1:13 p.m.
`
`1 an activity. We're talking about the design of the
`2 product such that when the manufacturing is
`3 completed, that impedance is in there to -- for the
`4 purpose of providing distinguishing information.
`5
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So just
`6 grammatically looking at this in paragraph 82, the
`7 language that you're interpreting is "wherein
`8 distinguishing information is associated to
`9 impedance within the at least one path“?
`10
`A Mm-hII1In.
`11
`Q That statement doesn't apply any
`12 particular time, does it?
`13
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`14
`A The statement "wherein distinguishing
`15 ir1formation"?
`16
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Yeah, the act of
`17 associating to impedance, does that, in and of
`itself, tell you when that association is supposed
`to occur?
`
`A Well, to me, because this is an
`
`apparatus claim, it means that it's done within the
`apparatus. It's one of the -- it's part of the
`apparatus.
`Q So how do you get from associating --
`you don't apply any claim construction or any
`
`NNNNNNHHu:.I>L.zN>—-oxooo
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`31 (Pages 118 - 121)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0031
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0031
`
`

`
`Page 124
`contacts, that that shows that it was known back
`then.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Is that -- so is
`it correct to say that the telephone connector uses
`a twisted pair set of wiring; correct?
`A Yes.
`
`Q And Ethernet connector also uses a
`twisted pair of wiring; correct?
`A Yes.
`
`Q And the only difference is the number
`of pairs for that connector; correct?
`A Well, that's one difference. I mean,
`
`there's difference in performance and other things
`but...
`
`1 2 3
`
`0O\lO’\UI-R
`
`9
`10
`ll
`12
`13
`
`Q Well, just the connector.
`A Right. The connectors, there's a
`whole range of performance of modular connectors
`and the telephone jacks were typically lower
`performing. Was the fact they were generally made
`before there was a range of performance.
`Q But they're both twisted pair?
`A Both twist -- the cable was twisted
`22
`23 pair, yes.
`24
`Q Thank you. And both would have
`25 contacts?
`
`18
`
`A Yes, it's built in at the time of
`
`19 manufacture. It's, again, as we have talked about
`20 numerous times, the designer of this equipment
`21 decides what distinguishing information he wants to
`22 associate to impedance and he builds it in.
`23
`Q Okay. Let's go to paragraph 74.
`24 Paragraph 74 you're talking about "arranging
`25 impedance within the at least one path."
`
`A Mm-hmm.
`1
`Q And you discuss a patent, US Patent
`2
`3 No. 4,723,267, which I'll mark as our next exhibit,
`4 Exhibit 6.
`
`A Right.
`1
`Q And both could have a path across the
`2
`3 contacts; right?
`4
`A Yes.
`
`Page 123
`
`Page 125
`
`(Exhibit 6 marked for identification
`5
`6 by the court reporter.)
`7
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Here's a copy of
`8 that, sir. Why did you select the '267 patent,
`9 Exhibit 6?
`10
`A It's just an example of placing an
`11 impedance across the tip and ring conductors.
`12
`Q And this is cited in the intrinsic
`13 evidence; correct? Exhibit 6?
`14
`A Yes.
`15
`Q And Exhibit 6 is telephone art, not
`16 Ethernet; correct?
`
`A Right. It's simply indicating that
`17
`18 placing an impedance across contacts was lmown.
`19
`Q So is the telephone art analogous to
`20 Ethernet art for the purpose of trying to figure
`21 out what the claim terms mean?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`22
`A I don't think telephone art in
`23
`24 general is necessarily analogous, but in this case
`25 where it talks about placing an impedance across
`
`Q And just to make sure we close the
`5
`6 loop on this, for those reasons, that's why you
`7 decided that you could apply Exhibit 6 to provide a
`8 meaning of what arranging impedance is?
`9
`A Right, in particular placing it
`10 across the contacts.
`11
`Q If you could go to paragraph 46?
`12 Again, Exhibit 2. In 46 you're talking about your
`13 opinion that "distinguishing information to
`14 distinguish does not require" -- rather "do not
`15 require a physical connection to the network much
`less the physical presence of a second piece of
`terminal equipment."
`Are you saying that the accused -- an
`accused device doesn't need to be compared with
`anything else ever?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A I'm not sure how you get that from
`
`this.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Well, how do I
`know whether the device is in fact serving a
`
`Nt\Jt\)l\)l\)Nr—*>—*r—->—‘U1-l>LoJt\)>-‘O\DoO\lO'\
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`32 (Pages 122 - 125)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0032
`
`Page 122
`
`1 definition of associate, right, in your report?
`2
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3
`A In this one here?
`
`4
`5
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Yeah.
`A I -- I don't recall if I did in this
`
`6 one or the previous one.
`7
`Q Well, let me ask, how do you get --
`8 what's your understanding of what it means to
`9 associate?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`10
`A Things are associated, they have some
`11
`12 relationship or some linkage or relationship
`13 between them.
`14
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And please 14
`15
`15 correct me if I'm wrong, your read in paragraph 82
`16
`16 was saying that that association has to occur at
`17
`17 the time of manufacture?
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0032
`
`

`
`Page 126
`
`Page 128
`
`1 distinguishing purpose unless it actually has been
`2 connected to a device with something else?
`3
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`4
`A Well, as I said before, you could
`5 reverse engineer the device, you could analyze the
`6 documentation specifications of the device, and you
`7 could test the device by connecting it to a piece
`8 of test equipment, not another similar piece of
`9 terminal equipment.
`10
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) And even if you
`11 did that testing, you would have to go and find
`12 some agreed understanding of what that measurement
`13 value is supposed to mean; correct?
`14
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection to form.
`15
`A Can you --
`16
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) This might be
`17 somewhat -- this might be helpful.
`18
`MR. BLUESTONE: Can I get Exhibit 7?
`19
`(Exhibit 7 marked for identification
`20 by the court reporter.)
`21
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So here's Exhibit
`22 7. And we took your figure fiom paragraph 77, that
`23 schematic that we previously discussed, and we made
`24 two other copies and labeled them A, B and C. Do
`25 you see that?
`
`1 compliant? Do you now know enough information to
`2 know whether there's distinguishing information?
`3
`A I would say there probably is in that
`4 case, yeah. Once again, I'd want to look at the
`5 product in its entirety, but I think that's -- and
`6 assuming it really does what you say it does and so
`7 on, yeah.
`8
`Q Now, what if I take B and I say I've
`9 put in 50 kilo ohms bu -- 50 ohms and it's for
`10 impedance matching?
`11
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`12
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) In that
`13 circumstance do I have information associated with
`
`14 distinguishing information?
`15
`A Not just from that, no.
`16
`Q And I think I phrased that poorly,
`17 let me ask that again. Do I have distinguishing
`18
`information associated with the impedance?
`19
`A No, not just from that little bit.
`20
`Q And with that example I just gave you
`21
`about a 50 ohm resistance for the purpose of
`22
`impedance matching, if today IEEE adopted a
`23
`standard that says I want you to put in 50 ohms to
`24
`comply with 802.3, whatever the latest number is,
`25
`at that point in time now has B been associated --
`
`Page 127
`
`Page 129
`
`A Yes, I do.
`1
`Q And each one of those is an accurate
`2
`3 copy of the picture that's in paragraph 77; right?
`4
`A I believe so, yes.
`5
`Q All right. If I just give you this
`6 sheet of paper of Exhibit 7 I've labeled A, B, and
`7 C, do I know if any one of these is associated with
`8 distinguishing information?
`9
`A No, not just from this.
`10
`Q What else do I need to know?
`11
`A Well, again, we have talked about
`12 this a number of times.
`
`Q Sure.
`13
`A You need to look at the product and
`14
`15 whether it meets each of the claims, and in
`
`16 particular whether there is an association between
`17 this impedance and some particular distinguishing
`18 feature of the product.
`19
`Q So if I told you that A is 25 kilo
`20 ohms, B is 100 kilo ohms, C is 100 ohms, do you
`21 know any other -- enough information now to discern
`22 whether anything is arranged to distinguish?
`23
`A No.
`
`Q What if A is 25 kilo ohms and I've
`24
`25 put it in for the purpose of identifying as PoE
`
`10
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`\OOO\lO\'JI-l>LoJl\)P-‘
`
`does B have impedances associated with
`distinguishing information?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A Based on what you just said, I would
`say no. You said IEEE wants you to put it in.
`Okay. It wants you to put it in.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. Now take
`that same example, now all of a sudden I am doing
`this not for the purpose of IEEE wants me to put it
`in, but I want to identify that my device has
`impedance matching.
`MR. KRIEGER: Is there a question?
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) At that point do
`I have an impedance that's associated with
`15 distinguishing information?
`16
`A Are you saying this is the impedance
`17 that's doing the matching?
`1 8
`Q Yeah.
`19
`A Well, I don't think one of ordinary
`20 skill in the art would ordinarily use the matching
`21 impedance to distinguish the information because
`22 anything hooking to that kind of cable would no
`23 doubt have that impedance in it to match. So I
`24 don't see that as being a dual purpose use of the
`25 resistor.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`33 (Pages 126 - 129)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0033
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0033
`
`

`
`Page 130
`
`Page 132
`
`Q What if I tell you this is why I did
`1
`2 it? Iput it in my documentation, I give you sworn
`3 testimony and I say I am putting in this 50 ohm
`4 resistor because I want to identify this as having
`5 an impedance matching characteristic?
`6
`A Well, again, I would say I would have
`7 to look at the product in its entirety and see what
`8 it's doing and why that resistor is really there
`9 and what is being done with it.
`10
`Q Okay. Let's go to paragraph 39.
`11 Okay. So in paragraph 39 I believe you were
`12 discussing -- well, why don't you tell me what's
`13 going on in paragraph 39.
`I don't want to put
`14 words in your mouth.
`15
`A Okay. Paragraph 39 is discussing the
`16 blocking circuit which is described in the ‘O12
`17 specification.
`18
`Q And your conclusion is that this
`19 blocking circuit is an example of distinguishing by
`20 simply classifying or categorizing; correct?
`21
`A Right. Either it gets the right
`22 response, it says it's authorized, or it says
`23 you're unauthorized. It's one of the two.
`24
`Q And you would say that this is
`25 analogous to Power over Ethernet operation;
`
`1 current, and decide, you know, is it one of us or
`2 is it not one of us?
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) And by "one of us
`3
`4 or one of us," you mean compliant or non-compliant?
`5
`A Well, in the one case I mean is it
`6 authorized to be on the network and in the other
`7 case I mean is it a PD or is it not PD.
`
`Q Are you aware of any IEEE standards
`8
`9 that would look at return loss or anything like
`10 that?
`11
`A That would look at return loss in
`
`12 what respect?
`13
`Q So in 802.3, are there any tests that
`14 are done to test the impedance to see what return
`15 loss is going on?
`16
`A 802.3 back in 1998?
`
`Q Let's say 1993.
`17
`A '93? I don't recall any.
`18
`Q There could be a test that you would
`19
`20 apply that would go and say we're going to see if
`21 this setup is compatible by measuring the return
`22 loss; right?
`23
`A You could, yeah.
`24
`Q I mean, there would be tests of, for
`25 example, is the cable sufficient to work right, for
`
`Page 131
`
`Page 133
`
`1 correct?
`
`A I think this is analogous to the
`2
`3 detection operation in Power over Ethernet, yes.
`4
`Q Okay. Now, in Power over -- now, in
`5 this example, when you're talking about the
`6 blocking circuit, the -- the station, the station
`7 in question already is powered up; right?
`8
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection to form.
`9
`A Presumably the station is powered up,
`10 yes.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And in
`11
`12 Power over Ethernet there is -- the assessment
`
`13 that's going on -- I believe you referred to it as
`14 the detection stage?
`15
`A Right. Yes.
`16
`Q At that instance, the device is
`17 either not powered up or it's not using PoE power,
`18 it's not going to use POE power at all; correct?
`19
`A Correct.
`
`Q So in that circumstance it's
`20
`21 different because the PoE operation has no power?
`22 From the, sorry, from the PSE?
`23
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`24
`A Well, it's analogous to me in the
`25 sense that you put a voltage out, analyze the
`
`1 example?
`2
`A Right.
`3
`Q Sorry?
`4
`A Yes. I'm not -- nevermind. I've
`
`5 forgotten where I was.
`6
`Q Well, let's say we have a test that's
`7 measuring the return loss and seeing if it's within
`8 acceptable ranges. That's my hypothetical.
`9
`A Okay.
`10
`Q And you're testing it across an
`11 Ethernet connected -- a device with an Ethernet
`12 connector.
`
`A Okay.
`13
`Q Isn't that also going to be a
`14
`15 circumstance in which you're testing to see if it's
`16 compliant or not?
`17
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, fonn.
`18
`A Yes, assuming that's what you're
`19 doing, you'd be testing for -- to measure the
`20 return loss.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And if the
`21
`22 device in question does not have the return loss in
`23 the appropriate ranges, it would be deemed
`24 non-compliant; correct?
`25
`A Well, that, I mean, that's the design
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`34 (Pages 130 - 133)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0034
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0034
`
`

`
`Page 134
`
`Page 136
`
`1 decision you make. Do you want to shift down a
`2 speed, do you want to try to do the best you can at
`3 that speed, do you want, you know. It's -- it's a
`4 design choice.
`5
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But the result of
`6 the test would be that particular device is in a
`7 classification of compliant or non-compliant;
`8 correct?
`
`9
`
`A Well, the device and the associated
`
`10 cabling, all, the whole deal either complies or
`11 not, yes.
`12
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One moment,
`
`13 please.
`14
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So can you, and
`15 you can use the patent if that's helpful, Exhibit
`16 1, can you explain how the blocking circuit
`17 determines whether the device is authorized?
`
`A Let me just refresh real quick. My
`18
`19 copy I have highlighted so I can find things
`20 easier.
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`welcome to put that highlighted copy into the
`record if you want.
`MR. KRIEGER: If I had one.
`
`MR. KRIEGER: You can take your time.
`MR. BLUESTONE: You're more than
`
`Page 135
`
`A Okay. Now, what was the question?
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) How does the
`blocking circuit work such that it classifies or
`categorizes a device?
`A Well, if you don't -- well, when you
`apply current to the device, like we envision here,
`if you don't get a proper authorization code back,
`then the central module will trigger a blocking
`circuit which either opens or shorts the data lines
`together.
`Q Where is the distinguishing
`information there?
`
`A Distinguishing information is in the
`identity that th -- the identification number that
`the module sends back.
`
`>—-o\ooo\Ia~u:4>LnN>—-
`
`P-‘P-4
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`Q Now, what it's sending back isn't
`saying I am not authorized, is it? The code you're
`18 talking about doesn't say I am not authorized?
`19
`A That would be a foolish thing to send
`20 back, wouldn't it?
`
`Q Right. So where hi this circuitry do
`21
`22 we see something that says I have classified this
`23 as authorized? Is there a database that's saying
`24 that?
`
`25
`
`A Well, there's a little onboard
`
`1 processor which is analyzing the data is gets back,
`and it can assert a lead which causes the blocking
`circuit to trigger.
`Q And that circuit you're talking about
`would be on the PSE side? Or actually, wrong
`terminology, sorry. The central module side?
`A Yes.
`
`\O0O\lO\UI-l>Lo)l\)
`
`[\)[\)[\)t\)[\)[\)r—->->-r—A>—A>—->-r—Ar—A>—IUI-l>Lo)l\)>-'O¥OOO\lO\LlI-l>Lo2l\)r-‘O
`\DOO\lO\UI-hbJl\)r-‘
`-l>LoJl\)>-‘O\DOO\lO'\UI-hbélxirflc
`
`[\)[\)[\)[\)[\)r—A>—Ir—->—->—A>—A>—-r—->—->—-
`
`25
`
`Q Okay. So in 39, if the device is
`unauthorized, does that mean there's distinguishing
`information associated with unauthorized?
`
`A No, it means there's lack of
`
`distinguishing information.
`Q But if it's authorized, then it has
`distinguishing information?
`A Right.
`Q Logically speaking, why does it make
`any difference whether you put the label on
`authorized or unauthorized?
`
`A Well, because authorizing is what
`you're trying to do and you build equipment that
`specifically does something to make it authorized.
`And so you put that distinguishing feature into the
`equipment.
`Q Couldn't I just as easily say that
`the purpose of a blocking circuit is to stop
`
`Page 137
`
`unauthorized and say I'm looking for unauthorized
`and get the same result?
`A Except the unauthorized people did
`not arrange themselves to be blocked. All right?
`They didn't go out of their way to put stuff in
`that would cause them to be blocked. All right?
`The circuit is designed so that if
`you've done the proper things, you can get through.
`It doesn't attempt to distinguish why it got an
`improper signal or to identify in any way what the
`problem is. It just says this wasn't right and
`boom.
`
`Q But the patent is concerned with the
`theft of information is one of the purposes; right?
`A This particular implementation is,
`
`yes.
`
`Q And for the purpose of avoiding
`theft, you would want to be much more concerned
`about unauthorized people than authorized people;
`correct?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A I mean, I don't see it that way. I
`would think I would be concerned that I only let
`authorized people through.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But is a view of
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`35 (Pages 134 - 137)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0035
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0035
`
`

`
`Page 138
`
`Page 140
`
`the unauthorized information being the
`1
`2 distinguishing information, is there something
`3 logically incorrect about that interpretation?
`4
`A I'm sorry, if you have what?
`5
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection to form.
`6
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Is there
`7 something logically incorrect about sayir1gI‘m
`8 going to look at this and say I'm more interested
`9 in tagging it as being unauthorized?
`10
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection to form.
`11
`A Well, again, wha -- the design here
`12 is a system, it has two pieces and shows you how
`13 you can be authorized. There's a million ways you
`14 can be unauthorized. You don't really need to do
`15 anything.
`16
`Q O3Y MR. BLUESTONE) I get that. And
`17 I understand that would you have your design
`18 preference in the way that you would define it. My
`19 question is more of trying to understand if there's
`20 any reason why authorized or unauthorized
`21 information -- let me start over. That was very
`22 long.
`Is there any reason why both
`23
`24 unauthorized and authorized information can serve
`25 as distinguishing information?
`
`1 paragraphs 18 through 21 was all provided to you by
`2 counsel?
`3
`A Yes. Counsel instructed me on the
`4 applicable legal principles, yes.
`5
`Q Okay. Did you apply any other
`6 standards other than what's listed here, with
`7 respect to indefiniteness?
`8
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`9
`A No.
`10
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Did you factor in
`11 whether there was more than a single meaning of
`12 each term?
`13
`A I --
`14
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`15
`A I factored in the meaning that they
`16 would have to one of skill in the art at the time
`17 the patent was filed.
`18
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But in concluding
`19 that the claims were not indefinite, did you
`20 incorporate into your analysis whether more than
`21 one meaning of a claim term could be ascribed?
`22
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`23
`A Well, I think what I was looking for
`24 was did it describe with reasonable clarity the
`25 bounds of the claim. My conclusion was that they
`
`Page 139
`
`Page 141
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`1
`A Well, again, I think if we look at
`2
`3 the entire set of claim elements, is the
`4 unauthorized circuit arranging impedance across the
`5 path for the specific purpose of being
`6 unauthorized, and I don't see that.
`7
`I think the -- the circuitry is put
`8 in the authorized end points to provide the current
`9 back that they know the other end is looking for.
`10 And so I see them as fimdamentally different than
`11 everyone who didn't do anything.
`12
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Where is this
`13 blocking circuit located? Is it in the central
`14 module or is it in the remote module?
`15
`A It's in the central module.
`
`Q And you said earlier that the ‘O12
`16
`17 patent is all about the remote module; right?
`18
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection to form.
`19
`A The ‘O12 patent is concerning the
`20 remote module, yes.
`21
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. Let's
`22 switch gears a little bit and go back to, we're
`23 still on Exhibit 2, paragraphs 18 through 21.
`24
`A Okay, that's several pages.
`25
`Q Is it correct that the information in
`
`1 did.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. But did
`2
`3 you specifically consider the question of whether
`4 the claim terms could have more than one meaning?
`5
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`6
`A Now, are you asking did I consider
`7 defendants‘ claim constructions?
`8
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) No, I am
`9 asking --
`10
`A I'm sorry. Yeah.
`._¢
`,_4
`Q No, I'm asking just in looking at
`these claim terms, as applying what a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, did you factor in your
`analysis whether multiple meanings could be
`ascribed to any term?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A Well, I analyzed the terms with
`18 respect to the claims and specification and plain
`19 and ordinary meaning, and those are the conclusions
`20 that I came to.
`
`\]@‘JI-KUIIN)
`
`>—A>—Ar—I>—->—A>—A
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I'm sorry, I
`21
`22 still don't think I've gotten an answer to my
`23 question. Would you agree that if a claim term has
`24 multiple applicable meanings, that that suggests
`25 that it's more likely indefinite than not?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`36 (Pages 138 - 141)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0036
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0036
`
`

`
`Page 142
`
`Page 144
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`1
`A I -- that's a hypothetical that I
`2
`3 don't have an opinion one way or the other on in
`4 this case. I think when you read the claims, they
`5 describe the invention with reasonable certainty.
`6
`So I don't, you know, I don't see
`7 other interpretations that would be made by one of
`8 ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`9 invention that would cause me to view it
`
`10