1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Case IPR2012-00026(TLG)
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Case IPR2013-00109(TLG)
`
`-vs-
`
`Patent 6,757,717 Bl
`
`PROXYCONN,
`
`INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`FlED
`RlPT
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`DEPOSITION OF ALON KONCHITSKY
`
`DATE:
`
`TIME:
`
`July 2, 2013
`
`7:59 a.m.
`
`LOCATION:
`
`1550 The Alameda, Suite 150
`
`San Jose, California 95126
`
`REPORTED BY:
`
`ALICIA M. C. KEMP
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`License Number C-6718
`
`Pages
`
`1
`
`157
`
`Veri text National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 1
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Case IPR2012-00026(TLG)
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Case IPR2013-00109(TLG)
`
`-vs-
`
`Patent 6,757,717 Bl
`
`PROXYCONN,
`
`INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`FlED
`RlPT
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`DEPOSITION OF ALON KONCHITSKY
`
`DATE:
`
`TIME:
`
`July 2, 2013
`
`7:59 a.m.
`
`LOCATION:
`
`1550 The Alameda, Suite 150
`
`San Jose, California 95126
`
`REPORTED BY:
`
`ALICIA M. C. KEMP
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`License Number C-6718
`
`Pages
`
`1
`
`157
`
`Veri text National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 1
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`F o r t h e P e t i t i o n e r M i c r o s o f t C o r p o r a t i o n :
`
` K L A R Q U I S T S P A R K M A N , L L P
`
` B Y : J O H N D . V A N D E N B E R G
`
` O n e W o r l d T r a d e C e n t e r
`
` 1 2 1 S . W . S a l m o n S t r e e t , 1 6 t h F l o o r
`
` P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n 9 7 2 0 4 - 2 9 8 8
`
` ( 5 0 3 ) 5 9 5 - 5 3 0 0
`
` j o h n . v a n d e n b e r g @ k l a r q u i s t . c o m
`
`F o r t h e P a t e n t O w n e r P r o x y c o n n , I n c . :
`
` H A R N E S S , D I C K E Y & P I E R C E , P . L . C .
`
` B Y : B R Y A N K . W H E E L O C K
`
` 7 7 0 0 B o n h o m m e , S u i t e 4 0 0
`
` S t . L o u i s , M i s s o u r i 6 3 1 0 5
`
` ( 3 1 4 ) 7 2 6 - 7 5 0 5
`
` b w h e e l o c k @ h d p . c o m
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 2
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
` E X A M I N A T I O N I N D E X
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`A L O N K O N C H I T S K Y
`
` B Y M R . V A N D E N B E R G 6
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 3
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` PAGE
`
` EXHIBIT 1002 from IPR2012-00026, 6
`
` Goldstein, U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`
` EXHIBIT 1003 from IPR2013-00109, titled 89
`
` "The HTTP Distribution and Replication
`
` Protocol"
`
` EXHIBIT 1005 from IPR2012-00026, 112
`
` Yohe, et al., U.S. Patent 5,835,943
`
` EXHIBIT 1003 from IPR2012-00026, 126
`
` Perlman, et al., U.S. Patent 5,742,820
`
` EXHIBIT 2002, Proxyconn, Inc., 126
`
` Declaration Of Alon Konchitsky
`
` EXHIBIT 2003, Proxyconn, Curriculum 143
`
` Vitae of Alon Konchitsky
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 4
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` PAGE
`
` EXHIBIT 1022 in IPR2012-00026 and 143
`
` IPR2013-00109,
`
` Microsoft v. Proxyconn
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 5
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` ALON KONCHITSKY,
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`called as a witness, after having been duly sworn by the
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter to tell the truth, the
`
`whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as
`
`follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Good morning, sir. How are you today?
`
` A. Good. Thank you.
`
` Q. Good. Are you ready to proceed with the
`
`deposition?
`
` A. Yep.
`
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you generally familiar with the
`
`procedure?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. I've placed before you the Goldstein
`
`patent, U.S. Patent 6,757,717. Do you see that?
`
` A. I see.
`
` Q. Okay. And in the lower right-hand corner,
`
`there is a exhibit label that has been applied to the
`
`front page of the document and it is Exhibit 1002 from
`
`IPR2012-26.
`
` A. That's correct.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 6
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` Q. And that was true in 1998?
`
` A. I'm sorry?
`
` Q. And that was true in 1998?
`
` A. Um, yeah, I would say so.
`
` Q. Are you familiar with the HTTP protocol?
`
` A. I'm familiar with "HTTP" term and generally the
`
`protocol, but not the actual data of the protocol.
`
`That's a very big protocol.
`
` Q. Are you familiar with the various methods that
`
`are part of the HTTP protocol, such as the GET method,
`
`G E T?
`
` A. I read about it and I'm generally familiar with
`
`it, but again, these are protocols that are defining a
`
`lot of procedures and documents. And in order to get
`
`into the details, I would need to read them again.
`
` Q. Isn't it true that the GET method identifies
`
`the data it is requesting by its URL, or uniform
`
`resource locator? Do you know that?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: It's hard for me to answer this
`
`question without actually looking at the GET protocol.
`
`And that's not what I've been asked to opine on.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. So you don't know?
`
` A. Um, I generally knew, but I do not recollect
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 7
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`right now because there are a lot of details into these
`
`protocols and I would like to see that in order to
`
`respond.
`
` And second, that's not what I've been asked to
`
`opine on.
`
` Q. I'm asking you and I'm asking you whether you
`
`know this part of the HTT protocol?
`
` A. As of now, I don't know the details.
`
` Q. And in particular, you don't know when a web
`
`browser requests data from a server using a GET method,
`
`you don't know if the web browser identifies the URL of
`
`the data? You don't know?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to form.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Is that correct?
`
` A. Um, again, that is not what I've been asked to
`
`opine on.
`
` Q. I'm asking you now. Do you know that?
`
` A. Yes, I do know, but I don't remember the
`
`details because that is a protocol that has a lot of
`
`details and I need to see that in order to get into all
`
`the details. But I do know the GET functioning in the
`
`HTTP protocol.
`
` Q. And does it or does it not identify the data it
`
`is requesting by its URL?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 23
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 8
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` A. I don't --
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to form. I'm
`
`sorry. Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't remember at the moment.
`
`It requires a lot of details that I don't have in front
`
`of me.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent specify how data is
`
`requested from a sender?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Could you be more specific?
`
`Where does it request this particular data?
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Do you recall that the '717 patent -- well,
`
`let's turn to something. If you would turn, please, to
`
`column 9 of the '717 and the last sentence, so it's at
`
`line 66. It says, "The receiver/computer then transmits
`
`a request for data, containing one or more of the
`
`above-mentioned digital digests."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Does the '717 patent explain how the
`
`receiver requests the data?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, it does, in the further
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 9
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`what these particular figures are, to cover different
`
`situations in different states of the actual machine.
`
` So if you just read the sentence, lines 65 and
`
`66 and 67, "This transaction begins with a
`
`receiver/computer sending a request to sender/computer,"
`
`that means at the time the transaction just begins, that
`
`would send this particular request. Later, it could
`
`just check for digest in cache, and then there will be
`
`pulled out in a pulling mechanism.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. And is this request to the sender from the
`
`receiver/computer, does that -- is that necessarily a
`
`request for particular data?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: No, it's not a request for
`
`particular data.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. What is it a request for?
`
` A. For data.
`
` Q. For any and all data?
`
` A. For -- that is what it says, just data.
`
` Q. Well, it doesn't say data there; does it?
`
` A. It says, "The data sender/computer...calculates
`
`a digital digest on...data" --
`
` Q. Okay. I'm sorry.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 36
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 10
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` A. -- "in means 50 and then transmits the
`
`calculated digest to receiver/computer..."
`
` Q. We're looking at different portions now so let
`
`me back up.
`
` A. We're on the same paragraph.
`
` Q. True. So just going back to make sure we're on
`
`the same page, the same line.
`
` A. Um-hmm.
`
` Q. So column 7, line 65 to 67 --
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. -- of the '717 says, quote, "This transaction
`
`begins with a receiver/computer sending a request to the
`
`sender/computer," close quote.
`
` Does that request necessarily consist of a
`
`request for particular data?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: It is just a request for data,
`
`and just data.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. So let's assume hypothetically the sender has
`
`100,000 files in its cache or in its file system.
`
`Okay? 100,000 files. Does figure 5, and this
`
`paragraph, in column 7, describe the sender calculating
`
`a digest on all hundred thousand files and sending those
`
`digests to the client?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 37
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 11
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Hypothetically, could be yes, and
`
`hypothetically, could be no. It all depends on the
`
`situation. So it's hypothetic. So it would be yes.
`
`And hypothetically, it could be yes, and hypothetically,
`
`could be no.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Does this patent describe the receiver sending
`
`a request for one particular file to the sender?
`
` A. Again --
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form and scope.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, it is sending data and
`
`you're trying to imply file as data. So hypothetically,
`
`it's -- it depends on the actual situation. You
`
`mentioned 1100 --
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Hundred thousand files.
`
` A. Hundred thousand files. So even if there would
`
`be one file or two files, there are so many different
`
`system parameters that would need to be taken into
`
`account in order to answer this question, and those
`
`would need to be well-defined.
`
` Q. But does the patent describe a receiver
`
`requesting a particular file from a sender? Yes or no?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 38
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 12
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Requesting data. And again,
`
`hypothetically, if data is filed or not, I'm not
`
`requested to opine on these particular matters.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Well, putting aside a file, does the '717
`
`patent describe the client or receiver requesting
`
`particular data from the sender?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, if you would be more
`
`specific, I can answer that. According to those lines,
`
`it does not.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. And "those lines" being?
`
` A. 65, '6 and '7.
`
` Q. In column 7 of the '717?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent disclose a particular file
`
`system?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: I do not recall that.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent describe an algorithm for
`
`storing data?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form and scope.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 39
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 13
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`algorithm for storing data. Do you agree there are
`
`different techniques or algorithms for storing data in a
`
`storage media?
`
` A. So I would agree generally in those data
`
`structures you mentioned. I don't think those are the
`
`ones that are used to this file systems that you were
`
`starting your discussion with in the Nineties or in the
`
`late Nineties, because these are general data structures
`
`that would be generic to memory management. But this is
`
`different than a different file system you started
`
`with.
`
` Q. Well, I moved on from file system. So we're
`
`beyond file system.
`
` And now I'm asking, does the '717 patent
`
`disclose any particular technique for storing data?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form and scope.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Or does it simply not get into that?
`
` A. Again, I would like to be more specific. For
`
`any of those that you mentioned, linked list, for
`
`example, I do not recall a linked list described in the
`
`'717 claims.
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent, not just the claims, but
`
`the entire patent, does it describe any data structure
`
`for storing data in memory?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 41
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 14
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't think so.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent describe any scheme for
`
`storing data without duplication?
`
` A. Um --
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, could you be more specific
`
`because, again, you took a general data structure, like
`
`linked list or binary tree, that to my best education,
`
`experience, actual implementations I've done in the
`
`past, that's not relevant to the system, to the
`
`mechanism, to the technique that is described here in
`
`'717.
`
` I don't see how they are even related because
`
`here, it describes a way to go from transferring
`
`information from one place to another, based on
`
`particular procedure of calculating digital digest or --
`
`or calculating some information on the data, based on
`
`particular or maybe method or state machine.
`
` And the way that the data is organized or the
`
`way that the data -- that the machine or that the
`
`equipment is accessing the memory, that's -- that's
`
`very -- that is an element, that like saying if the car
`
`is driving, so it goes from one place to another, and
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 42
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 15
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`that's what it is. So I do not recall a particular
`
`technique to access this data in memory.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. You don't recall the '717 patent describing any
`
`particular technique for accessing data in
`
`memory; correct?
`
` A. That's correct. And I would like to ask --
`
` Q. Take a break?
`
` A. Yes. Maybe after the question or whenever
`
`you're ready.
`
` Q. No, this is a good time.
`
` (Break.)
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. So, sir, we're still talking about the '717
`
`Goldstein patents. The '717 patent does refer on
`
`occasion to the word "search." Do you recall that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. But the '717 patent does not disclose any
`
`particular search technique; does it?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection to form, scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: It does and does not because in
`
`some particular -- or this whole idea of a calculating
`
`digest, an issue, positive or negative response, some
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 43
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 16
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`sort, that is a search because that's a -- that is
`
`telling whether the information or the data is there or
`
`not. So in some way or form, that is a search.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. So checking whether or not particular data is
`
`in a particular location is a form of search; is that
`
`what you're saying?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, I didn't say "location" or
`
`"particular location." I just said, "digest," "digital
`
`digest," that are calculated on data, in that sense,
`
`that is a kind of a search because it says, if this data
`
`is there or not. So you can call it search, unless you
`
`would -- how would you define "search"? I would say it
`
`this way. Or if you would please define "search" and
`
`I'll show that is what I meant in this particular
`
`digital digest.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Well, determining whether data is there or is
`
`not there is a form of search, broadly speaking; is that
`
`right?
`
` A. Yes. So I understood you correctly and I
`
`assume that we both define "search" in the same way, so
`
`calculating the digital digest and sending or issuing a
`
`response, if the data is there or not, that is a form of
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 44
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 17
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`search.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` So to answer your question, the '717, in some
`
`way, disclose a particular form of search that is
`
`well-defined.
`
` Q. So returning to --
`
` A. And I also wanted to mention, again, that is
`
`not what I've been requested to opine on, but I'm
`
`answering your question.
`
` Q. Thank you. Returning to that same paragraph in
`
`column 7 that we've been looking at, from lines 51 to
`
`67, in the middle there, at line 55, it states, and I'll
`
`quote, "The receiver/computer receives the digital
`
`digest from sender/computer 42 and then searches its
`
`network cache memory 48 for data with the same digest,"
`
`close quote.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So there it uses the word "search"; correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent explain how it performs
`
`that search?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes. That is exactly what we
`
`have just discussed.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 45
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 18
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` Q. There are various different choices for ways in
`
`which one implements a search; isn't that true?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would say that, first of all,
`
`I'm not a search expert. I never worked for Google and
`
`I've never been a search engine developer. So in that
`
`term, I understand that you're referring to a different
`
`technology. However, as it relates to the search that
`
`you just defined in this particular data, which I would
`
`call it more like real-time data, that is what I
`
`absolutely understand very well. I would say that it is
`
`explaining exactly how that's done.
`
` So it says, it is calculating those digital
`
`digests, and then issue a positive or negative response
`
`or signal. That means that that's very well-defined.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. If you could look at figure 5 of the patent,
`
`while still looking at that same sentence --
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. -- that references "search." In figure 5 there
`
`is a step that says, "Check for digest in cache."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is that step the same step that we just read in
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 47
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 19
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`the text, namely, the receiver/computer searching its
`
`network cache memory for data with the same digest?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, this is part of it. This is
`
`part of it. And again, I'm not talking about search
`
`that is similar to Google search. I'm talking about
`
`"search" as it is defined here, for data with the same
`
`digest.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. So when it says, search for data with the same
`
`digest, the drawing, figure 5, refers to that as, "Check
`
`for digest in cache"; correct?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: That's part of it. That's part
`
`of the overall search procedure because it starts with
`
`the digital digest, which is -- that is a part of the
`
`search, and check if this digest is in the cache, and
`
`then issue a response for yes or no.
`
` So all of that together, all of those, that is
`
`called submodules or commands or sublogs would be
`
`building up together this search function that is
`
`mentioned.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Now, the digest that has been sent and that the
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 48
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 20
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`receiver is checking for is digest of a particular data
`
`object; correct?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Is a particular?
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Data object.
`
` A. Data. I would say particular data.
`
` Q. Fine, it's particular data. And that
`
`particular data may have a name; isn't that correct?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I would answer that, no, but
`
`again, from my -- from my general experience, you can
`
`give data names. And people tend to give different
`
`types of data different types of names. But they're not
`
`related to data structures. I think you're mixed up
`
`between data structure and data in your terminology.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. If you could briefly go back and look at column
`
`2 of the '717 patents, at line 5 to 6. Do you agree
`
`that the '717 patent gives, as one example of a "data"
`
`or "data object," a file?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` But you can answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, one of them could be a
`
`file.
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 49
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 21
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`scope. So it's hard for me to refer to this particular
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`typicality.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Does the '717 patent require that as part of
`
`the search for data with the same digest that the
`
`receiver look at multiple digest values that it has
`
`stored?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form. Scope.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Does it require that?
`
` A. As of now, I see that it could look at one or
`
`many or all of them, but it's not a requirement.
`
` Q. Let's take, for example, that the receiver has
`
`a thousand files and it has digest values for each of
`
`those thousand files.
`
` Do you understand that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And then looking at figure 5, the receiver has
`
`requested, made a request for a particular file. We'll
`
`call it, file number 800.
`
` Okay. So there is a particular file, file 800,
`
`and the receiver wants to see, wants to check if file
`
`800 is up-to-date in its own cache.
`
` Does that make sense so far as an example?
`
` A. It does not make sense from -- one reason, that
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 54
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 22
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`data object name in the receiver, then that would be
`
`outside the scope of this patent? That is your
`
`testimony?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Um, again, that is not what I've
`
`been asked to opine on.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. But that is your view, it would be outside this
`
`patent?
`
` A. That would be in a particular implementation as
`
`you mentioned, yes.
`
` Q. Now, the --
`
` A. I haven't seen any digital digest that is
`
`associating name of a file in this same '717 patent, so
`
`therefore, that same -- that is not a scope of this
`
`patent.
`
` Q. Now, in order to check for a digest in cache,
`
`will that use any comparison function where you compare
`
`two digests together to see if they match?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to form and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can you be more specific about
`
`"comparison"?
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. In order to check to see if a particular digest
`
`is in cache, does one need to compare two digest values
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 62
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 23
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`together to see if they match?
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to the form and
`
`scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: It could. It could. It depends
`
`on the flow. So if it has the digest, it just checks
`
`the digest and see if this particular value matches to
`
`the other value, so that is how the positive or negative
`
`signal will be issued. However, taking different
`
`digests and compare them, I don't think that would be --
`
`that would happen, because the way that the patent is
`
`teaching to calculate those digests, has, I think, an
`
`impossible probability that it will be the same.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. So you mentioned if the receiver had the digest
`
`and then would compare, it would compare the digest to
`
`another to see if it matched. That would happen in the
`
`processor of the receiver, is that correct, the
`
`comparison --
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to form.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. -- most likely?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: I'm sorry. Form and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. And the digest, the two digest values that are
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 63
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 24
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`means is for comparing between a digest the receiver
`
`calculated versus a digest received from the
`
`network; correct?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: That's correct.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Okay. So does the '717 patent describe using
`
`this comparison means in order to perform the check for
`
`digest in cache that we see in figure 5, the third line
`
`down?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to form and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Okay. Turning to figure 8, please, and if you
`
`could look at -- while you're looking at figure 8, turn
`
`to column 8 of the patent, '717 patent, column 8, line
`
`11, and I guess read to yourself lines 11 to line 39.
`
`So that's that entire long paragraph. If you just read
`
`that to yourself while looking at figure 8, please.
`
` And if I could pause you for a second, I won't
`
`be asking you about principal digest and auxiliary
`
`digest. I'll be asking you about other steps. So go
`
`ahead.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Okay. Now, at column 8, line 37 to 39, the
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 67
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 25
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
` THE WITNESS: No, I'm saying that figure 8
`
`would be -- is a ladder diagram, like somebody stepping
`
`on a ladder from first floor to second floor to third
`
`floor. That is why it's called ladder diagram. That
`
`means there are two entities, two parts, that this
`
`sender and receiver that are communicating to each
`
`other. I'm saying that, from my experience designing
`
`those systems or writing those particular
`
`specifications, this ladder diagram would show the flow
`
`from one entity called the sender to one entity called
`
`the receiver.
`
` There is another aspect to this particular
`
`ladder diagram which would be a state machine that would
`
`say or state what would happen in different scenarios.
`
` One of the scenarios is explained here, that
`
`this transaction may also begin with the
`
`receiver/computer sending a request to the
`
`sender/computer. So, in some cases, it might start this
`
`way. In some cases, it might start in a different way.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. In some cases, it might start with the sender
`
`initiating communication; correct?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 69
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 26
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`to other machines?
`
` A. I don't --
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection as to scope.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't. And again, that is not
`
`what I have been asked to opine for.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. I'm just asking about background technology.
`
`Are you familiar in the Nineties that some software
`
`updates were delivered via a push technology, someone
`
`might subscribe, but then the server would initiate and
`
`push out the update to the client?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Could the '717 patent technique shown in
`
`figure 8 work as a push technology where the sender
`
`would initiate and push out the digital digest to the
`
`receiver?
`
` MR. WHEELOCK: Objection. Form. Scope.
`
`BY MR. VANDENBERG:
`
` Q. Could it work that way?
`
` A. It could work this way and it could not work
`
`this way. That's an often could and often couldn't.
`
` Q. So it's flexible, it could work as a push
`
`technology or it could work as a pull technology? It's
`
`flexible; is that correct?
`
`Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 71
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1020, pg. 27
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
