Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _____________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _____________________________________
`
` EMC Corporation
` Petitioner
`
` Lenovo (United States), Inc.,
` Petitioner
`
` NettApp, Inc.
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` Intellectual Ventures, I, LLC,
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2017-00429
`
` Patent No. 6,775,745
`
` ____________________________________
`
` Chicago, Illinois
`
` Friday, July 27, 2018
`
` Deposition of FREDERIC T. CHONG,
`at Marriott Marquis Chicago, 2121 South Prairie
`Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, on July 27, 2018, at
`9:30 a.m., recorded stenographically by Cynthia
`J. Conforti, CSR, CRR, (License 084-003064) of
`the State of Illinois, and transcribed under
`her direction.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`EMC v. Intellectual Ventures
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`IPR2017-0429
`EMC Exhibit 1027
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _____________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _____________________________________
`
` EMC Corporation
` Petitioner
`
` Lenovo (United States), Inc.,
` Petitioner
`
` NettApp, Inc.
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` Intellectual Ventures, I, LLC,
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2017-00429
`
` Patent No. 6,775,745
`
` ____________________________________
`
` Chicago, Illinois
`
` Friday, July 27, 2018
`
` Deposition of FREDERIC T. CHONG,
`at Marriott Marquis Chicago, 2121 South Prairie
`Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, on July 27, 2018, at
`9:30 a.m., recorded stenographically by Cynthia
`J. Conforti, CSR, CRR, (License 084-003064) of
`the State of Illinois, and transcribed under
`her direction.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`EMC v. Intellectual Ventures
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`IPR2017-0429
`EMC Exhibit 1027
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS EMC CORPORATION,
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and NETTAPP, INC.:
`
` WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
`
` 7 World Trade Center
`
` 250 Greenwich Street
`
` New York, New York 10007
`
` 212.296.6367
`
` BY: THEODOROS KONSTANTAKAPOULOS, ESQ,
`
` theodoros.konstantakapoulos@wilmerhale.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
`
` 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
` Irvine, California 92614
`
` 949.760.0404
`
` BY: TED M. CANNON, ESQ.
`
` Ted.Cannon@knobbe.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`
` BY: JAMES R. HIETALA, ESQ.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`3
`
` INDEX
`
`TESTIMONY OF FREDERIC T. CHONG PAGE
`
`Examination by Mr. Konstantakopoulos: 4
`
`Examination by Mr. Cannon: 149
`
` DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`EMC Exhibit 1001 17
`
` U.S. Patent 6,775,745 B1
`
`EMC Exhibit 1005 37
`
` U.S. Patent 6,738,865 B1
`
`I.V. Exhibit 2004 144
`
` Declaration of Frederic T. Chong
`
`I.V. Exhibit 2005 29
`
` Curriculum Vitae
`
`I.V. Exhibit 2021 34
`
` Supplemental Declaration of
`
` Frederic T. Chong
`
`** EXHIBITS NOT TENDERED FOR INCLUSION INTO
`
` Deposition TRANSCRIPT **
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`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
`
` (Witness sworn.)
`
` MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS: Theodoros
`
`Konstantakopoulos on behalf of Petitioners EMC
`
`Corporation, Lenovo USA, NettApp. Tom Brown
`
`from EMC may join by audio.
`
` MR. CANNON: Ted Cannon of Knobbe
`
`Martens Olson & Bear representing Intellectual
`
`Ventures. Also with me is James Hietala,
`
`in-house counsel for Intellectual Ventures.
`
` FREDERIC T. CHONG,
`
`having been duly sworn, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Chong.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. You have been deposed before,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Are there any reasons that would
`
`prevent you from giving accurate and truthful
`
`testimony today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Are you taking any medication?
`
` A. I just took an Aleve, but
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`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
`
`that's...
`
` Q. But it's nothing that would
`
`prevent you --
`
` A. It's nothing that would prevent
`
`me.
`
` Q. Great. Are you taking any other
`
`drugs?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And you're not under the influence
`
`of any substance?
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. That's right. So right now we are
`
`at the Marriott Marquis, correct?
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. Have you been in this hotel
`
`before?
`
` A. I have not.
`
` Q. And we are meeting at the Algebra
`
`room, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And that's on the second floor?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You didn't look on the third floor
`
`for this room, correct?
`
` A. I have not.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`6
`
`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
`
` Q. Did you go to the fourth floor?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. You were told that this room was
`
`on the second floor, correct?
`
` A. Yes. I came here with a bellhop.
`
` Q. Okay. And once you saw "Algebra"
`
`outside, you didn't continue looking for other
`
`rooms, correct?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. All right. You knew that this is
`
`the room, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And looking for other rooms
`
`wouldn't make any sense.
`
` A. I was led here by the bellhop.
`
` Q. And you didn't look for -- you
`
`didn't go into the Analysis room?
`
` A. I did not look for any other
`
`rooms. I was led here.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm going to give you a
`
`hypothetical, if that's okay with you, and
`
`assume that you have a cache, like a cache
`
`according to the '745 patent, and that cache
`
`has a hundred entries. Do you have that in
`
`mind?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`7
`
`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
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And initially the cache is empty,
`
`okay?
`
` Let's assume that the first access
`
`is for Block A, okay? And then there are 99
`
`other accesses of different blocks.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Your cache is full, right?
`
` A. Do you want to specify how the
`
`cache works for me a little bit more precisely?
`
` Q. Yeah, I can explain again.
`
` So you have a cache with 100
`
`entries. The first access was for Block A and
`
`then you have 99 other blocks, different ones,
`
`that were accessed. That's a hundred total
`
`different blocks. So my question is the cache
`
`is now full?
`
` A. Depends upon how you map the
`
`blocks to the cache, right? Yes.
`
` Q. So if this block takes up a single
`
`entry, then your cache would be full.
`
` A. It would also depend upon how you
`
`map the blocks to the cache.
`
` Q. Let's assume that if the cache is
`
`a free block, right?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`8
`
`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
`
` A. Is a what?
`
` Q. There's a free block --
`
` A. Free block.
`
` Q. -- in the cache, right?
`
` When you need to access a block
`
`that is not in the cache, that block will take
`
`up a free area. Do you have that in mind?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So if I'm accessing 100 different
`
`blocks, your cache would be full. You have
`
`that in mind?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And going back to how I
`
`started, Block A was accessed first. That's
`
`for reference. Let's call this Block A, okay?
`
` Block A was accessed first in this
`
`hypothetical. So it would be the least
`
`recently used file; is that correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Block A was also accessed only
`
`once, okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. That means that it would also be
`
`the least frequently used file, correct?
`
` A. You said that all the other blocks
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`9
`
`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
`
`were also accessed exactly once?
`
` Q. Correct. Still that would mean
`
`that Block A is the least frequently used file?
`
` A. Well, specifically it's one of the
`
`least frequently used files.
`
` Q. That's fine. There might be other
`
`ones. But Block A, which has a frequency
`
`factor of 1, that means that it is the least
`
`frequently used file, at least under some
`
`embodiments of the '745 patent, correct?
`
` A. I would say if it was A, it was
`
`the least frequently used file, yes.
`
` Q. If it makes you feel more
`
`comfortable, let's assume that the other blocks
`
`were accessed twice, right? So all the other
`
`blocks have a frequency factor of 2; Block A
`
`has a frequency factor of 1. Do you have that
`
`in mind?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So now, clearly, would you say
`
`that Block A was the least frequently used
`
`file?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And it is not possible that there
`
`is another block that is less frequently and
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`10
`
`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
`
`less recently used than Block A, correct?
`
` A. In this hypothetical, yes.
`
` Q. Okay. That means that this is the
`
`least frequently and least recently used file
`
`with mathematical certainty, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. So then imagine that you need to
`
`promote a new block into the cache. The '745
`
`teaches that you need to evict the least
`
`recently and least frequently used file to
`
`promote this one, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And you know that the LRU Block A
`
`is the least frequently and least recently used
`
`file as we discussed.
`
` A. I know that because you told me
`
`that, but I don't know how the system would
`
`keep track of that.
`
` Q. So the system could keep track of
`
`the frequency factors, correct?
`
` A. Specifically how in your
`
`hypothetical?
`
` Q. Well, your understanding of the
`
`'745 patent, right? Increment an algorithm.
`
` According to the algorithm the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`11
`
`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
`
`system knows what the frequency factors are for
`
`each block; what are those factors, correct?
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. Also, the system knows when these
`
`blocks were last time accessed, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. All right. So when the new block
`
`needs to be promoted, right, the '745 patent
`
`teaches that the least frequently and least
`
`recently used file will be evicted from the
`
`cache to make up space, correct?
`
` A. More specifically, it teaches that
`
`the algorithm will scan for that and will evict
`
`it.
`
` Q. All right. So the algorithm will
`
`scan for the least frequently and least
`
`recently used file and will evict that.
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. So let's assume that you start
`
`scanning the frequency factors, under my
`
`hypothetical starting from the least recently
`
`used file. Do you have that in mind?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So the first file you scan is what
`
`you're looking for is the least frequently and
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`12
`
`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
`
`the least recently used file, correct?
`
` A. Correct, but you wouldn't
`
`necessarily start from the least recently used
`
`file.
`
` Q. Let's assume in my hypothetical
`
`that this is the first file that you scan, the
`
`least recently used file.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. You don't need to scan any further
`
`to find what you're looking for, correct?
`
` A. Well, in the general case you
`
`would scan further to see if there were a less
`
`frequently used file.
`
` Q. But once you found that, you don't
`
`need to scan -- and further, you would know.
`
` A. But how would you know that you
`
`found that?
`
` Q. In my hypothetical you know
`
`because this is the least recently used file
`
`and also is the least frequently used file
`
`under my hypothetical.
`
` A. But in your hypothetical, how do
`
`you know that it's the least recently used
`
`file?
`
` Q. I told you it was accessed first.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`13
`
`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
`
` A. Oh. I meant the least frequently
`
`used.
`
` Q. So the frequency factor value is
`
`less corresponding to this file than any other
`
`files?
`
` A. But an algorithm would have to
`
`look at all the files to know that.
`
` Q. But you'd agree that under some
`
`embodiments of the '745 patent, the frequency
`
`factor of 1 is the lowest possible value of
`
`frequency factor, correct?
`
` A. That is possible. But, I mean,
`
`this is a very sort of specific case, right?
`
`If it's a general case, you would have to scan
`
`them all to know which one was the least
`
`frequently used file.
`
` Q. We are going under my
`
`hypothetical. And let me ask you that.
`
` Under the '745 patent, what would
`
`be the smallest possible value for a frequency
`
`factor?
`
` A. It would be 1.
`
` Q. Could be 1, right?
`
` A. Could be 1.
`
` Q. Assuming no substituting, no
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`14
`
`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
`
`weighting, 1 is a reasonable value for the
`
`lowest value of the frequency factor.
`
` A. I mean, there's -- as you say, if
`
`you have weighting or some sort of other scheme
`
`that you may not -- it may not necessarily be
`
`true.
`
` Q. Correct. But let's assume for the
`
`purpose of this hypothetical no weighting, no
`
`substituting. One would be the lowest number
`
`for a frequency factor?
`
` A. I agree that you could have an
`
`implementation in which you have a notion of
`
`what the frequency factor is.
`
` Q. So under that notion you asked me
`
`how would you know. You would know because you
`
`would find a frequency factor that has a value
`
`of 1. And since that's the lowest number, that
`
`would mean that this candidate would be the
`
`least frequently used file, correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. So under my hypothetical, when you
`
`start scanning from the least recently used
`
`file and you identify a frequency factor value
`
`of 1, you know that this is the least recently
`
`and least frequently used file in your cache?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`15
`
`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
`
` MR. CANNON: Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can see where
`
`you're going with your hypothetical, but I
`
`don't see how this is relevant to how you would
`
`define the algorithm.
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. Let's just work with the
`
`hypothetical first, and then we can see how we
`
`can work -- the hypothetical is clear, though?
`
`You have it in mind?
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. And would you agree that once
`
`you've scanned the least recently used file,
`
`you would know, as we discussed, that this is
`
`the least frequently and least recently used
`
`file with mathematical certainty under this
`
`hypothetical always?
`
` MR. CANNON: Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Could you be more
`
`precise about what you mean by "you would
`
`know"? What is "you"? Who is "you"?
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. So someone -- the algorithm for
`
`the '745 patent, right, the goal is to identify
`
`the least frequently and least recently used
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`16
`
`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
`
`file for eviction. So far, so good?
`
` A. That's part of what is specified.
`
` Q. Right. And to do that, what else
`
`is specified is you scan the frequency factors,
`
`correct?
`
` A. From the least recently used to
`
`the most recently used.
`
` Q. And before we said that that's not
`
`always the case, but let's assume that that's
`
`this hypothetical. We start scanning from the
`
`least recently used file?
`
` A. To the most recently used file.
`
` Q. So far, so good?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And, also, we discussed that in
`
`this hypothetical the least recently used file
`
`is also the least frequently used file,
`
`correct?
`
` And we have agreed that in this
`
`hypothetical the least recently used file, that
`
`was Block A if you remember, is with
`
`mathematical certainty the least frequently and
`
`least recently used file, correct?
`
` MR. CANNON: Objection, form and
`
`relevance.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`17
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: I couldn't hear you.
`
` MR. CANNON: Well, these are for
`
`the record so --
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah. You
`
`said "form."
`
` MR. CANNON: Objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can I have a copy of
`
`the '745 patent, please?
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. Of course.
`
` (EMC Exhibit 1001 introduced.)
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. So this exhibit has been premarked
`
`as 1001.
`
` A. So let me ask: Do you provide
`
`this hypothetical in the context of the '745
`
`patent?
`
` Q. Correct.
`
` A. So I'm not sure I agree that the
`
`only goal is to identify the (inaudible) --
`
` THE REPORTER: I cannot --
`
` THE WITNESS: -- least recently
`
`used and least frequently used element, as the
`
`patent specifies other things, such as scans,
`
`which we discussed.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`18
`
`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
`
` And, also, there would be other
`
`situations when you create the algorithm. For
`
`example, since you recently accessed an
`
`algorithm when you're going into the system,
`
`you would be updating the MRU element and the
`
`data structure for that.
`
` So I'm not sure I agree that you
`
`would be going from the least recently used to
`
`the most recently used in terms of the
`
`direction of scanning.
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. That's all fair, but evicting the
`
`least frequently used and least recently used
`
`file is one of the goals?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And in this hypothetical I'm
`
`exploring this goal. As we show, the '745
`
`patent discusses a lot of other things, but for
`
`the purpose of this hypothetical, I just want
`
`to understand what your understanding is about
`
`how the '745 patent works. Is that okay?
`
` A. That's okay.
`
` Q. All right. And let me rephrase
`
`the hypothetical, and if you think that I've
`
`mischaracterized it or you don't understand,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`19
`
`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
`
`let me know.
`
` So you have a cache of 100
`
`entries. The first block that was accessed was
`
`Block A. Then 99 other blocks were accessed
`
`twice. So your cache is full now.
`
` The first block that was accessed
`
`is the least recently used file and was
`
`accessed once. That's Block A. Do you have
`
`that in mind?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. So now a new block
`
`needs to be promoted into the cache. The '745
`
`patent teaches that the least frequently and
`
`the least recently used file will be evicted,
`
`correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. All right. Now I'm working
`
`through how this would happen with you, and
`
`under my hypothetical you start counting from
`
`the LRU file. Have that in mind?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. And we've agreed that
`
`the LRU file, Block A, all right, is the least
`
`frequently and least recently used file under
`
`this hypothetical, correct?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`20
`
`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
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. So you start scanning the LRU, and
`
`you see a frequency factor of 1. That would
`
`tell you that this is the least frequently and
`
`least recently used file, correct?
`
` A. Yes, but I don't necessarily agree
`
`that you would start scanning from there.
`
` Q. That's fair. But let's assume
`
`under my hypothetical this is what you do.
`
` A. Well, what causes that block to be
`
`evicted? You're referencing a new block,
`
`correct?
`
` Q. Right.
`
` A. And when you reference that new
`
`block, you're going to have to put it into your
`
`data structure that keeps track of LRU to --
`
`LRU to LRU, correct?
`
` Q. One of the files that need to be
`
`evicted is among the hundred data blocks that
`
`were accessed previously, correct?
`
` A. But you also have to add the new
`
`block that will now be in the MRU file,
`
`correct?
`
` Q. Correct.
`
` A. And so, hypothetically, if you
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`21
`
`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
`
`kept the status structure, say, in a linked
`
`list, say in a double linked list, then you
`
`would be inserting the MRU file, and it might
`
`make sense to scan from MRU to LRU.
`
` Q. Correct, but, again, the '745
`
`patent also teaches that you can start scanning
`
`from the LRU, correct?
`
` A. Well, it takes no position on the
`
`direction.
`
` Q. So you're saying that the '745
`
`patent doesn't teach scanning starting from the
`
`LRU?
`
` A. It teaches that you have to scan
`
`all the elements from LRU to MRU, but it
`
`doesn't take a position on the direction.
`
` Q. So let me point you to Figure 2A.
`
`What does the arrow with Reference No. 157,
`
`excuse me, 156 disclose?
`
` A. Yes. In that embodiment, it's
`
`going from LRU to MRU.
`
` Q. All right. Let's keep that
`
`embodiment in mind.
`
` So your scanning starts from the
`
`LRU, okay? We have agreed now that this is an
`
`embodiment that the '745 patent teaches.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`22
`
`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
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The first entry that you scan is
`
`the LRU which has a frequency factor of 1, so
`
`you know that this is the least frequently and
`
`least recently used file, correct?
`
` A. Yes. Under the conditions of your
`
`hypothetical.
`
` Q. So you found what you need to
`
`evict.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You don't need to scan anything
`
`else to evict the least frequently and least
`
`recently used file, correct?
`
` MR. CANNON: Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: So under all the
`
`assumptions of your hypothetical, that's true.
`
`BY MR. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS:
`
` Q. Having, again, in mind what the
`
`'745 patent teaches, right? The '745
`
`limitations are not specifically tied to any
`
`cache size, right?
`
` Strike that. Let me ask you a
`
`better question.
`
` Is the '745 patent limited to any
`
`particular cache size?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`23
`
`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
`
` A. I would say that in the context of
`
`the entire '745 patent, when the goal is file
`
`caching, the cache size is limited to what
`
`would be practical for a realistic system at
`
`the time.
`
` Q. Does the '745 patent teach that
`
`there are some caches, either too large or too
`
`small, so that they fall outside the scope of
`
`the claims?
`
` A. The '745 patent teaches file
`
`caching in real systems. So clearly, caches
`
`that are larger than the available memory in a
`
`real system are outside of the scope of the
`
`'745 patent.
`
` Q. So as long as you can increment a
`
`cache with any size, that would fall within the
`
`'745 patent scope?
`
` A. Well, more specifically, in
`
`addition to the physical constraint of how much
`
`memory you have, you are also limited by how
`
`much memory you would be willing to devote to
`
`file caching as opposed to other tasks that the
`
`system would need to do.
`
` Q. So notwithstanding these physical
`
`constraints, as long as the cache size
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`24
`
`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
`
`satisfies the constraints of a designer and
`
`computer architect, that would still fall
`
`within the scope of the '745 patent?
`
` A. With the understanding that the
`
`designer/computer architect would be balancing
`
`performance goals, costs and feasibility of a
`
`system, cache sizes that are practical within
`
`those constraints fall within the '745 patent.
`
` Q. The '745 patent does not require a
`
`minimum cache size, correct?
`
` A. Given that the goal of the '745
`
`patent is to use file caching to improve
`
`performance and that the algorithms involve
`
`tracking blocks, keeping track of LRU and
`
`frequency, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that the cache needs to be
`
`of a size appropriate for the system and
`
`workload that they have, which would imply that
`
`caches have to be of sufficient size.
`
` Q. So you have the '745 patent in
`
`front of you?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you've read the '745 patent?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. At least once.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`25
`
`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
`
` Can you point me anywhere in the
`
`specification drawings or claims where the '745
`
`patent says a cache size needs to be at least
`
`this number of blocks?
`
` A. The number of blocks you need in a
`
`cache is entirely dependent upon the situation
`
`that you're in, and the context of the whole
`
`patent in reading the whole patent is that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`to use their judgment to decide what a
`
`sufficient cache size would be, and one can
`
`reason that given the algorithms and mechanisms
`
`presented in the patent, at least certain
`
`trivially small sizes would not be sensible.
`
` Q. So I'm going to ask you to put
`
`everything you said into your mind and think
`
`about all the possible situations, all the
`
`possible algorithms and mechanisms that you
`
`think the '745 teaches. Under those situations
`
`and scenarios, what would be the smallest size
`
`that the '745 patent requires?
`
` A. I think it's not possible to
`
`consider all possible scenarios and mechanisms
`
`at once. That's not something that I have done
`
`in my examination of this patent.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`26
`
`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
`
` So, once again, I would say there
`
`should exist some minimum reasonable size,
`
`depending upon context/situation, that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
`
`determine.
`
` Q. Figure 2B shows a cache with seven
`
`entries, correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. The cache size can be bigger than
`
`seven entries, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Can be smaller than seven entries,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Depends upon context.
`
` Q. It could. Under the proper
`
`context, correct?
`
` A. It's not clear.
`
` Q. At least some of the context you
`
`presented in your first declaration. You
`
`presented an example with a cache size having 5
`
`entries. Do you remember that?
`
` A. That's right. That's an example
`
`to illustrate the function of the patent.
`
` Q. And you considered all possible
`
`scenarios, situations, mechanisms and
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`27
`
`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
`
`algorithms taught in the '745 patent, and you
`
`came to the conclusion that the cache size of 5
`
`blocks would be taught or at least covered
`
`under the scope of the '745 patent?
`
` A. That example of 5 blocks was given
`
`to illustrate a typical behavior of the
`
`algorithm in a specifically chosen small
`
`example so that that could be presented in the
`
`declaration. It really doesn't take a position
`
`on what all the possible algorithms and
`
`mechanisms would require in terms of a cache
`
`size.
`
` Q. Right. But did the example with 5
`
`blocks cover -- it was covered by the scope of
`
`the '745 patent?
`
` A. The example of 5 blocks is covered
`
`in the scope of the '745 patent under the
`
`appropriate context that that would be the size
`
`appropriate for your situation or workload.
`
` Q. So as long as a cache is a size
`
`that is appropriate for a particular situation,
`
`the '745 patent would cover that cache. Is
`
`this your testimony?
`
` A. For a particular practical
`
`situation.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`28
`
`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
`
` Q. Can you put any bounds to what a
`
`practical situation would be? And I'm asking
`
`for a minimum size and a maximum size. Let's
`
`figure out both ends.
`
` A. That's not something I've
`
`evaluated.
`
` Q. You've seen caches before, right?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. You've worked with caches?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. And you've worked with caches of
`
`different sizes, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Can you tell me one example of a
`
`cache that you worked with that was the size of
`
`that cache?
`
` A. Well, the specific cache that I
`
`looked at quite recently is the one in -- where
`
`you referenced 350 blocks.
`
` Q. I'm talking about your experience
`
`as a computer architect. I'm talking about an
`
`incrementation that you've seen.
`
` A. And you're asking for a cache size
`
`in terms of memory or something like that?
`
` Q. If you can give that to me in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`Chong, Frederic T.
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`July 27, 2018
`
`29
`
`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
`
`terms of blocks, I would appreciate it. I know
`
`you can give it to me in terms of gigabytes or
`
`whatever. We can do the math, but if you can
`
`give me the math in terms of blocks, that would
`
`be fine, beca
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
