Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) IPR2017-00557
` )
`vs. )
` )
`REALTIME DATA, LLC, dba IXO, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER, Ph.D.
` San Diego, California
` Wednesday, November 1, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`Tricia Rosate, RDR, RMR, CRR, CCRR
`CSR No. 10891
`Job No. 132547
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`For the Petitioner, TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.:
` BAKER BOTTS
` The Warner
` 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
` Washington, D.C. 20004
`
` BY: JAMIE LYNN, ESQ.
`
`For the Patent Owner, REALTIME DATA, LLC:
` NOROOZI
` 1299 Ocean Avenue
`
` Santa Monica, California 90401
`
` BY: KAYVAN NOROOZI, ESQ.
`
`Page 5
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2017
` 9:19 A.M. - 2:05 P.M.
` - - - -
` KENNETH ZEGER, PhD,
` having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q Good morning, Dr. Zeger.
` A Good morning.
` Q Can you please state your full name for the
`record.
` A Kenneth Zeger.
` Q And what is your address?
` A Is that going to be in the public record?
` Q You can give me the city and state.
` A San Diego, California.
` Q San Diego, California?
` And you've been deposed before; is that
`right?
` A Correct.
` Q How many times have you been deposed,
`roughly?
` A 20-ish.
` Q 20-ish? So you know the rules of the road,
`and I won't go into that. But do you recognize that
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6789
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`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
`
` Wednesday, November 1, 2017
` 9:19 a.m.
`
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER, Ph.D.,
`taken at 12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, California,
`commencing at 9:19 a.m. and concluding at 2:05 p.m.,
`Wednesday, November 1, 2017, before Tricia Rosate,
`RDR, RMR, CRR, CCRR, CSR 10891, a Certified Shorthand
`Reporter.
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS: Kenneth Zeger, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`By Mr. Lynn ....................... 5, 108, 150
` 154, 160
`
`By Mr. Noroozi ...................... 147, 152, 157
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 6
`you're under oath here today just as if you were
`testifying in front of a jury or a judge?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q So I'll ask you questions, and you answer
`those questions truthfully.
` Can we agree to that?
` A Yes.
` Q Is there anything or any reason that you
`won't be able to answer questions truthfully today?
` A No.
` Q You're not taking any medications that might
`impact your memory or your judgment or anything like
`that?
` A There's no reasons. No.
` Q Okay. But you aren't taking any medications
`that might affect your memory?
` A That is correct.
` Q Okay. You're here representing or acting as
`an expert for Realtime Data; right?
` A I'm hired by the law firm in -- I don't know
`what the official language is, but I'm in some
`affiliation with Realtime Data.
` Q And you submitted a declaration that was
`attached to the patent owner's response; right?
` A Again, I don't know what it was attached to,
`
`Page 8
`
`24 hours. Which one are you referring to?
` Q I'm talking about in the time after you
`submitted your declaration or you signed your
`declaration and today.
` A I don't know the exact amount of time, but I
`read materials for a number of hours in the preceding
`week and --
` Several tens of hours. Let's put it that
`way.
` Q Did you review any documents in preparing
`for the deposition?
` A Yes, I did.
` Q What were those documents?
` A I reviewed my declaration. I reviewed the
`prior art materials. I reviewed the -- let's see --
`I guess, like, patent owner response, the POPR, the
`preliminary one. I reviewed the expert declaration
`of Dr. Creusere for this case. I reviewed the
`institution decision. I reviewed the original
`petition. There's -- I'm probably forgetting a few
`things. There's other --
` Just all the various documents affiliated
`with this case that I've looked at.
` Q Did you look at anything or review anything
`in addition to what you had considered prior to
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 7
`but it was affiliated with a patent owner's response.
` Q Okay. What did you do to prepare for the
`deposition today?
` A Well, I guess preparation includes all the
`history of reading materials, forming opinions,
`writing a declaration, and then reviewing the
`declaration.
` Q So in the time immediately preceding
`today -- for example, yesterday or the day before --
`did you spend any time preparing for the deposition?
` A Yes, I did.
` Q Did you meet with anybody or discuss your
`preparation with anyone?
` A I did not meet with anybody regarding this.
`I did discuss on the telephone with the attorney
`sitting next to me, whose name is Kayvan.
` MR. NOROOZI: Noroozi.
` MR. LYNN: That's spelled --
` MR. NOROOZI: N-o-r-o-o-z-i.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q And about how long did you spend preparing
`for the deposition?
` A So we've used -- comparing two different
`contexts, one where I've told you all the things that
`I've done, and then you narrowed it down to the last
`
`Page 9
`
`submitting your declaration?
` A Well, the -- the -- some of those court
`documents, I don't remember if I looked at them at
`the time of my declaration or not.
` Q So court documents being what?
` A Like the POR or POPR. I don't recall the
`timing of that. But in terms of things like
`prior art, that would be the same prior art that I
`looked at before.
` In terms of reviewing for this deposition
`today, you know, the -- the expert report that -- or
`the expert declaration, I certainly looked at that at
`the time of my declaration.
` If there's a particular one that you're
`curious about, you can ask me.
` Q No. I just want to make sure that there's
`not a new document, a new piece of evidence that
`you've now considered and you've looked at since you
`submitted your declaration. That's what I'm asking
`about.
` A I see. I can't think of any offhand. I
`just don't remember the exact timing of when I looked
`at which particular materials.
` Q So you have a few documents in front of you
`that I believe you brought with you. Can you just
`
`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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 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
`
`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
`
`identify what those documents are?
` A Do you want me to hand them to you?
` This is the patent, the '867 patent.
` Q So you have in front of you Teradata
`Exhibit 1001, which is U.S. Patent No. 7,358,867; is
`that right?
` A That's correct.
` And then the second one is the patent owner
`response, which I'll hand to you.
` Q And I believe that's record document 19,
`patent owner's response. Okay.
` A Okay. The third one is my declaration in
`this particular IPR.
` Q So that's Realtime Exhibit 2003, which is
`the declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger in support of
`patent owner's response.
` A And the fourth and final one is the
`declaration of Charles Creusere.
` Q Okay. So that is Teradata Exhibit 1002, the
`declaration of Charles Creusere.
` A Yes.
` Q So I believe one of the documents you have
`in front of you is your declaration.
` A Yes.
` Q And that's -- what exhibit number is that
`
`Page 12
`number of hours, but if I had to guess, I'd say
`somewhere from 20 to 40-ish, in that range.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q Okay. And I want to preface this by saying
`I'm not trying to invade into your discussions with
`counsel or anything that's attorney-client
`privileged, but in your practice, do you typically
`write your opinion yourself?
` A Well, I've done many different ways of
`actually putting my opinions into writing. In some
`cases, I literally type everything out. In some
`cases, I talk to the attorney and tell my opinions
`and say, "Can you please make a first draft based on
`what I'm telling you?" and then I edit it and make
`sure I agree with everything.
` In this case, I chose the latter for
`time-saving purposes.
` Q Okay. So you didn't write the first draft
`of this opinion; is that correct?
` A I spoke with the attorney on the phone, and
`he -- Kayvan typed up or -- actually, I don't know
`who typed it up, but somebody typed up my opinions,
`and then I reviewed them and edited them and made
`sure they were correct.
` Q Okay. But all of the opinions in there are
`
`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
`
`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
`
`again?
` A 2003.
` Q Right. Okay. Realtime Exhibit 2003.
` When did you prepare that declaration?
` A I don't remember the exact -- you know, the
`timing. I can look at the signature. But it says I
`signed it on September 26, so the preparation would
`be in the previous time to that.
` Q Okay. And about how much time do you
`estimate you spent preparing it?
` A This particular one didn't take a lot of
`time right close to the actual submission time,
`because I've worked on very similar issues with the
`same prior art, the similar patents, for actually a
`number of years with Realtime Data. So I was pretty
`much up to speed on that.
` I don't remember the exact timing, but
`something like, again, tens of hours.
` Q Tens of hours?
` A Yes.
` Q Do you think it was less than 50?
` A Probably. Yes.
` Q Do you think less than 20?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't remember the exact
`
`Page 13
`your opinions, your own opinions. Is that accurate?
` A These are my opinions, yes. Every one in
`here.
` Q Okay. And those are all of your opinions
`about these -- the IPR and the -- this particular
`IPR. Is that accurate?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: How does that differ from the
`previous question?
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q I'm just making sure that this is what your
`opinion is and these are your opinions and that you
`don't have additional opinions other than what you've
`put in your declaration.
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I may have lots of additional
`opinions, but these are the opinions I put in this --
`these are the opinions I put in this particular
`declaration.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q And did you pick the opinions that were put
`in that declaration?
` A Well, I was asked by counsel to offer my
`opinion about particular topics that were of concern
`or interest for some reason to counsel, and then I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 14
`offered my opinions on the ones that were requested
`of me.
` Q So the opinions -- or I guess what you were
`asked to do was give an opinion on certain specific
`topics. Is that accurate?
` A Yeah. I was not given an open-ended thing
`where they just said, "Just give your opinion on
`everything you know."
` They said, "This is what I'm interested in.
`What do you think about the following things?"
` Q But ultimately everything in there is your
`own opinion, so those are your opinions.
` A That is correct.
` Q I think, if you look at paragraph 17, it has
`a list of things that you considered, and I just want
`to run through those.
` Actually, I think it might be 17 and 18.
` A Okay. I see that.
` Q So it says that you've reviewed the IPR
`petition.
` A Yes.
` Q And the patent owner preliminary response.
` A Correct.
` Q And the board's institution decision.
` A Yes.
`
`Page 16
`
` Would you agree with me?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, it depends how you parse
`that sentence. The first sentence is really about
`engagement and background and qualifications, so
`those are not specifically offering opinions as far
`as I remember.
` Materials considered, I suppose it's not
`really an opinion. It's just what I used as my daily
`basis for some of my opinions.
` (Reporter request for recess.)
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q So, Dr. Zeger, we were looking at the table
`of contents of your declaration. And I also handed
`you a sheet, which has the grounds, the instituted
`grounds, for this IPR.
` A I have that. Yes.
` Q And if you want to, you can confirm that
`that's the same chart that's in the patent owner's
`response on page 5, if you care to do that, but I
`thought it might be easier to keep it so you can just
`look at that.
` A I'll take your representation.
` Q You'll take my representation?
` A Yeah.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 15
` Q I believe, in paragraph 18, it says that
`you've reviewed the testimony of Charles Creusere and
`the declaration of Charles Creusere. It might be on
`the next page.
` A Yes. I see both of those.
` Q Is that accurate?
` A It is.
` Q Okay. And you reviewed three references.
`You reviewed Franaszek, Hsu, and Langdon; is that
`correct?
` A That's correct.
` Q Okay. And after reviewing those materials
`is when you formed your opinion that you put down in
`your declaration; is that right?
` A Well, I've reviewed the materials before my
`opinions and during my opinions and even after my
`opinions.
` Q Okay. So we turn to the table of contents.
` A Of my declaration?
` Q Yes, of your declaration. I just want to
`get a feel for sort of the breakdown here.
` A Got it.
` Q So it looks like the first three sections
`are not really into the merits or the substance of
`your opinion.
`
`Page 17
` Q So if we look at your declaration at the
`table of contents, Section IV says, "Petitioner's
`Invalidity Theories Based on Hsu as a Primary
`Reference." Right?
` A Yes.
` Q So all your opinions about Hsu as a primary
`reference are in Section IV, and that corresponds to
`Grounds 1, 2, 5, and 6. Is that accurate?
` A You know, I'm not sure if that
`correspondence you just said is correct or not. It
`sounds plausible. But, I mean, I'd really have to go
`in there and check each opinion I have with any
`sections. This "Table of Contents" header is just
`meant as a general header for -- you know, just to
`look up things.
` Q Sure. No. That makes sense.
` A Yeah.
` Q I think Section IV starts at paragraph 22.
` You can -- if you want to flip through your
`declaration.
` A Yeah. So the opinion -- the opinions in
`Section IV, roughly speaking, have to do with this
`phrase "with a particular one," which, for example,
`occurs in Claim 16, element B and C, you know, and
`some other parts of it. And then I think it
`
`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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 18
`continues in some of the dependent claims as well.
` Q You think that -- or you mean the
`declaration continues with the dependent claims or --
` A No. I'm saying that the claim language --
` I can turn that off if you want.
` Can I have a ten-second break?
` Q Sure. We can take a ten-second break.
`That's fine.
` A Okay. What I was saying was that the claim
`language -- I'm looking in my paragraph 23 on page 8
`of my declaration, line 2. There's a bold-faced
`phrase that says "with a particular one," and just
`roughly speaking, the opinions in Section IV, Roman
`numeral Section IV of my declaration, relate to that
`claim language as it appears in the claims, like, for
`example, in Claim 16. And what I was saying about
`the dependent claims is I think the dependent claims
`may refer to that language as well.
` Q Got it.
` So -- but I think we can agree that your
`opinion with respect to Grounds 1 to 6 relates
`entirely about this Limitation 16[B]. Is
`that accurate?
` A You know, I don't remember what each of
`these grounds is referring to. I'm just offering
`
`Page 20
`
`Whether there's a connection to the other
`limitations, I would have to check that out. But I
`don't immediately see one offhand, but I don't want
`to swear to it until I really check carefully.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q Okay. I would -- I mean, I would like you
`to check carefully, then, that Section IV doesn't
`refer to any limitation other than 16[B].
` A Well, the difficulty in answering the
`question is there are connections between the various
`limitations, you know. Like Limitation 16[C1] is
`connected to 16[B] because it -- it happens based on
`a conditional logical expression of whether or not
`16[B] occurs or whether the termination is a "yes" or
`a "no."
` So there's a connection there. So my
`opinions about 16[B] have an influence with other
`limitations, but it's not, like, a direct opinion
`about them. So it's more of an indirect connection.
` Q But you've not included any opinion in your
`declaration that 16[C] is missing from Hsu. Is that
`accurate?
` A Well, I think there's an inference, because
`if 16[B] is not met by Hsu, for example, then that
`propagates its effect within the limitation, because
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 19
`opinions about specific technical questions.
` Q Okay.
` A I can go through and try to track down what
`the various grounds are. I didn't really pay
`attention to what ground number whatever means.
` Q All right. Well, let's not talk about
`grounds specifically, then. But your opinion is
`based entirely on this Limitation 16[B].
` A Are you talking about what's in Section IV?
` Q In Section IV. Yes.
` A Section IV certainly discusses
`Limitation 16[B]. Whether or not that applies to
`other limitations, I would have to look.
` Q I mean, I believe your opinion, at least
`what's in the declaration, is related only to
`Limitation 16[B]. That was my reading of it, but if
`you think that it goes beyond that, I would like to
`know that. So I'll give you a chance to look through
`it.
` A Well, I think that --
` MR. NOROOZI: Just one second.
` Objection. Form.
` MR. LYNN: Okay.
` THE WITNESS: I think the opinions in
`Section IV directly relate to Limitation 16[B].
`
`Page 21
`then it doesn't even make sense to analyze 16[C1]
`because 16[C1] refers back to said determination,
`which occurs in 16[B], and if there is no such said
`determination, you're missing an antecedent basis
`there. So I don't even know how you can ask the
`question about 16[C1] regarding Hsu if there is no
`16[B] in Hsu.
` Q You don't separately evaluate 16[C] -- any
`of Section 16[C] in your declaration; right?
` A I don't specifically separately look at
`16[C1], as far as I can remember, but it could be
`influenced by my opinions about 16[B].
` Q But those opinions -- any opinion about
`16[C] is not in your declaration; right?
` A There's no direct analysis. There may be an
`indirect conclusion that you could infer from my
`16[B] analysis.
` Q And with respect to just this discussion of
`Hsu, you also don't have any discussion of
`Limitation 16[D] in this Section IV; right?
` A Basically the same answer: Since it depends
`on whether a determination was made in 16[B], if
`16[B] does not occur in Hsu, then it's nonsensical to
`even think about whether 16[D] occurs. It couldn't
`possibly occur in Hsu.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 22
` So there's a cascading effect, but because
`16[B] does not occur in Hsu, in my opinion, therefore
`all of 16[C] and all of 16[D] can't occur because
`they're referring back to something which doesn't
`exist.
` Q So you're saying that your opinion --
` Well, let's just ask your opinion. Your
`opinion is that 16[B] is not disclosed in Hsu; is
`that right?
` A That's correct.
` Q And I think that's in your paragraph 33,
`where you state, "Accordingly, I disagree that
`Dr. Creusere has shown that Hsu teaches
`Limitation 16[B]."
` A That's correct.
` Q So you do have an opinion that 16[B] is not
`in Hsu; is that correct?
` A That's correct. That's what paragraph 33
`says.
` Q But your Section IV doesn't have any mention
`of 16[A]; right?
` A I don't believe there's a mention of 16[A].
`Well, I mean, I'd have to check, but I don't recall
`one offhand.
` Q So -- I mean, it's not that many paragraphs.
`
`Page 24
`
`declaration.
` Q And you also don't have any opinion in your
`declaration that Hsu fails to disclose
`Limitation 16[C].
` A Well, like I said, I think that logically
`follows immediately from my opinion that 16[B] is not
`disclosed by Hsu, because it would be nonsensical for
`16[C] or even 16[D] to happen if 16[B] doesn't hold
`because they're referring to a nonexistent condition.
`So I don't know if I actually explicitly expressed it
`in words in my declaration, but certainly implicitly
`it's there.
` Q You didn't -- so you didn't express in words
`in your declaration that Hsu fails to disclose
`Limitation 16[C]; right?
` A I did not explicitly, in words, express
`that, but I implicitly implied it based on my opinion
`about 16[B].
` Q So you didn't consider whether 16[C] was
`satisfied by Hsu or not.
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I considered it in the
`sense that, once I knew 16[B] was not satisfied, it
`immediately followed that 16[C] and 16[D] couldn't
`possibly follow because they're both referring back
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 23
`
`We can look.
` There's no reference to 16[A] in your
`Section IV; correct?
` A I don't think there's a direct reference to
`it.
` Q So it's not your opinion that Hsu fails to
`disclose Limitation 16[A].
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I don't recall seeing a
`statement by Dr. Creusere whether or not 16[A] is met
`by Hsu. In fact, I believe, if I remember right, in
`his deposition testimony, there's something to the
`effect that he didn't take into consideration what a
`particular block was or he didn't specify within
`Hsu -- he didn't consider or specify what a block
`meant in his infringement analysis -- or in his
`analysis. Sorry.
` So I didn't specifically offer an opinion
`within my declaration, but I'm not so sure it's met
`by Hsu.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q But you don't have any opinion in your
`declaration that Hsu discloses Limitation 16[A];
`right?
` A I don't believe I offered that opinion in my
`
`Page 25
`
`to something that doesn't exist in Hsu.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q If that were the case, why didn't you write
`that in your declaration?
` A It seemed like such a clear logical
`conclusion that anybody that understands basic logic
`would immediately know that, if 16[C] and 16[D] are
`both referring to something in 16[B], which I'm
`offering the opinion doesn't exist, then there's no
`way that 16[C] and 16[D] could exist. It's clear to
`anybody reading that.
` Q So -- so other than -- other than what you
`say is clear logic -- actually, strike that.
` You do not express in words in your
`declaration that Hsu fails to disclose
`Limitation 16[C]; right?
` A I expressed implicitly in words, yes, not
`explicitly, as I just stated in a previous answer.
` Q Just so we're clear, you did not expressly
`state in words, explicitly, that Limitation 16[C] was
`not met by Hsu.
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: As I said, I implicitly did
`it. I may not have explicitly done it.
`///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 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
`
`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
`
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q And with respect to Limitation 16[D], you
`did not include an opinion in your declaration that
`Hsu fails to disclose Limitation 16[D]; correct?
` A The same answer I just gave.
` Q So you did not include an opinion in your
`declaration that Hsu fails to disclose
`Limitation 16[D].
` A Well, I implicitly offered that opinion, but
`I did not explicitly offer it.
` Q You don't have anything in your opinion in
`Section IV that Hsu fails to disclose elements of
`Claim 32; right?
` A Well, Claim 32 depends from Claim 16. So
`the fact that I'm saying that 16[B] does not -- is
`not met by Hsu, I'm therefore implying the same is
`true for 32. But beyond that, there's no additional
`opinion I'm offering within my declaration about 32
`other than the fact that 16[B] is not met.
` Q Okay. So I think that's a fair way to put
`it. Other than the fact that you believe that
`Limitation 16[B] is not disclosed by Hsu, you don't
`have an opinion that -- a separate opinion that
`claim -- that Hsu does not disclose the elements of
`Claim 32; right?
`
`Page 28
` Q But you don't include the words in your
`declaration; correct?
` A Which words are you referring to?
` Q You don't have any reference to
`Limitation 16[C] or 16[D] in your declaration. You
`have no reference to those -- actually, strike that.
` With respect to Hsu, you have no reference
`to Limitation 16[C] or 16[D]; correct?
` A Well, I think there's an implicit reference
`because anybody looking at 16[C] or 16[D] would see
`that they're directly dependent upon 16[B]. So the
`fact that I'm even discussing 16[B] immediately
`informs someone reading my report that 16[C] and
`16[D] can't possibly be met by Hsu.
` So I may not have written the words "16[C]"
`and "16[D]" in my Section IV, but I believe it's
`clear from my 16[B] analysis that it refers to them.
` MR. LYNN: I'll move to strike the answer.
` Q In your opinion, in Section -- strike that.
` In your declaration in Section IV, related
`to Hsu as a primary reference, you do not use the
`words "Limitation 16[C]" or "Limitation 16[D]."
` Correct?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Would you mind saying it one
`
`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
`
`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 That's correct.
` Q And other than your opinion with respect to
`16[B], you don't have any separate opinion whether
`Hsu fails to disclose the elements of Claim 32 -- or
`34. Sorry.
` A That is correct.
` Q And the same is true with respect to
`Claim 35; right?
` A That's true.
` Q And, actually, the same would be true for
`the other elements of Claim 16 as well.
` A Could you ask that sentence more completely?
` Q So other than the fact that you say that
`Limitation 16[B] is not disclosed in Hsu, you don't
`have any additional opinion that Limitation 16[C] or
`Limitation 16[D] are not met by Hsu.
` A No. I disagree with that. As I stated
`before, I affirmatively have the opinion that 16[B]
`is not met by Hsu, and therefore, by logical
`deduction, it's clear that both 16[C] and 16[D]
`cannot be met by Hsu.
` Q But you didn't express that in words. You
`expressed that implicitly, you say.
` A Well, implicit opinions can be expressed in
`words, and that's what I did.
`
`Page 29
`
`more time? I think I missed a word.
`BY MR. LYNN:
` Q Sure.
` In your declaration, in Section IV, related
`to Hsu as a primary reference, you do not use the
`words "Limitation 16[C]" or "Limitation 16[D]"?
` A I don't believe I explicitly use those
`words, even though I implicitly refer to them.
` MR. LYNN: Move to strike everything
`after even -- move to strike everything after "words"
`in that answer.
` Q If we look at the table of grounds there, I
`think I handed you earlier --
` A Okay.
` Q -- Ground 2 relates to Hsu as a primary
`reference and specifically obviousness over Hsu.
` Is that right?
` A I believe that's what 103 refers to is
`obviousness.
` Q And that's with respect to Claims 17 and 18;
`right?
` A That's what the chart indicates. Yes.
` Q And then Ground 5 lists a 103 grounds based
`on Hsu and Franaszek; right?
` A That's what it says.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`Teradata Ex. 1033
`Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-00557
`
`

`

`Page 30
` Q And that's with respect to Claims 17, 18,
`and 32.
` A Correct.
` Q And then for Ground 6, that is an
`obviousness combination of Hsu and Langdon with
`respect to Claim 19; right?
` A That's correct.
` Q In your declaration, you don't have any
`independent opinion related to Ground 2 at all, do
`you?
` A Well, Ground 2 relates to dependent
`Claims 17 and 18, both of which depend from 16,
`Claim 16. And I offer an opinion, as we've been
`discussing, in my Section IV that, in particular,
`analyzes 16[B]. So whatever my opinions are
`regarding 16[B] certainly apply to Claims 17 and 18.
`So, therefore --
` I think you were asking me about Ground 2.
` Is that correct?
` Q Right.
` A So, therefore, with respect to Ground 2,
`with regard Claims 17 and 18, my opinions in
`Section IV certainly apply.
` Q Outside of your opinion that
`Limitation 16[B] is not met by Hsu, you don't have
`
`Page 32
`
` Correct?
` A I believe that's correct. Yes.
` Q So other than your opinion that
`Limitation 16[B] is not met by Hsu, you have no
`additional independent opinion in your declaration
`with respect to any of the dependent claims: 17, 18,
`19, 32, 34, and 35.
` A Well, are we just focusing on my Section IV
`right now?
` Q Yes.
` A Okay. So with respect to my opinions in
`Section IV, other than my opinions in Section IV
`about Claim 16, in my declaration, I don't believe I
`offered any specific other opinions about the
`independent claims other than those I offered about
`dependent -- or I'm sorry -- independent Claim 16
`from which they depend.
` Q I think I got lost in the answer.
` A Do you want me to say it again?
` Q Yeah. If you can repeat your answer.
` A Okay. Other than the opinions in my
`Section IV regarding Claim 16, I do not believe in my
`declaration I offered additional opinions about the
`dependent claims that depend from Claim 16.
` Q Fair.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 31
`any independent opinion in your declaration about
`Ground 2; right?
` A Well, I don't think, in m