Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 531

SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 392 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity filed by Bright Response LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Andrew D. Weiss, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Weiss, Andrew)

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 531 Att. 3

EXHIBIT B

Dockets.Justia.com

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 vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC, Plaintiff,

GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants. ---------------------------

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-371-CE

DEPOSITION OF BRADLEY ALLEN, taken on behalf of plaintiff, at 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California, Wednesday, July 21, 2010, commencing at 12:06 p.m., before Susan Edwards, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 13051.

2
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17 15:17

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

connection with this? A Q A Q No. Do you expect to? No. Now, paragraph 4 references a user guide for Do you see that?

version 2.0 CBR Express software. A Q Yes.

Is that referring to the user guide 2.0 that we

marked as Exhibit 3? A Q Yes. Your declaration states that "This user

guide -- User's Guide accurately describes the functionalities of the CBR Express 2.0 as it was sold and marketed to the public in 1995." A Q A Yes. Why -- why 1995? Because that is the date when certainly CBR This would have been Do you see that?

Express was being sold in 1995.

the document that would have described that and been delivered with the product to the users. Q Okay. But your declaration says that this

described -- accurately describes the functionalities as the product sold and marketed in 1995 because 1995 is the date of Exhibit 3; correct? A Well --

87
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:17 15:17 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:18 15:19 15:19 15:19 15:19 15:19 15:19 15:20 15:20 15:20 15:20 15:20

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

MR. ROOKLIDGE: THE WITNESS:

Object to the form. This is a document that talks So I'm assuming that it

about 1995 in the copyright. is -BY MR. FENSTER: Q A Q Okay.

-- valid for that date. Do you know why you were only given pieces of

the reference manual? A Q No. Do you know if Mr. Clayton had a full copy of

reference manual? A Q I'm not sure. When you met with Bill Rooklidge and the other

attorneys yesterday, did they talk to you about their view regarding whether the 664 patent discloses a step of classifying a message for human review? A Q I don't believe so. Okay. Does the 664 patent describe classifying

a message for human review? MR. ROOKLIDGE: THE WITNESS: BY MR. FENSTER: Q A Uh-huh. No. Objection to form. Take a moment and review.

88
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:21 15:21 15:21 15:21 15:21 15:21 15:21 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:24 15:24

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

Q A Q A

Does -- there's a description of a match table. Yes. What is a match table? A match table is a data structure that supports

the determination of the set of matching cases for a given problem. Q Now, there are some places in the patent that

describe assigning attribute values; is that right? A Q Yes. Okay. And as I understand it, those attribute

values are assigned to the cases that are in the match table; is that right? A No. Attribute values are parts of cases

independently of the -- of whether or not they're assigned to the match table, if I'm recalling this correctly, which I believe I am. Q I see. So if you'd turn to column 5 of the 664

patent, please. A Q Yes. Okay. So I'm looking at the paragraph starting

at line 16. A Q Yes. And you describe determining a match quality Do you see that?

which is reference numeral 315. A Yes.

89
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:29

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

to as 320 to determine if there is a match. In column 5 on line 63, the reference is made that, you know, the cases that are -- that are matched using that particular data structure may have their match quality determined in a like manner with that in figure 3A which refers to the match table. So that's a

separate method for computing match quality than one that requires a match table. Q A Q A Q A Q So at column 5, line 60 -16? 60 -60, yes. -- where you just were -Uh-huh. -- it says: "In a preferred embodiment, cases

which are hit in this manner may be noted in the match table and may have their match quality determined in like manner as disclosed with figure 3A." A Q A Q Correct. So -They may --- do I misunderstand that that's not still

describing finding a match quality for those in the match table? A It may be note -- it may be noted in the match

91
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:29 15:29 15:29 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:31 15:31 15:31 15:31 15:31 15:31

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

table, but this is a separate way of computing, in essence, that match quality independently of using the match table as a data structure. Q And so this is -- this is disclosing

calculating a match quality for cases which are hit in this manner -A Q Yes. -- do you see that? What does that mean "cases which are hit in this manner"? A Where the -- where attribute values are found

in the problem that -- that match attribute values that are found in cases inside the case base. Q So this is describing determining match quality

for those which have attribute value hits? A Q Yes. Would you agree that that's a subset of the

total number of exemplar cases in the case base? A Q It may be. Okay. So the patent describes two embodiments:

One, where you only determine the match quality for those in the match table; correct? A Q Correct. And another, where you only determine a match

quality for those where there are attribute hits;

92
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:31 15:31 15:31 15:31 15:31 15:31 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:33 15:34 15:34 15:34 15:34

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

correct? A Q Yes. Those are the two embodiments that are

disclosed with respect to match quality? MR. ROOKLIDGE: THE WITNESS: Object to the form. If we look at the claims -- if

we're -- are we speaking specifically with the specification? BY MR. FENSTER: Q Let's -- let's stick first with the Then I'll ask you about the claim. Or can we discuss the claims?

specification. A Q Okay.

So the two embodiments that I've described are

the two embodiments that are disclosed with respect to match quality in the specification; correct? A Q Yes. And are there other embodiments that you think

are contained in the claims? A Q A Yes. Okay. Go ahead.

If we look at claim 22, again, talking about a

case-based reasoning system, rule case -- or rule base, case base, data base, inference engine for performing reasoning steps on that. And, you know, means for

performing match -- a method of matching a problem,

93
BRADLEY ALLEN

15:34 15:34 15:34 15:34 15:34 15:34 15:34 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35

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

generating signature bits based on the attribute value pairs for each case in the -- in the case base, signatures for, you know, the problem template. Claim 34 talks about a system, as in claim 22, wherein a set of cases which are matched are evaluated for quality of match. Q So claim 34 is determining -- is also

describing calculating a -- or evaluating quality of match for those -- a set of cases which are matched; correct? A Q For a set of cases. Well, I'm just reading claim 34. It says:

"Wherein a set of cases which are matched" -A Q A Q Right. -- "are evaluated for quality of match." Yes. So this is describing evaluating for quality of

match a set of cases that are matched; correct? A Q Yes. Okay. Which may be a subset of the cases which

are compared? A Q May be. Okay. Does the 664 patent describe normalizing

the match-quality score? A No.

94
BRADLEY ALLEN