throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 186
`
` LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE )
` COMPANY, ) No. CBM2012-00002
` ) CBM2012-00004 (JL)
` Petitioner, ) Patent 6,064,970
` )
` vs. ) No. CBM2013-0004 (JL)
` ) Patent 8,090,598
` PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY )
` INSURANCE COMPANY, ) No. CBM2012-0003
` ) CBM2013-0009 (JL)
` Patent Owner. ) Patent 8,140,358
` ______________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
` Palo Alto, California
` Tuesday, September 24, 2013
` Volume 2
`
`Reported by:
`LESLIE ROCKWOOD, RPR, CSR 3462
`Job No. 65807
`
`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
`
`

`
`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 311
`relating to car maintenance or management change. So
`that seems to me to be about as real time as it's going
`to get.
` Q. Let me direct your attention to paragraph 44 of
`your rebuttal declaration.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So here you're providing opinions on whether
`Mr. Zatkovich is qualified to opine on certain subjects;
`correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So in this paragraph, are you opining that his
`testimony, as a matter of law, should be excluded?
` A. What I'm saying here is that the things that he
`appears to be opining on are things related to cost
`determinations and generating the use of an actuarial
`class within an insurance context or generating a rating
`factor and that he's not presented himself in his report
`as being an insurance expert. He's presented himself as
`being a technical expert.
` Q. You're not an expert on whether or not
`Mr. Zatkovich's testimony is admissible, are you?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. So let's turn to paragraph 50 of your
`rebuttal declaration.
` A. Okay.
`
`Page 313
`from each cell site to the public telephone network.
`You don't go from cell site to cell site.
` So I don't think that I would call a cellular
`network -- it's certainly a communications link, which
`is what's referred to in Figure 4 of the '650
`application, but it's not a distributed network which
`has a variety of resources and services that are not all
`in the same box the way the distributed network of the
`'358 patent is described.
` Q. Just to be clear, you don't think a cellular
`phone network has a variety of resources or services
`that are not all in the same box?
` A. The cellular telephone network itself?
` Q. Right.
` A. The cellular telephone network is a bay station
`that connects a cellular link to the telephone network,
`and there certainly are services, but they are services
`associated with managing and delivering a call or
`routing data to some place outside the network. They
`are not the distributed network that is described in the
`'358 patent, which has -- well, it's actually not really
`described here very well, either, I guess.
` Anyway, the cellular network is definitely
`distributed. It's a different kind of network than I
`think is -- is referenced in the '358 patent. It's a
`
`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 312
` Q. And here you state your opinion that Figure 4
`of the '650 application depicts a communications link
`and an operations control center but does not disclose
`that the link is configured to transfer selected vehicle
`data from the in-vehicle memory to a distributed network
`and a server.
` Do you see that?
` A. I see that.
` Q. Is a cellular phone network a distributed
`network?
` A. Not in the context of the distributed network
`and server of the patent.
` Q. Not in the context of the distributed network
`of the '358 patent?
` A. That's right. A distributed network and server
`would be a system that had a network with a variety of
`components attached to it, some of which might be a
`server, some of which might be data storage,
`computational engines, et cetera. A cellular system is
`a communications network.
` Q. And it's distributed; right?
` A. I wouldn't actually say that. If you said that
`it was distributed, then you would have different
`components located at different parts of the network.
`But a cellular network is actually like a star: You go
`
`Page 314
`communications link, and there may be network aspects
`associated with it, but I don't think that by saying
`that there's a reference to a cellular network in
`Figure 4 that that is the same as the distributed
`network and server described in the claims of the '358
`patent.
` Q. Is it your testimony that servers aren't used
`in cellular networks?
` A. As I said earlier, if there is a server that's
`used in a cellular network, it would be something
`associated with handling the billing and various
`administrative aspects of handling the call.
` If you were to go use a service with a
`smartphone over a cellular network, the server that
`you're going to is not part of the cellular network.
`It's on the internet somewhere.
` Q. Is transmission of data by cellular
`communication a transmission over a distributed network?
` MR. MYERS: Objection. 402, 403.
` THE WITNESS: It is transmission over a
`communications network, but it is not transmission to a
`distributed network and server.
`BY MR. WAMSLEY:
` Q. For the reasons you've mentioned previously; is
`that right?
`
`33 (Pages 311 to 314)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket