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
`
`

`

`Page 259
`
`BY MR. WAMSLEY:
` Q. I'm confused. You're referring to the car, but
`isn't it a fact that this discussion all relates to the
`diving watch embodiment?
` A. I'm sorry. I haven't looked at that.
` So inside the device versus outside the device.
`So you might -- imagine that you go diving, and you
`measure these parameters, and then later the insurance
`premiums are calculated based on what you did.
` Q. You keep changing from what my question is,
`though, Mr. Andrews. My question relates to the
`determination of the risk evaluation values.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And my question was: Isn't it a fact that
`there's no disclosure in Kosaka that data is conveyed to
`the insurer for determining those risk evaluation
`values?
` MR. MYERS: Objection. 402, 403.
` THE WITNESS: I would say that Kosaka certainly
`leaves that option open.
`BY MR. WAMSLEY:
` Q. By not disclosing it?
` MR. MYERS: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: Actually, no. By saying that the
`risk evaluation values may be determined subsequently.
`
`Page 261
`
` A. No.
` Q. Do you understand it's a legal question as to
`whether a witness is qualified to opine on particular
`topics?
` A. I don't know whether that is a legal question
`or not. I do know that Dr. Ehsani has no -- apparently
`no experience in wireless communication systems or
`telematic systems, from his CV.
` Q. Do you believe you're qualified to testify as
`to whether Dr. Ehsani has necessary qualifications to
`render legal -- to render technical opinions in this
`matter?
` A. Well, not being a lawyer, I don't know what the
`requirements for that are. But what I do know is that
`looking at his CV, he doesn't have any experience with
`telematic systems or communication systems, which is
`what he's opining on.
` Q. Let's turn to paragraph 20 of your rebuttal
`declaration. And here, you state that, "Kosaka does not
`indicate that driver warning functionality is necessary
`for its risk evaluation and premium determination
`analysis to function"; right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So you understand the -- the title of the
`Kosaka patent application is "Risk Evaluation Device and
`
`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 260
`Or the change in insurance premium may be calculated
`subsequently. That could --
`BY MR. WAMSLEY:
` Q. Where does it disclose in Kosaka that
`someone -- something other than his device calculates
`risk evaluation values?
` A. I don't think that Kosaka explicitly says that.
`But he does say that they could be calculated
`subsequently.
` And as I said earlier, there are payments --
`payment transactions. He talks about an online credit
`settlement may be performed using a credit card, rather
`than settlement of the payment being a prepaid amount.
`And all of those things would have to be done through
`some kind of a communications scheme.
` Q. Let me ask you to look at paragraphs 13 and 14
`of your rebuttal declaration.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And you see your opinion in -- expressed in
`paragraph 14, that Dr. Ehsani is unqualified to opine on
`certain things?
` A. That's right.
` Q. Are you a lawyer, Mr. Andrews?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you have legal training?
`
`Page 262
`Insurance Premium Determination Device"?
` A. That's right.
` Q. And he discloses, as part of his risk
`evaluation device, the capability of a warning being
`delivered to the driver in the event risk exceeds a
`certain level; correct?
` A. I think that's a fair characterization. I'm
`not sure if it's exactly how he says it. But fair.
` Q. But in -- in opining that that warning
`functionality is not indicated to be necessary, you're
`basically carving that out of his risk evaluation
`device; is that right?
` MR. MYERS: Objection. 402, 403.
` THE WITNESS: I'm merely stating that it's not
`central to the determination of the risk. What you do
`with the risk evaluation value that you ultimately end
`up with from the system could be to warn, but it could
`also be to calculate an insurance premium, or it could
`certainly be used in the process of calculating one.
` So the warning is a -- something that Kosaka
`describes as being possible. But it's not -- apparently
`not central to the function of the device.
`BY MR. WAMSLEY:
` Q. That's your conclusion, that it's not central
`to the function of the device?
`
`20 (Pages 259 to 262)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`