Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-------------------------
`ABB, Inc., : Trial No. IRR2013-00074
` Petitioner, : Patent 8,073,557 B2
`vs. :
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation, :
` Patent Owner. :
`-------------------------
` VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` NIKOLAOS P. PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, PH.D.
` WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2013
` MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
` * * *
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`INDEX:
`EXAMINATION: PAGE
`By Mr. Chorush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`By Mr. McLeod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
` * * *
`EXHIBITS:
`PAPANIKOLOPOULOS EXHIBITS: PAGE MARKED
`Exhibit 2025 Microsoft Press Computer
` Dictionary 138
` * * *
`
`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 5
`1
` THE VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We are on the
`2
`record.
`3
` This is the videotaped deposition of
`4 Dr. Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos taken on December
`5
`4th, 2013. Time now is approximately 8:40 a.m.
`6
` The deposition is being taken in the
`7 matter of ABB, Incorporated versus Roy-G-Biv
`8
`Corporation before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`9
`Board, Trial Numbers IPR2013-00062 and
`10
`IPR2013-00074. The deposition is taking place
`11
`in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
`12
` My name is Dean Hibbin. I'm the
`13
`videographer representing Magna Legal Services.
`14
` Will counsel please identify
`15
`themselves for the record?
`16
` MR. CHORUSH: Russ Chorush on behalf
`17
`of Roy-G-Biv Corporation.
`18
` MR. McLEOD: Richard McLeod on behalf
`19
`of ABB.
`20
` MR. NUPP: Robert Nupp on behalf of
`21
`ABB.
`22
` THE VIDEO TECHNICIAN: And would the
`23
`court reporter please swear in the witness?
`24
` * * *
`25
` NIKOLAOS P. PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, PH.D.,
`
`
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
` * * *
`
`1
`
`23
`
` Videotaped Oral Deposition of NIKOLAOS P.
`4
`PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, PH.D. taken at the Radisson
`5
`Plaza VII Hotel, 35 South Seventh Street,
`6 Minneapolis, Minnesota on Wednesday, December 4,
`7
`2013, commencing at 8:30 a.m. before Rebecca L.
`8 Klanderud, a Certified Shorthand Reporter.
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` * * *
`
`Page 3
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`2
` KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`3
` BY: RICK McLEOD, ESQUIRE
`4
` Suite 1600
`5
` 121 Southwest Salmon Street
`6
` Portland, Oregon 97204
`7
` 503.595.5300
`8
` Counsel for Petitioner
`9
` ABB, INC.
`10
` BY: ROBERT P. NUPP, ESQUIRE
`11
` 29801 Euclid Avenue
`12
` Wickliffe, Ohio 44092
`13
` 440.585.7826
`14
` Counsel for Petitioner
`15
` HEIMPAYNE CHORUSH, LLP
`16
` BY: RUSSELL A. CHORUSH, ESQUIRE
`17
` 6710 Chase Tower
`18
` 600 Travis
`19
` Houston, Texas 77002
`20
` 713.221.2000
`21
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`22
` * * *
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1
` a witness in the above-entitled matter,
`2
` having been first duly sworn,
`3
` testified on his oath as follows:
`4
` * * *
`5
` EXAMINATION
`6
` * * *
`7
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`8
` Q. Good morning.
`9
` MR. McLEOD: I have a couple of
`10
`things before we begin. It's housekeeping.
`11
` We're not waiving review of the
`12
`transcript and corrections and, second, we are
`13 making Dr. Papanikolopoulos available in the 058
`14
`today. I understand RGB is choosing not to
`15
`question him on that matter.
`16
` MR. CHORUSH: Well, Roy-G-Biv doesn't
`17
`agree that this deposition is being taken in
`18
`that matter for the reasons that counsel has
`19
`identified for you.
`20
` THE WITNESS: Good morning.
`21
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`22
` Q. Good morning.
`23
` Have you been deposed before?
`24
` A. I have been deposed once, but not on
`25
`an IP matter. It had to do with the university
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`personnel issues.
`2
` Q. What type of personnel issues?
`3
` A. So I was deposed in a case that
`4
`involved the Georgia Tech faculty, and I was the
`5
`host of interviewing here at the University of
`6 Minnesota. So the State of Georgia asked me
`7
`several questions regarding the interview
`8
`process, and so on and so forth, for a personnel
`9 matter that had to do with Georgia Tech.
`10
` Q. You understand that I'm going to be
`11
`asking you a series of questions today?
`12
` A. I do.
`13
` Q. And you'll be providing answers to
`14 me?
`15
` A. Yes.
`16
` Q. And if you try to articulate your
`17
`answers, that will be helpful since the court
`18
`reporter won't be able to take down a nod or a
`19
`body motion.
`20
` You understand that for your
`21
`testimony today, that you're not to communicate
`22 with anyone regarding the substance of your
`23
`testimony until my cross-examination is over?
`24
` A. I do.
`25
` Q. Will you agree to abide by that rule?
`
`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. Yes.
` Q. You understand that your testimony
`today is being taken under oath, correct?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And you understand that the oath that
`you took today is just as solemn as the oath
`that you would take if testifying at trial?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. You understand that your testimony
`can be used at trial, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason why you cannot
`testify fully and accurately today?
` A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
` Q. We can take breaks today as you need
`them. My only request is that you let me know
`five minutes ahead of time so that I can wrap up
`the line of questioning that I'm on.
` Is that acceptable to you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I have --
` A. My only -- if I have -- if I have to
`visit the restroom.
` Q. Okay. Well, that's fine. You can
`certainly -- we'll take breaks for you to do
`
`Page 9
`
`that. If you'll just let me know five minutes
`ahead of time, that would be great.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I've placed in front of you several
`exhibits, and I'd like to call your attention to
`the two Papanikolopoulos declarations. You may
`find those at the bottom.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Let's look first at the
`Papanikolopoulos declaration submitted with
`respect to the '236 patent, please.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Do you have that in front of you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you recognize that exhibit?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Is that a true and correct copy of
`the declaration that you submitted in the
`2013-00062 matter?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you look on page 31 of the
`declaration we've been discussing, there's a
`signature there.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
`
`
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`1
` Q. Is that your signature?
`2
` A. Yes, it is.
`3
` Q. And a statement above your signature
`4
`indicates that it was -- the declaration was
`5
`submitted subject to penalty of perjury; is that
`6
`correct?
`7
` A. Yes.
`8
` Q. And this declaration was submitted on
`9 October 27th, 2013 or signed I should say on
`10 October 27th, 2013; is that correct?
`11
` A. Yes.
`12
` Q. If I refer to this declaration, which
`13
`is marked as Exhibit 1132 in IPR2013-00062, as
`14
`the Papanikolopoulos '236 declaration, will you
`15
`understand what I mean?
`16
` A. Yes.
`17
` Q. Let's take a look now at the other
`18
`declaration.
`19
` I'm referring to the '557 patent
`20
`declaration submitted in IPR2013-00074 and also
`21 marked as Exhibit 1132.
`22
` Do you see that?
`23
` A. Yes.
`24
` Q. If I refer to this exhibit as the
`25
`Papanikolopoulos '557 declaration, will you
`Page 11
`
`Page 12
`1
`the -- let's make sure that they have the -- 16
`2
`to 30 and 46, 59.
`3
` Q. Other than that difference, that
`4
`they're directed to claims in different patents,
`5 what other differences exist between those two
`6
`declarations?
`7
` A. Can you clarify your question?
`8
` I mean with respect to what, the
`9
`prior art, my analyses?
`10
` Q. Well, that's exactly what I'm getting
`11
`at. I'd like to, as much as possible, not
`12
`duplicate my questioning for one declaration
`13 with respect to the other declaration, and so
`14
`I'm just trying to establish that other than the
`15
`fact that they address different patents, the
`16
`substance of those two declarations is similar?
`17
` A. Based on the assumption -- so that
`18
`the core is quite similar. There are some
`19
`additional -- the board has provided some
`20
`additional guidance with respect to the
`21
`obviousness analysis that I conducted and the
`22
`patentability analysis.
`23
` So although you're going to find my
`24
`analysis of Stewart, Gertz, and Morrow to be
`25
`very similar, I have to tie this to different
`
`Page 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
`
`understand what I mean?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Turning again to page 31, is that
`your signature on the '557 -- strike that.
` Is that your signature on the
`Papanikolopoulos '557 declaration?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And this declaration was also
`submitted subject to penalty of perjury,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. To your knowledge, is the
`Papanikolopoulos '557 declaration a true and
`correct copy of the declaration that you
`submitted?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Let me ask: Other than the fact that
`the Papanikolopoulos '236 declaration relates to
`the '236 patent and the Papanikolopoulos '557
`declaration relates to the '557 patent, what
`substantive differences exist between these two
`declarations?
` A. I'm addressing the different claims.
` So in particular, claim -- the '236
`includes Claims 1 to 10. The other one includes
`
`1
`references as guided by the -- the board.
`2
` Q. And so I want to make certain that I
`3
`understood what you said.
`4
` The substance of the declarations is
`5
`very similar, except that they differ with
`6
`respect to your obviousness analysis in certain
`7
`respects?
`8
` Is that correct?
`9
` A. In certain respects. And -- and,
`10
`again, I will ask you to clarify this because in
`11 my declarations, both I say what I have been
`12
`asked to do, so they are -- let me give you one
`13
`example.
`14
` The HB86 reference doesn't exist in
`15
`both of them, so my analysis in one includes the
`16 HB86, which has not been addressed by Dr.
`17
`Stewart, but the other doesn't.
`18
` So this is the type of differences
`19
`that I see, but the overall scope and I will say
`20
`the core is very similar.
`21
` Q. You're here today testifying on
`22
`behalf of ABB, correct?
`23
` A. Yes.
`24
` Q. When were you first contacted by ABB?
`25
` A. September 13.
`
`
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1
` Q. Of 2013, is that correct?
`2
` A. Yes.
`3
` Q. Who contacted you?
`4
` A. Mr. Robert Nupp.
`5
` Q. Are you aware that ABB attempted to
`6
`retain Dr. Stewart in these matters?
`7
` A. Yes.
`8
` Q. Do you have an understanding as to
`9 whether or not ABB was successful in retaining
`10 Dr. Stewart in these matters?
`11
` A. I have no direct knowledge.
`12
` Q. Do you have any relationships with
`13 ABB?
`14
` A. No, except I'm vice president for
`15
`conferences for IEEE. It's a volunteer
`16
`organization of electrical and electronic
`17
`engineers. So at one of the conferences that I
`18
`organized in town, a division of ABB donated
`19
`funds actually in order to have a banner, but
`20
`this was conducted by the treasurer of the con-
`21
`-- of the conference, so this is my only --
`22
` Q. Is that your only relationship with
`23 ABB?
`24
` A. To the best of my knowledge.
`25
` Q. Are any of your students employed by
`Page 15
`
`1 ABB?
`2
` A. I have no direct knowledge of this.
`3
` Q. Have you previously served as a
`4
`testifying expert in any other matter?
`5
` A. Yes.
`6
` Q. In which matter did you serve as a
`7
`testifying expert?
`8
` A. It's an ongoing cases -- case, Toyota
`9
`against American Vehicular Systems.
`10
` Q. Is that a patent infringement case?
`11
` A. Yes.
`12
` Q. You've not been deposed yet in that
`13
`case, correct?
`14
` A. Yes.
`15
` Q. You have been deposed?
`16
` A. No, I haven't.
`17
` Q. In preparing for your deposition
`18
`today, did you review your declarations?
`19
` A. Yes.
`20
` Q. Did you locate any errors in those
`21
`declarations?
`22
` A. I located some margin issues.
`23
` Q. Margin issues?
`24
` A. Like, for example, the headings.
`25
` Q. Oh.
`
`Page 16
`1
` A. Some of the headings, actually they
`2
`have been a few spaces on the left.
`3
` Q. You're a perfectionist, aren't you?
`4
` A. To the best of my abilities.
`5
` Q. Yes. Other than typographical
`6
`errors, did you notice any errors in your report
`7
`-- in your declarations when you reviewed them
`8
`in preparation for your deposition today?
`9
` A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
`10
` Q. Would you please look at the other
`11
`three Exhibits?
`12
` You can close the two declarations
`13
`now.
`14
` I've placed three other Exhibits in
`15
`front of you.
`16
` Actually, before we -- before we get
`17
`to those, let me ask you: If I refer to United
`18
`States Patent Number 6,516,236 as the '236
`19
`patent, will you understand what I mean?
`20
` A. Yes.
`21
` Q. If I refer to United States Patent
`22 Number 8,073,557 as the '557 patent, will you
`23
`understand what I mean?
`24
` A. Yes.
`25
` Q. If you now look at those other three
`Page 17
`
`1
`Exhibits, first one I'd ask you to look at is a
`2
`document titled a Visual Programming Environment
`3
`For Real-Time Control Systems.
`4
` That bears Exhibit Number 1002,
`5
`correct?
`6
` A. Yes.
`7
` Q. And that is a Ph.D. thesis by Matthew
`8 Wayne Gertz, correct?
`9
` A. Yes.
`10
` Q. If I refer to that document today as
`11
`the Gertz reference, will you understand what I
`12 mean?
`13
` A. Yes, I do.
`14
` Q. You were in Professor Khosla's lab,
`15
`the same lab that Dr. Gertz obtained his Ph.D.
`16
`from, correct?
`17
` A. Yes.
`18
` Q. When did you complete your work in
`19 Dr. Khosla's lab?
`20
` A. 1992, August.
`21
` Q. So you were no longer in Dr. Khosla's
`22
`lab at the time that Dr. Gertz authored his
`23
`Ph.D. thesis, correct?
`24
` A. Can you clarify this?
`25
` Q. Yes. The -- the Ph.D. thesis
`
`
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`

`

`Page 18
`1
`indicates that it was authored on November 22nd,
`2
`1994.
`3
` Do you see that?
`4
` A. Yes.
`5
` Q. And you left the Khosla lab in August
`6
`1992, correct?
`7
` A. Let me clarify. I left -- you never
`8
`really leave Pradeep's lab. So, physically, I
`9
`left, but there were a lot of -- many
`10
`connections.
`11
` Q. What types of connections?
`12
` A. So I was member of the committee of
`13
`Professor Bradley Nelson, so I will go -- and
`14
`also September 15, '92, I receive a subcontract
`15
`from Carnegie Mellon that involves Sandia Labs,
`16
`and the work was under the direction of Ray
`17 Harrigan, Dr. Harrigan at Sandia Labs who funded
`18
`several, in this particular case the -- the --
`19
`at least personally the work of Matt Gertz.
`20
` So I got a subcontract for around a
`21
`hundred plus thousand dollars for two years and
`22
`in 1994, I got a second this time direct
`23
`contract from the Department of Energy through
`24
`Sandia Labs under the direction of Ray Harrigan.
`25
` At that time, we will have meetings
`
`Page 19
`in the summer where we will gather, and we will
`present the results. We'll be given guidance,
`criticism, praise, or sometimes even threats
`that the work might not have been of sufficient
`quality so that's -- that's what I mean that
`there were many interactions.
` Also, I wrote a lot of recommendation
`letters for Pradeep, students of Pradeep. I'm
`also the godfather of Pradeep's daughter.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. This is a very closely knit
`community, and this refers back to my comment
`that we continue to have interactions and even,
`for example, using the Chimera system in my lab
`at the University of Minnesota.
` Q. That was a system that was designed
`and built by Dr. Stewart, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Why did you continue to use the
`Chimera system after you left Professor Khosla's
`lab?
` A. Financial constraints. The
`alternatives were fairly expensive, so we
`develop a -- something called the Minnesota
`Robotic Visual Tracker, which was an extension
`
`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 20
`1
`of my Ph.D. thesis, and we used the Chimera II,
`2 which is another earlier version of the work
`3
`described in the thesis of Dr. Stewart.
`4
` Q. Did it work well for you?
`5
` A. Not really.
`6
` Q. No?
`7
` Why not?
`8
` A. There were issues. When you deal
`9 with student written software and you take it
`10
`out of its environment, sometimes it's extremely
`11
`tricky.
`12
` Q. I think I asked you this, but I just
`13 want to make certain.
`14
` If I refer to Dr. Gertz's Ph.D.
`15
`thesis as the Gertz reference, you'll understand
`16 what I mean?
`17
` A. Yes.
`18
` Q. Let's take a look at Dr. Stewart's
`19
`thesis titled Real-Time Software Design and
`20 Analysis of Reconfigureable Multi-Sensor Based
`21
`Systems.
`22
` Do you see that?
`23
` A. Can you repeat this?
`24
` It's just --
`25
` Q. Yes. I said let's take a look at the
`
`Page 21
`1
`Ph.D. thesis of Dr. Stewart titled Real-Time
`2
`Software Design and Analysis of Reconfigureable
`3 Multi-Sensor Based Systems.
`4
` Do you have that in front of you?
`5
` A. Yes, I do.
`6
` Q. That bears Exhibit Number 1004,
`7
`correct?
`8
` A. Yes.
`9
` Q. If I refer to this today as the
`10
`Stewart reference, will you understand what I
`11 mean?
`12
` A. Yes.
`13
` Q. And you have one other exhibit in
`14
`front of you, an article titled Vision and Force
`15 Driven Sensorimotor Primitives for Robotic
`16 Assembly Skills.
`17
` Do you see that?
`18
` A. Yes.
`19
` Q. It bears Exhibit 1005, correct?
`20
` A. Yes.
`21
` Q. And is authored by Dr. Morrow, Dr.
`22 Nelson, and Dr. Khosla, correct?
`23
` A. Yes.
`24
` Q. If I refer to that today as the
`25 Morrow reference, will you understand what I
`
`
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`1 mean?
`2
` A. Yes, I do.
`3
` Q. Other than the information set forth
`4
`in the Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow references, do
`5
`you have any other personal knowledge relating
`6
`to Onika or Chimera?
`7
` A. Can you clarify the scope of your
`8
`question?
`9
` Q. Yes. But at this point, it's just a
`10
`yes or no question. And so why don't we go for
`11
`the yes or no and if the answer's yes, then I
`12 will try to dig down and see exactly what the --
`13
`the knowledge that you have is, so let me ask
`14
`the question again.
`15
` Other than the information set forth
`16
`in the Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow references, do
`17
`you have any personal knowledge relating to
`18 Onika or Chimera?
`19
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`20
` THE WITNESS: Still not clear the
`21
`scope, and let me clarify what I -- what I mean
`22
`by this.
`23
` There is the review component. For
`24
`example, I have review Onika as part of my
`25
`Sandia engagement, I have reviewed Chimera,
`Page 23
`1
`Chimera 3.2 as part of my research, and I have
`2
`personally involved in the development of
`3
`programs for -- for as part of the Minnesota
`4
`Robotic Visual Tracker.
`5
` So that's why I need to -- if this is
`6
`the scope you are interested --
`7
` Q. Okay. Let me break those down.
`8
` You said that you're familiar with
`9 Onika beyond what's set forth in the Gertz
`10
`reference based upon the Sandia engagement,
`11
`correct?
`12
` A. Yes.
`13
` Q. What details did you learn about
`14 Onika as a result of the Sandia engagement that
`15
`are not reflected in the Gertz reference itself?
`16
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`17
` THE WITNESS: Can you clarify?
`18
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`19
` Q. I'm not sure that I can until --
`20
`until you provide me the details. I'm simply
`21
`trying to understand what you know about Onika
`22
`beyond what's written in the Gertz reference.
`23
` A. So there is some background
`24
`literature that I keep always as part of the
`25
`reading list in my lab, so there are some other
`
`Page 24
`1
`technical reports, papers, working documents,
`2
`notes that I use in order to evaluate.
`3
` Also, there is a whole effort which
`4
`is not really reflected in any of the documents,
`5
`so that's why DOE was pushing very hard for
`6
`looking at the common real-time kernel and
`7
`environment that will support several Lotus
`8
`systems, systems meaning developments at other
`9
`groups which were funded under the same
`10
`initiative.
`11
` So going back to your question, there
`12
`is a different granularity of knowledge that it
`13
`-- that -- who are given a different point in
`14
`time [sic].
`15
` Q. Relating to Onika?
`16
` A. Related to Onika, and I will tie
`17 Onika to the Chimera 3.2 as part of the common
`18
`thread.
`19
` Q. Okay. Let me -- let me make certain
`20
`that I understand what you said.
`21
` Based upon various reports, papers
`22
`and technical documents that you have in your
`23
`lab, you know details about Onika that are not
`24
`reflected in the Gertz reference?
`25
` A. And -- yes, and some of them are
`
`Page 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
`
`highlighted in the references.
` Q. Let's talk about Chimera.
` You mentioned that you have also some
`knowledge about Chimera beyond what's reflected
`in the Stewart reference based upon your use of
`Chimera in your lab, correct?
` A. Yes.
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: And this involves some
`of the references in the background part of my
`declarations.
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
` Q. Other than the information that you
`have about Chimera based on the work in your
`lab, do you have any other information about
`Chimera that's not reflected in the Stewart
`reference?
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
`"other"?
` If you can -- let me -- let me
`explain what -- what I mean.
` "Other" might mean information about
`the effectiveness. Could be just documents that
`the clarify the implementation. For example,
`
`
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`

`

`Page 26
`1 Onika's implementation or the relationship with
`2
`Chimera 3.2, or we're talking at the higher
`3
`level funding decisions and priorities.
`4
` So if you can clarify this?
`5
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`6
` Q. Yeah. Let me focus on -- on
`7
`implementation then.
`8
` Do you have any knowledge on the
`9
`implementation of Chimera beyond what's
`10
`reflected in the Stewart reference?
`11
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`12
` THE WITNESS: Can you clarify this
`13
`further?
`14
` The --
`15
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`16
` Q. The problem is implementation was
`17
`your -- your term, not mine. I chose -- I chose
`18
`your term.
`19
` A. The reason I'm saying implementation
`20
`is actually it involves several layers so the
`21
`same way that if you look at the granularity of
`22
`systems that involve motion control devices in
`23
`robotics, there are different levels that you
`24
`delve into.
`25
` So if we look at Onika, there are
`
`Page 27
`1
`different mappings, in other words, different --
`2
`correspond to different implementations that we
`3
`need to consider. So at different times, I
`4
`delve to different levels. The objective is
`5
`actually in the struggle of the community
`6
`involving the people at CMU and other commercial
`7
`systems at the time, it was actually trying to
`8
`isolate the programmers, the control experts or
`9
`the control programmers from the details of the
`10
`drivers.
`11
` Q. Okay. I'm going to go back and ask
`12 my question again.
`13
` With respect to any aspect of
`14
`implementation, do you have knowledge about
`15 Onika beyond what's described in the Gertz
`16
`reference?
`17
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`18
` THE WITNESS: So if you look at 35,
`19
`paragraph.
`20
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`21
` Q. Are you in your declaration?
`22
` A. Yes. This is 74.
`23
` Q. You're in paragraph 74?
`24
` A. No. I'm in --
`25
` Q. Oh, you're in matter 74, okay.
`
`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 28
` A. So Exhibit 1132, paragraph 35, page
`11 out of 69, if you look at the -- the number
`three, which is the piece that's the extension
`of Dan Morrow, there is an appendix that
`compares Onika to the system that Dan Morrow
`developed, and this goes back to my disdain with
`some of the statements that David Stewart made
`about the relationships, the working
`relationships and interactions in the -- in the
`lab.
` So this is one example (witness
`indicating).
` Q. Okay. Then if I understand you
`correctly, the answer to my question was, yes,
`so I'm going to go back and ask my question
`again.
` Do you have any knowledge of the
`implementation of Onika beyond what's written in
`the Gertz reference?
` A. Given the exception I just mentioned
`in the particular exhibit, yes.
` Q. And now I'm going to ask a similar
`question about Chimera.
` Do you have any knowledge of the
`implementation of Chimera beyond what's written
`Page 29
`
`1
`in the Stewart reference?
`2
` A. If you can clarify this again?
`3
` Q. Implementation means whatever you
`4 meant when you first suggested that I ask you
`5
`about the implementation, and it's just a yes or
`6
`no question. I'm just trying to see whether or
`7
`not there's something for me to delve into. If
`8
`the answer's no, that's fine.
`9
` A. Under the assumption of what I have
`10
`on page 11 of the Exhibit 1152, number Exhibit
`11
`1133, Exhibit 1134, Exhibit 1135, and Exhibit
`12
`1136.
`13
` Q. Do those all relate directly or
`14
`indirectly to Chimera?
`15
` A. Yes.
`16
` Q. Okay. Then I'm going to go back. I
`17
`think I now understand the answer's yes, but I'm
`18
`going to go back and ask my question just to --
`19
`just to make sure that it's clear.
`20
` Are you aware of any details relating
`21
`to the implementation of Chimera beyond what's
`22 written in the Stewart reference?
`23
` A. The answer is yes, given what is
`24
`contained in my declaration.
`25
` Q. In forming your opinion -- strike
`
`
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`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.
` In forming the opinions set forth in
`your two declarations, did you rely on any of
`your personal knowledge relating to Onika or
`Chimera?
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Can you clarify what
`you mean by "personal"?
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
` Q. Yes. We've just discussed that you
`have some personal knowledge of the
`implementation of Onika beyond what's written in
`the Gertz reference, and that you have some
`personal knowledge of the implementation of
`Chimera beyond what's written in the Stewart
`reference.
` I'm simply asking whether you relied
`on that personal knowledge in forming your
`opinions?
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I will clarify further
`or if you don't mind, let me explain why I'm
`asking the clarification.
` I don't know if you have looked my --
`at my -- my work and the courses I have
`
`Page 31
`1
`introduced, so the University of Minnesota have
`2
`introduced a course with the number of 3081, and
`3
`this would be my -- so page 59 of the Exhibit
`4
`1132, and there is a similar page (witness
`5
`indicating).
`6
` So -- I mentioned Courses Introduced,
`7
`Introduction to Intelligent Robotic Systems, and
`8
`the second one is Program Design and
`9 Development.
`10
` This is an introductory course to
`11
`computer science students that tries to teach
`12
`them how to write the program that solves the
`13
`problem which is a real deficiency. So as part
`14
`of this, we will look at many aspects which are
`15
`touched upon by both Onika and Chimera described
`16
`the Stewart and Gertz references.
`17
` Q. Okay. I -- I now understand that you
`18
`have personal knowledge relating to Onika and
`19
`Chimera beyond what's in those references.
`20
` I asked you a slightly different
`21
`question which is whether you relied on that
`22
`personal information that you have about Onika
`23
`and Chimera in forming your opinions in your
`24
`declarations?
`25
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`
`1
` THE WITNESS: Still I'm not clear
`2
`about the "personal."
`3
` As faculty member, as academicians,
`4 we try to keep a set of -- of core concepts that
`5 we utilize in our educational mission, and also
`6
`in our research mission, so "personal" is a very
`7
`fuzzy term. That's . . .
`8
` Q. Did you rely on any of the technical
`9
`knowledge that you have about Onika and Chimera
`10
`beyond what's set forth in the Gertz and Stewart
`11
`references in forming your opinions in this
`12 matter?
`13
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`14
` THE WITNESS: Clarify the
`15
`"technical."
`16
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`17
` Q. The problem is, Dr. Papanikolopoulos,
`18
`some witnesses, and I'm not suggesting that
`19
`you're doing this now, but some witnesses
`20
`attempt not to answer questions by continually
`21
`asking for clarification.
`22
` The term personal information,
`23
`technical information, I'll use whatever term
`24
`you want, but I'd like to get an answer to the
`25
`question.
`
`Page 33
`
`1
` You understand what I'm getting at,
`2
`don't you?
`3
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form,
`4
`argumentative.
`5
` THE WITNESS: I'm trying to
`6
`understand. It's -- it's unclear to me what I'm
`7
`getting to.
`8
` Let me -- let me try to give you -- I
`9
`have been asked to evaluate several members of
`10
`the lab as part of their promotion in tenure.
`11
`This is a personal evaluation of the work
`12
`according to some definitions.
`13
` Is this -- are you asking me if I
`14
`took this in consideration in forming an
`15
`opinion?
`16
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`17
` Q. Yeah. I'll -- I'll phrase the
`18
`question slightly differently. Maybe it will
`19 make it easier for you.
`20
` Other than the content of the Stewart
`21
`reference and the Gertz reference, what else did
`22
`you rely upon in forming your opinions as set
`23
`forth in your declarations?
`24
` MR. McLEOD: Objection, form.
`25
` THE WITNESS: So my declarations
`
`
`
`9 (Pages 30 to 33)9 (Pages 30 to 33)
`
`

`

`Page 34
`1
`state that I looked at the particular references
`2
`as instructed by the board, and also the
`3
`background information that I have as part of my
`4
`role as an academician and as a researcher.
`5
` Let me be more specific in order to
`6
`-- so we teach the graduates that when we have a
`7
`task, we decompose the task into smaller tasks,
`8
`and this is particular the case with code. And
`9
`code by the way is a term that has been abused
`10 many times. One example is actually it's the
`11
`testimony of Dr. Stewart.
`12
` So we teach them actually to
`13
`decompose and separate themselves from the
`14
`low-level drivers that associate code. This is
`15
`something that influence my opinions. If you
`16
`see at one of my declarations, I say this is
`17
`stuff that we teach the graduate students.
`18
` So just I'm trying to answer as
`19
`truthfully as I can and give you also the
`20
`complexity sometimes that involves this
`21
`assessment because it goes to what do we teach,
`22 what do we believe, what do we write in papers,
`23
`and what actually will push science forward.
`24
`BY MR. CHORUSH:
`25
` Q. Okay. Well, I started off asking you
`Page 35
`about what you relied upon and somehow, the
`answe