UNITED STATES
`_
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES
`
`AND RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`Investigation No.
`
`337—TAe750
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Pages:
`
`Place:
`
`1432 through 1798
`.
`Washlngton, D.C.
`
`Date:
`
`September 30, 2011
`
`{m 3 - 2%
`
`HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
`
`Ofiicial Reporters
`1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
`
`Washington, DC. 20005
`(202)628~4888
`contracts@hrccourtrep0rters . com
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`_
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES
`
`AND RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`Investigation No.
`
`337—TAe750
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Pages:
`
`Place:
`
`1432 through 1798
`.
`Washlngton, D.C.
`
`Date:
`
`September 30, 2011
`
`{m 3 - 2%
`
`HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
`
`Ofiicial Reporters
`1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
`
`Washington, DC. 20005
`(202)628~4888
`contracts@hrccourtrep0rters . com
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE
`
`1432
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSZON
`
`
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES
`
`AND RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`Investigation No
`
`337—TA—750
`
`Hearing Room A
`
`United States
`
`International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, Southwest
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Friday, September 30, 2011
`
`VOLUME V
`
`The parties met, pursuant to the notice of the
`
`Judge, at 9:00 a.m.
`
`BEFORE:
`
`THE HONORABLE THEODORE R. ESSEX
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`1433
`
`For Complainant Apple:
`
`MARK G. DAVIS, ESQ.
`
`BRIAN E. FERGUSON, ESQ.
`
`ROBERT T. VLASIS, ESQ.
`
`EDWARD S.
`
`JOU, ESQ.
`
`CHRISTOPHER T. MARANDO, ESQ.
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`JILL J. HO, ESQ.
`
`BRIAN C. CHANG, ESQ.
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`MATTHEW D. POWERS, ESQ.
`
`STEVEN S. CHERENSKY, ESQ.
`
`PAUL T. EHRLICH, ESQ.
`
`ROBERT L. GERRITY, ESQ.
`
`Tensegrity Law Group LLP
`
`201 Redwood Shore Parkway
`
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`{202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`(Continued):
`
`1434
`
`For Respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc.:
`
`CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN, ESQ.
`
`DAVID EISEMAN, ESQ.
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`EDWARD J. DeFRANCO, ESQ.
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd FLoor
`
`New York, New York 10010
`
`DAVID A; NELSON, ESQ.
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628-4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES (Cont'd):
`
`For ITC Staff:
`
`1435
`
`LISA KATTAN, ESQ.
`
`ANNE GOALWIN, ESQ.
`
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, S.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Attorney-Advisor:
`
`GREGORY MOLDAFSKY, ESQ.
`
`Attorney—Adviser
`
`Office of Administrative Law Judges
`
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, S.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`*** Index appears at end of transcript ***
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`l2
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1436
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(9:00 a.m.)
`
`JUDGE ESSEX: Let’s come to order.
`
`Complainants, where are we at?
`
`MR. POWERS: We are beginning our
`
`rebuttal case, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ESSEX: All right. We don’t
`
`have anything to take up before your rebuttal
`
`case?
`
`begin.
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. POWERS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ESSEX: All right.
`
`Then let’s
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Good morning, Your
`
`JUDGE ESSEX: Good morning.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: We call back to the
`
`stand Dr. Vivek Subramanian.
`
`JUDGE ESSEX: Good morning, Doctor.
`
`THE WITNESS: Good morning.
`
`JUDGE ESSEX:
`
`I would remind you, you
`
`have previously been sworn in this case and you
`
`are still under oath as you take the stand
`
`here.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`{202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1437
`
`whereupon——
`
`VIVEK SUBRAMANIAN,
`
`a witness, called for examination, having previously
`
`been duly sworn, was examined and testified further as
`
`follows:
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE ESSEX:
`
`Please be seated.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I understand, Your
`
`JUDGE ESSEX: All right.
`
`MR. FERGUSON:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`We did distribute Dr. Subramanian's rebuttal
`
`notebooks already,
`
`so those should be up there
`
`with you.
`
`BY MR. FERGUSON:
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Dr. Subramanian.
`
`Good morning.
`
`You should have a binder in front of
`
`you that contains your rebuttal witness
`
`statement.
`
`Do you have that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`And is that marked CX—569C?
`
`Yes, it is.
`
`And can you turn, please,
`
`to the last
`
`page of this document and let us know if that
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`l2
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1438
`
`is your signature?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, it is.
`
`And it is dated September 6th;
`
`is that
`
`That’s correct.
`
`And did you give the answers to the
`
`questions that were posed in this rebuttal
`
`witness statement?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I did.
`
`MR. FERGUSON:
`
`Pass the witness, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`BY MR. DeFRANCO:
`
`CROSS~EXAMINATION
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Doctor.
`
`Good morning.
`
`We’re going to speak this morning
`
`about invalidity issues relating to the ’607
`
`patent;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I understand.
`
`The ’607 patent is up on the screen.
`
`Obviously you spent a lot of time with this
`
`patent in your work on this case.
`
`Now,
`
`let’s turn to the background of
`
`the invention section of this patent. And you
`
`are aware generally, Doctor,
`
`that the
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1439
`
`background section gives some information about
`
`the state of the art prior to what’s set forth
`
`as the invention in a given patent.
`
`is that
`
`fair?
`
`A.
`
`That is certainly one of the things
`
`that is often placed in the background section.
`
`Q.
`
`Part of the purpose of the background
`
`is to tell people who want ultimately to find
`
`out about the scope of the invention as to what
`
`was done by others before. Fair enough?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`that’s reasonable.
`
`A bit of information? This is the
`
`starting point,
`
`this is the background of
`
`what's in the field. Fair enough?
`
`A.
`
`Are you referring specifically to this
`
`or the background section generally?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Generally, generally.
`
`Yes,
`
`I think generally background
`
`sections do contain information about what was
`
`already in the field at the time.
`
`Q.
`
`You said specifically to this. This
`
`background generally did the same thing, didn’t
`
`it, for the ’607 patent?
`
`It gives some
`
`information about what was in the field prior
`
`to the invention that's later set forth?
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1440
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`some of that information is
`
`certainly contained in the background of the
`
`’607 patent.
`
`Q.
`
`Now, you have seen many patents.
`
`It
`
`is common in patents to not only discuss the
`
`prior art generally, but sometimes to
`
`specifically reference certain pieces of prior
`
`art.
`
`You have seen that in patents before?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I have.
`
`An example,
`
`in many of the patents we
`
`have looked at in this case for different
`
`reasons,
`
`the background would say something
`
`about
`
`the prior art, and then it would say,
`
`well, here is an example of this patent and
`
`what it discloses, here is an example of that
`
`patent and what it discloses,
`
`that sort of
`
`thing;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`I have certainly seen that in numerous
`
`patents.
`
`To be honest, sitting here right now,
`
`I would have to look at the patents to confirm
`
`that that exists, but I certainly agree that it
`
`is generally true.
`
`Q.
`
`And then they go on, patents often go
`
`on to say, now,
`
`there is the prior art,
`
`let’s
`
`discuss the advance in this particular patent?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2'0
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`{202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1441
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`that’s a structure that's quite
`
`common.
`
`Q.
`
`Now,
`
`just for the record,
`
`the ’607
`
`patent talks about the field, but it doesn’t
`
`specifically call out any prior art references
`
`in particular.
`
`Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`You mean within the background of the
`
`invention section?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, sir.
`
`Yes,
`
`there are no specific references
`
`called out
`
`in the background of the invention
`
`section and discussed within the text of the
`
`same.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. But it does talk about what was
`
`in the field at the time, and I would like to
`
`walk through that just a little bit. Okay?
`
`So if we start off in the first
`
`paragraph, it talks about —- actually,
`
`there
`
`are two sections I should point out,
`
`the field
`
`of the invention and the description of related
`
`part.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I do see those two sections.
`
`The first paragraph under the
`
`description of the related art,
`
`that is very
`
`general background about different types of
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1442
`
`input devices;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`that’s a reasonable way of
`
`describing that paragraph.
`
`Q.
`
`For example,
`
`lines 14 to 16 talks
`
`about buttons, keys -— buttons or keys, mice,
`
`track balls,
`
`touch pads,
`
`joy sticks, and then
`
`touchscreens and the like.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do see that language.
`
`We care more, of course, about
`
`touchscreens.
`
`The next sentence reads,
`
`"touchscreens,
`
`in particular, are becoming
`
`increasingly popular because of their ease and
`
`versatility of operation as well as their
`
`declining price."
`
`Do you see that?
`
`Yes,
`
`I see that language.
`
`You don’t disagree with that, do you?
`
`No,
`
`I generally don’t disagree with
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`that.
`
`Q.
`
`So let’s move on a little bit to keep
`
`walking through the background.
`
`If we go down,
`
`Ryan,
`
`to line 24,
`
`that’s fine.
`
`The background
`
`section goes on in the next paragraph and
`
`states, "touchscreens typically include a touch
`
`panel, a controller, and a software driver."
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1443
`
`Do you see that?
`
`Yes,
`
`I see that language.
`
`And then the next paragraph,
`
`if we go
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`down, Ryan,
`
`if you could move down to the next
`
`paragraph, it says, ”there are several types of
`
`screen technologies including resistive,
`
`capacitive,
`
`infirared, surface acoustic wave,
`
`electromagnetic, near~field imaging, et
`
`cetera."
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I do.
`
`Now,
`
`that’s a survey of the different
`
`types of touchscreens that were available in
`
`the field at the time, sir?
`
`A.
`
`That’s a listing of the various types
`
`that were generally available at that time,
`
`yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. But in this case,
`
`in
`
`particular, we’re interested in one particular
`
`type. Would you point that out for us?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Which type?
`
`Yes, which type.
`
`In general,
`
`this patent is
`
`specifically focused on capacitive
`
`touchscreens.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`l2
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1444
`
`Q.
`
`And of course,
`
`in this case, we have
`
`talked about
`
`two different types of capacitive
`
`touchscreen devices. Would you tell us what
`
`those two types are?
`
`A.
`
`Certainly. Broadly, we have talked
`
`about capacitive touchscreens that are
`
`so—called self-capacitive touchscreens and
`
`capacitive touchscreens that are mutual
`
`capacitive touchscreens.
`
`Q.
`
`And then the next paragraph,
`
`I don’t
`
`think,
`
`is terrifically important unless there
`
`is something you want to say about it.
`
`It
`
`talks about one of the technologies we’re not
`
`interested in here, do you see that, sir,
`
`surface acoustic wave technologies?
`
`Do you see
`
`that, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`In the paragraph starting at line 34?
`
`Yes.
`
`I apologize, starting at line 50?
`
`Yes,
`
`I’m sorry,
`
`line 50.
`
`That is one of the technologies that
`
`it talks about in that paragraph, but certainly
`
`the first line is about surface acoustic wave
`
`technologies.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`The last paragraph,
`
`I believe
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1445
`
`it is fair to say,
`
`is sort of the segue I was
`
`alluding to earlier.
`
`In other words,
`
`the
`
`background has discussed what was in the field
`
`generally and then it goes on to say, now, here
`
`is the problems with what’s out there, what’s
`
`in the field.
`
`Do you see that, sir? Do you want
`
`to
`
`take a look at that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Thanks.
`
`I see that section.
`
`Well,
`
`let’s ~~ that’s great, Ryan.
`
`So let’s just take a minute or two and
`
`go through the rest of the background section.
`
`The first sentence says,
`
`"one problem found in
`
`all of these technologies is that they are only
`
`capable of reporting a single point even when
`
`multiple objects are placed on the sensing
`
`surface."
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I do.
`
`It says, ”that is,
`
`they lack the
`
`ability to track multiple points of contact
`
`simultaneously."
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`A.
`
`I do.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`{202) 628*4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1446
`
`Q,
`
`That’s what we have been referring to
`
`in this case as multi—point or multi—touch?
`
`I
`
`am not sure which word you prefer.
`
`The ability
`
`to sense when two different touch points are
`
`being placed on a given screen?
`
`A.
`
`You can use either.
`
`I will understand
`
`what you mean.
`
`If I don’t understand,
`
`I will
`
`certainly ask you for clarification.
`
`Q.
`
`So it is fair,
`
`isn’t it,
`
`to say that
`
`the inventors or the patent applicants at that
`
`time at that portion of the background section
`
`were saying,
`
`this is what the prior art is
`
`lacking, it is lacking the ability to sense two
`
`touch points at one time, also known as
`
`multi-touch;
`
`is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`This was one of the problems that the
`
`patent identified in the description on
`
`description of the related art with respect to
`
`the technologies available at the time.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`And that includes the technologies
`
`that we have listed previously.
`
`Q.
`
`Exactly. That’s the first problem,
`
`right,
`
`that it discusses in this background
`
`section, right,
`
`the ability —— the lack of the
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202} 628w4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1447
`
`ability in the prior art to sense two touch
`
`points;
`
`that is,
`
`to have multi—touch?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`that is one problem that the
`
`patent says is found in all of these
`
`technologies, where these technologies refers
`
`to resistive, capacitive, et cetera, as we have
`
`discussed previously.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Then it goes on and it gives a
`
`little bit more information.
`
`I think that’s
`
`what you were alluding to.
`
`It says, "in
`
`resistive and capacitive technologies, an
`
`average of all simultaneously occurring touch
`
`points are determined and a single point which
`
`falls somewhere between the two, between the
`
`touch points is reported."
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I do.
`
`And I think that’s something that you
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`have discussed a bit earlier in this case.
`
`That’s an elaboration on what was discussed
`
`earlier in the paragraph;
`
`that is,
`
`the lack of
`
`the ability of the prior art to distinguish
`
`between two touch points.
`
`Is that fair, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`that is.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628»4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR201300568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1448
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And I think the last bit of
`
`that paragraph is not particularly relevant,
`
`unless there is something you wanted to say
`
`about it.
`
`Now ——
`
`A.
`
`So there is a relevance to that as
`
`well, but ~-
`
`O.
`
`Okay. But not to capacitive
`
`necessarily,
`
`is there, sir,
`
`in that last
`
`sentence?
`
`It is referring to different
`
`technologies, surface wave and infrared?
`
`Do
`
`you see that?
`
`A.
`
`That particular section is
`
`specifically talking about surface wave and
`
`infrared technologies, where it says it is
`
`impossible to discern the exact position of
`
`multiple touch points that fall in the same
`
`horizontal or vertical lines due to masking.
`
`However,
`
`the issues associated with
`
`masking exist in capacitive technologies as
`
`well.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. But it doesn’t ~-
`
`in that
`
`sentence, for what it is worth, it is talking
`
`about surface wave and infrared in particular
`
`with respect to that issue;
`
`is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I agree with that.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628‘4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1449
`
`Q.
`
`And then the last paragraph goes on to
`
`say that these problems are particularly
`
`problematic in tablet PCs, where one hand is
`
`used to hold the tablet and the other is used
`
`to generate touch events.
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`I see that sentence.
`
`Okay.
`
`Now, a tablet is —— we all know
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`what a tablet is.
`
`It is like a tablet device
`
`like an iPad device,
`
`is that how you think of a
`
`tablet?
`
`A.
`
`With respect to what we’re referring
`
`to here, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And why don’t we just show ——
`
`Ryan, maybe you can just leave column 2 and put
`
`the first page of figures on the left—hand
`
`side.
`
`Now,
`
`in that paragraph, it references
`
`figures 1A and 18.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`It says,
`
`“holding a tablet 2 causes the thumb 3 to
`
`overlap with the edge of the touch sensitive
`
`surface of the touchscreen."
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`Yes,
`
`I see that language.
`
`Generally, it is depicting the
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TPK 2015
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`202
`528—4888
`(
`)
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1450
`
`problems in the prior art with respect to the
`
`lack of the ability to sense multiple touches
`
`using a tablet device and someone using two
`
`fingers.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`Actually, what this section is
`
`describing is how tablets are affected by the
`
`problems that we have discussed in the prior
`
`art section.
`
`Q.
`
`Better put, okay.
`
`Now, by the way, you were here for
`
`Mr. Hotelling’s testimony?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`At the beginning of the case?
`
`Yes,
`
`I was.
`
`And I believe he said something to the
`
`effect of the project —— that the development
`
`project for a product that Apple had in mind at
`
`the time that led to the inventions in the ’607
`
`patent was a tablet~like device.
`
`Do you remember that?
`
`Yes.
`
`It wasn’t a phone or anything else, he
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`specifically said it was a tablet.
`
`Do you
`
`recall that, sir?
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`l2
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR201300568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1451
`
`A.
`
`in terms of the origination of the
`
`project, yes,
`
`I believe that’s true.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So to summarize, sir, we have
`
`been through the background section. We have
`
`looked at some of the figures that are
`
`referenced.
`
`We have discussed the capacitive
`
`disclosure relating to capacitive technologies.
`
`Nothing in the background section says anything
`
`to the effect that multi—touch was available in
`
`some form prior to this patent.
`
`Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`I disagree.
`
`It says that there
`
`are problems with having multiple touches.
`
`That’s as far as it goes.
`
`If you are asking
`
`me,
`
`is there explicit disclosure of a system
`
`that accurately detects multiple touches, yes,
`
`I agree that didn’t exist.
`
`Q.
`
`There is no specific disclosure of a
`
`multi~touch device in the background section?
`
`A.
`
`Of a system that can accurately detect
`
`multiple touches? Absolutely,
`
`I agree.
`
`Q.
`
`And there certainly is no disclosure
`
`of a system that solved the problem of being
`
`able to detect multiple touches;
`
`is that fair,
`
`sir?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1452
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`
`In the background?
`
`Yes.
`
`Yes,
`
`I agree.
`
`Okay. Let’s turn to one of the prior
`
`art references in this case that’s been
`
`discussed a bit,
`
`the SmartSkin reference.
`
`Obviously you have spent a lot of time with
`
`that.
`
`Let’s put up on the screen RDX—28.002.
`
`A little bit of background for the record, sir.
`
`This is one of the prior art references that
`
`Motorola is relying on in this case for its
`
`invalidity assertions.
`
`You’re aware of that?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I believe it was also cited
`
`within the patent.
`
`Q.
`
`And there should be a date, Ryan,
`
`in
`
`the lower left, if you can blow it up at the
`
`bottom.
`
`It says published in April 20 to 25th,
`
`2002.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`I do.
`
`And you were here for Mr. Hotelling’s
`
`testimony, you're aware that this is —— the
`
`Smartskin device is one of the devices that the
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202} 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1453
`
`inventors were aware of in the course of their
`
`development work that led to the ’607 patent,
`
`sir?
`
`A.
`
`In the time frame over which the
`
`project ran,
`
`1 do understand that they were
`
`aware of the Smartskin device somewhere in that
`
`period.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Now,
`
`let’s turn to the next
`
`slide, which is RDX—28.003. And this slide is
`
`actually —— it is a slide within a slide or
`
`there is a slide within this slide.
`
`It is
`
`CDX—009.037, which if I have it right,
`
`this is
`
`the demonstrative in which you set forth the
`
`contours of your View as to what was lacking in
`
`the SmartSkin reference.
`
`Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I believe that’s right.
`
`And I want to understand something.
`
`It says multi—touch under Motorola’s
`
`construction. You’re saying that SmartSkin
`
`lacked multi«touch under Motorola’s
`
`construction in this case?
`
`A.
`
`Under specific aspects of Motorola’s
`
`construction, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And at least part of the basis for
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`{202) 628‘4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1454
`
`your opinion is that multi~touch would require
`
`scanning every sensor location across the plane
`
`of a touch panel at exactly the same instance
`
`in time?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Under Motorola’s construction?
`
`Yes.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay.
`
`Now,
`
`for infringement purposes
`
`in this case,
`
`I want to talk about how this
`
`relates to your infringement analysis.
`
`It was your testimony earlier that the
`
`Motorola accused products met the multi—touch
`
`limitation under Motorola’s construction;
`
`is
`
`that right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I believe so.
`
`For example, you said that Motorola’s
`
`accused products met the multi—touch aspect of
`
`the preamble of the claim 1, for example, of
`
`the asserted claims in this case?
`
`A.
`
`Could you point me to the specific
`
`section of my «—
`
`Q.
`
`Sure. Let’s put up question 260 and
`
`the answer, please, Ryan.
`
`Do you see there, sir,
`
`in the first
`
`sentence, "the accused products also satisfy
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l7
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1455
`
`this limitation,” and we’re talking about
`
`the
`
`preamble in the question, “under Motorola’s
`
`proposed construction for the same reasons
`
`discussed with respect to the preamble under
`
`Apple’s proposed constructions."
`
`Do you see
`
`that?
`
`A.
`
`With respect to this question, yes,
`
`I
`
`see that.
`
`Q.
`
`The way that is phrased,
`
`if I have it
`
`correct, under either party's construction,
`
`the
`
`multi—touch limitation in your infringement
`
`analysis is met, as it is set forth in the
`
`preamble;
`
`is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`Could I have my report that has this,
`
`so I can look at the question it is referring
`
`to?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Sure, absolutely.
`
`It is not this one.
`
`It is not this
`
`one —— it’s not in the rebuttal report. This
`
`is in the initial witness statement. And you
`
`said question 260?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, sir.
`
`I see that.
`
`Okay.
`
`Just a couple of examples as to
`
`why you found infringement of this limitation.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TPK 2015
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202’ 628—4888 Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`You said that the Motorola accused
`
`{\J
`
`products recognize multiple touches and have
`
`1456
`
`the abilities to use multi—touch gestures;
`
`is
`
`that correct?
`
`I believe that’s right in that
`
`paragraph that you are taking a look at.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, it is there.
`
`You have also said that the accused
`
`Motorola products recognize certain gestures;
`
`is that correct, sir? 'And if you take a look
`
`at this section,
`
`this answer where it reads,
`
`"for example," do you see that?
`
`Do you see
`
`there some examples?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Of what is done in the Motorola
`
`products that led you to find infringement of
`
`the multi~touch aspects of claim 1?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`For example, you pointed out pinch to
`
`zoom;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That is correct.
`
`You pointed out that the hardware is
`
`necessarily arranged in a certain way to meet
`
`the multi—touch limitation;
`
`is that correct,
`
`sir?
`
`A.
`
`That’s correct.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 628~4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1457
`
`Q.
`
`Let’s turn to the next slide, please,
`
`Ryan.
`
`Now, when we turn to the Smartskin
`
`reference, obviously you don’t find that the
`
`Smartskin reference is anticipatory, as
`
`Motorola found;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I do not find that.
`
`And is part of your rationale for
`
`that, sir,
`
`the fact that,
`
`in your opinion,
`
`Smartskin does not have the ability to
`
`recognize multiple touches under Motorola’s
`
`construction?
`
`A.
`
`With respect to Motorola’s
`
`construction, Smartskin does not have the
`
`ability to detect them at exactly the same time
`
`since it scans.
`
`If the intent of Motorola’s
`
`construction is to indicate that it has to
`
`happen at exactly the same time,
`
`then it would
`
`not meet it under Motorola's construction.
`
`Q.
`
`Let’s take a look at part of the
`
`disclosure in the SmartSkin reference.
`
`It says
`
`—— and you have been through this reference in
`
`detail before, right, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I have reviewed this reference.
`
`Let's —— you know what,
`
`let’s put up
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TPK 2015
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`<202> 628-4888 Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1458
`
`—~ Ryan, could you put up the first page of
`
`JTX-367.001. Let’s put this —— we’re going to
`
`spend a few minutes on this. Let’s put this
`
`reference in perspective and go through the
`
`abstract like we went through a bit of the
`
`background of the '607 patent, okay? Fair
`
`enough?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I understand.
`
`Could you blow up the abstract,
`
`please, Ryan.
`
`The first sentence says, sir, ”This
`
`paper introduces a new sensor architecture for
`
`making interactive surfaces that are sensitive
`
`to human hand and finger gestures.”
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`I do.
`
`And there is some disclosure —— we
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`will get to it —— there is some text,
`
`there is
`
`some figures that show using finger touches or
`
`finger gestures.
`
`Is that fair enough, sir?
`
`A.
`
`You mean within the examples within
`
`SmartSkin?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`that.
`
`Yes.
`
`Yes,
`
`there is some descriptions of
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`{202) 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1459
`
`Q.
`
`The next sentence goes on and reads,
`
`"the sensor recognizes multiple hand positions
`
`and shapes and calculates the distance between
`
`the hand and the surface by using capacitive
`
`sensing and a mesh—shaped antenna.“
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`I do.
`
`"In contrast to camera~based gesture
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`recognition systems, all sensing elements can
`
`be integrated within the surface and this
`
`method does not suffer from lighting and
`
`occlusion problems."
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Q‘
`
`I see that language as well.
`
`And I think the last couple of
`
`sentences are a bit more compelling.
`
`It says,
`
`”this paper describes a sensor architecture, as
`
`well as two working prototype systems:
`
`A
`
`table—size system and a tablet»size system."
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`I do.
`
`There has been references several
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`points during the course of this hearing about
`
`the table—size system, but you don’t dispute,
`
`sir,
`
`that this reference,
`
`the SmartSkin
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TPK 2015
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(2023 628-4888 Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1460
`
`reference, also disclosed a tablet—sized
`
`system;
`
`is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That’s correct.
`
`And it goes on to say, "it also
`
`describes several interaction techniques that
`
`would be difficult to perform without this
`
`architecture."
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`I see that language.
`
`So let’s go back to REX-28.004, which
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`shows a blowup of figure 2 and some text
`
`relating to figure 2.
`
`So there has been a bit of discussion
`
`about figure 2 in this case, but at least this
`
`portion says at the bottom, "the system
`
`time~dividing transmitting signal sent to each
`
`of the vertical electrodes and the system
`
`independently measures values from each of the
`
`receiver electrodes.”
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`A.
`
`I see that language. This is in
`
`reference to the —— this is the second
`
`paragraph of the discussion of figure 2.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes. And it says, "these values are
`
`integrated to form two—dimensional sensor
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202} 628—4888
`
`TPK 2015
`
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1461
`
`values, which we called proximity pixels. Once
`
`these values are obtained, algorithms similar
`
`to those used in image processing, such as peak
`
`detection, connect region analysis, and
`
`template matching, can be applied to recognize
`
`gestures.”
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`A.
`
`I believe you misread it.
`
`It is
`
`connected region analysis, but otherwise I
`
`think you read it correctly.
`
`Q.
`
`And then the conclusion at least in
`
`that paragraph says, "as a result,
`
`the system
`
`can recognize multiple objects."
`
`In parens,
`
`for example, hands.
`
`If the granularity of the
`
`mesh is dense,
`
`the system can also recognize
`
`the shapes of the objects.
`
`Do you see that,
`
`sir?
`
`A.
`
`There is no "also," but otherwise you
`
`read it correctly.
`
`Q.
`
`You don’t dispute —~
`
`thanks for that.
`
`You don’t dispute that is specific disclosure
`
`that’s set forth in the SmartSkin reference?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That
`
`language is there, yes.
`
`Now,
`
`is it your opinion that that
`
`doesn’t disclose the ability ‘« well, would you
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`l7
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`2G
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TPK 2015
`Heritage Reporting Corporation
`(202) 5284888 Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`
`|PR2013-00568
`
`TPK 2015
`Wintek v. TPK Touch Solutions
`IPR2013-00568
`
`
`
`1462
`
`say, sir,
`
`th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
