By: Thomas Engellenner
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A LOCATION LABS
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOCATIONET SYSTEMS, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S
`REPLY WITNESS DR. CRAIG ROSENBERG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`Previously Filed
`
`
`Ex. No
`2001
`
`Description
`Pro Hac Vice Motion of Mark Hogge entering an appearance on
`behalf of T-Mobile USA Inc. in Callwave Communications, LLC v. T-
`Mobile USA Inc. and Google Inc., Civil Action No. 12-cv-1703-RGA,
`D.I. 23 (D. Del.)
`Pro Hac Vice Motion of Mark Hogge entering an appearance on
`behalf of Sprint Nextel Corp. in Callwave Communications, LLC v.
`Sprint Nextel Corp., Civil Action No. 12-cv-1702-RGA, D.I. 18 (D.
`Del.)
`A page of Location Labs’ website indicating partnering with T-
`Mobile and Sprint to provide subscription-based, mobile device
`management and location services
` Patent Owner’s First Proposed Discovery Requests to Petitioner in
`Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a Locations Labs v. Locationet Systems, Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00199, U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`Sprint’s Answer to Callwave’s Second Amended Complaint in
`Callwave Communications, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. and Google,
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01702-RGA, D.I. 71 (D. Del.)
`T-Mobile USA Inc.’s Answer to Callwave’s Complaint in Callwave
`Communications, LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc. and Google, Inc., Civil
`Action No. 1:12-cv-01703-RGA, D.I. 68(D. Del.)
`Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Motion To Stay Proceedings
`on the ‘970 Patent Pending Inter Partes Review by the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board in Civil Action Nos. 12-1701-RGA, 12-1702-RGA,
`12-1703-RGA, 12-1704-RGA AND 12-1788-RGA, (D. Del.)
`Subpoena to Wavemarket, Inc., d/b/a Location Labs in the matter of
`Callwave Communications, LLC v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility, LLC
`and Google, Inc., Case No. 4:14-mc-80112-JSW, D.I. 17-2 (D. Del.)
`April 8, 2014 letter to Leah R. McCoy from Sarah Eskandari, counsel
`for Petitioner with objections and responses to Petitioner’s subpoena
`2010 Wavemarket, Inc., d/b/a Location Labs’ Objections and Responses to
`Plaintiff’s Subpoena in Callwave Communications, LLC v. AT&T
`Mobility, LLC, and Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01701-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`April 9, 2014, Hearing Transcript in in Civil Action Nos. 12-1701-
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2011
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`Ex. No
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Description
`RGA, 12-1702-RGA, 12-1703-RGA, 12-1704-RGA AND 12-1788-
`RGA, (D. Del.)
`April 17, 2013 email from Edward M. Abbati, Vice President of
`Finance for Petitioner, to Richard Sanders, Chief Executive Officer
`(“CEO”) of Callwave Communications, LLC
`Proposed Protective Order submitted in Civil Action Nos. 12-1701-
`RGA, 12-1702-RGA, 12-1703-RGA, 12-1704-RGA AND 12-1788-
`RGA, (D. Del.)
`AT&T Answer to Callwave’s Second Amended Complaint in
`Callwave Communications, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, and Google,
`Inc., Civil Action No. 12-cv-01701-RGA (D. Del.)
`Defendants’ Reply Brief In Support of Their Motion to Stay
`Proceedings on the ’970 Patent Pending Inter Partes Review by the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Civil Action Nos. 12-1701-RGA,
`12-1702-RGA, 12-1703-RGA, 12-1704-RGA AND 12-1788-RGA,
`(D. Del.)
`Declaration of Dr. Narayan Mandayam in Support of LocatioNet
`Systems, Ltd.’s Patent Owner Response in Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a
`Locations Labs v. Locationet Systems, Ltd., Case No. IPR2014-00199,
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`Definition of “database,” Dictionary of Computer Words, Houghton
`Mifflin Company (1998), p. 61
`Definition of “database,” Personal Computer Dictionary, Random
`House (2nd ed. 1996), p. 126
`Definition of “engine,” Webster’s New World Dictionary of
`Computer Terms, Macmillan (5th ed. 1994), p. 208
`Patent Owner’s Evidentiary Objections Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64, served on November 17, 2014 in Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a
`Locations Labs v. Locationet Systems, Ltd., Case No. IPR2014-00199,
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`Supplemental Declaration of Craig Rosenberg, Ph.D. In Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply, served on December 1, 2014 in Wavemarket, Inc.
`d/b/a Locations Labs v. Locationet Systems, Ltd., Case No. IPR2014-
`00199, U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`New Exhibit
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`Ex. No
`2022
`
`Description
`December 8, 2014 Videotaped Deposition Transcript of Craig
`Rosenberg, Ph.D
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`As authorized by the Board’s May 9, 2014 Scheduling Order (Paper 19),
`
`LocatioNet Systems, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits the following
`
`observations on the December 8, 2014 deposition testimony of Craig Rosenberg,
`
`and requests that the Board enter this Motion for Observations Regarding Cross-
`
`Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Witness, Dr. Craig Rosenberg. Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 at 48767–68 (August 14, 2012).
`
`1. Observation #1
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 19, line 4 through page 20, line 9, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the “associated files” described in Exhibit 1003 (“Elliot”) are
`
`“[s]ource code, programs, executables,” but he also testified that Elliot does not
`
`describe source code, programs, or executables as the “associated files.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion on page 7, paragraph 13 of
`
`Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 3 to 6 of Paper 39. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s argument that “associated files” satisfies the “map database” element
`
`in claim 18 of the ‘970 Patent.
`
`2. Observation #2
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 20, line 10 through page 21, line 8, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the “associated files” described in Elliot reside on the “web server.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion on pages 7 to 9, paragraphs
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`13 to 17 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 3 to 6 of Paper
`
`39. The testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument that the “associated files” refers to files residing
`
`outside of the web server to satisfy the “map database” element in claim 18 of the
`
`‘970 Patent.
`
`3. Observation #3
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 21, line 9 through line 22, Dr. Rosenberg testified he
`
`does not opine that “associated files” in Elliot are graphical maps. This testimony
`
`is relevant to Petitioner’s reply argument on page 3 to 4 of Paper 39. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it undermines Petitioner’s reply argument that the
`
`“associated files” refers to “a collection of graphical map files.”
`
`4. Observation #4
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 23, line 4 through line 19, Dr. Rosenberg testified that
`
`it is his opinion that the “associated files”—the files residing on the web server and
`
`not the web server itself—satisfies the “map database” in claim 18 of the ‘970
`
`Patent. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion on pages 7 to 9,
`
`paragraphs 12 to 17 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 3 to
`
`6 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`opinion and Petitioner’s argument that the “associated files” refer to files residing
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`outside of the web server to satisfy the “map database” element in claim 18 of the
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`‘970 Patent.
`
`5. Observation #5
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 23, line 20 through page 24, line 25, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that a “database” is “[a] collection of data.” He also testified that
`
`“databases can take different forms” and that databases can be used for retrieving
`
`information from computers, organizing information on computers, and
`
`manipulating information from computers. Further, on page 25, line 24 through
`
`page 29, line 4, Dr. Rosenberg testified that there are many different attributes that
`
`differentiate one database from another, including the types of data stored in them
`
`and the functions that the database can support. This testimony is relevant to
`
`whether Elliot describes the “map database” claimed in claim 18 of the ‘970
`
`Patent. This testimony is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that the functionality supported by the “map database” is described in claim 18,
`
`and in the disclosure of the ‘970 Patent. Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 35 at 10–
`
`12 and 15–16.
`
`6. Observation #6
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 54, line 7 through page 55, line 23, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that “superimposing an X mark on a road map graphics image is not
`
`manipulating that road maps graphics image,” but “creating or generating a new
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`map with an X pointer on it is manipulating the road map graphics image.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 12 to 16, paragraphs 24
`
`to 31 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 11 of Paper 39.
`
`The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a
`
`database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database” element
`
`of claim 18.
`
`7. Observation #7
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 56, line 4 through page 57, line 4, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that he did not provide any definition of the term “map database” in claim
`
`18 in his declaration because he “didn’t feel it was a necessary component in
`
`comparing” Elliot with the ‘970 Patent. This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 7 to 9, paragraphs 12 to 18 of Exhibit 1020 and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 3 to 6 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it puts into question whether Dr. Rosenberg performed the proper analysis
`
`in rendering his opinions in this matter.
`
`8. Observation #8
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 57, line 5 through page 58, line 21, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that it is his opinion that the “main purpose” of the “map engine” in the
`
`‘970 Patent is “to interface with the map database,” but also that there may be
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`other functions that the map engine performs, such as writing data to the map
`
`database. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 12 to
`
`16, paragraphs 24 to 31 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8
`
`to 11 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinion and Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or
`
`obtaining a map from a database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said
`
`map database” element of claim 18.
`
`9. Observation #9
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 58, line 22 through page 59, line 17, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the function of retrieving a map from the map database requires
`
`searching through the database, finding the requested map, and returning it to the
`
`requester. Further, on page 61, line 12 through line 20, Dr. Rosenberg testified that
`
`the function of accessing the database is required in order to obtain a file from the
`
`database. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 12 to
`
`16, paragraphs 24 to 31 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8
`
`to 11 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it shows that the functions of
`
`accessing the map database, obtaining a file on the map database, and searching the
`
`map database are independent functions and undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion
`
`and Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database” element
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`of claim 18.
`
`10. Observation #10
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 62, line 6 through page 64, line 16, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that every database needs an “engine” to be “functional for its intended
`
`purpose,” but since there are many different types of map databases, there are also
`
`many different types of map engines. Dr. Rosenberg further testified that the
`
`functionality allowed by the map engine differentiates one map engine from
`
`another. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 16,
`
`paragraphs 27 to 31 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to
`
`10 of Paper 39. This testimony is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that the functionality required by the claimed “map engine” is described
`
`in claim 18, and in the disclosure of the ‘970 Patent. Patent Owner’s Response,
`
`Paper 35 at 10–12 and 13–16.
`
`11. Observation #11
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 64, line 17 through page 67, line 5, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that there are various different functions that engines to map databases
`
`support, including retrieving information from the database, writing information to
`
`the database, modifying information within the database, requesting that
`
`information in the database be output in various formats, analyzing the data within
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`a database, among other functions, and such map database functions require a map
`
`engine. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17,
`
`paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to
`
`10 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`opinion and Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map
`
`from a database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database”
`
`element of claim 18.
`
`12. Observation #12
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 67, line 6 through page 69, line 21, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that claim 18 requires a “map engine for manipulating said map database”
`
`and “accessing” or “obtaining” are synonyms for “manipulating” even though the
`
`terms “obtaining” or “accessing” are not used in element B of claim 18. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27
`
`to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39.
`
`The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a
`
`database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database” element
`
`of claim 18.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`13. Observation #13
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 69, line 22 through page 73, line 9, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that in his opinion, the customary and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“manipulating” is “broad” and can mean “four, five, six different things,”
`
`including “accessing,” “obtaining,” “changing the form,” “adding on to,”
`
`“subtracting from.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on
`
`pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply
`
`argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it
`
`undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and Petitioner’s reply argument that
`
`“accessing and/or obtaining a map from a database” discloses the “map engine for
`
`manipulating said map database” element of claim 18.
`
`14. Observation #14
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 76, line 4 through page 78, line 15, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that in his opinion “accessing a map from the database” and “obtaining a
`
`map from the database” are synonyms. He also testified that the ’970 Patent
`
`describes “a map engine for accessing a map database”—not “accessing a map
`
`from the database”—and he could not identify any description of “accessing a map
`
`from the database” in the ’970 Patent. This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The testimony is
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and Petitioner’s reply
`
`argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a database” discloses the
`
`“map engine for manipulating said map database” element of claim 18.
`
`15. Observation #15
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 78, line 16 through page 79, line 13, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the “main purpose” of the “map engine” described in the ’970 Patent
`
`is to obtain a map using the map engine, and the ’970 Patent may describe other
`
`functionality associated with the claimed map database. This testimony is relevant
`
`to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit
`
`1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The testimony
`
`is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and Petitioner’s reply
`
`argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a database” discloses the
`
`“map engine for manipulating said map database” element of claim 18.
`
`16. Observation #16
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 82, line 5 through line 18, Dr. Rosenberg testified that
`
`in his opinion, there is no difference between “manipulating a database” and
`
`“accessing a file from a database” in the context of the ’970 Patent and Elliot, but
`
`that his answer may be different in other contexts. He further testified that
`
`accessing a database is required for manipulating the database. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a
`
`database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database” element
`
`of claim 18.
`
`17. Observation #17
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 82, line 19 through page 83, line 19, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that he did not provide any definition of the term “map engine” in claim
`
`18 in his declaration because he “didn’t feel it was important” and the definition he
`
`had in mind as he performed his analysis was “something that interfaces with a
`
`map database” or “something that manipulates a map database.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of
`
`Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it puts into question whether Dr. Rosenberg
`
`performed the proper analysis in rendering his opinions in this matter.
`
`18. Observation #18
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 86, line 4 through page 88, line 8, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that in his opinion, if there is a database, there necessarily is a database
`
`engine “for that database to be functional for its intended purpose.” This testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a
`
`database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database” element
`
`of claim 18.
`
`19. Observation #19
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 90, line 9 through page 100, line 18, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the function of “correlating the location of each remote platform with
`
`a map database and transmitting a map having marked said remote platform
`
`location(s) to said subscriber” as discussed in the ’970 Patent describes
`
`“manipulating” the map database. Further, Dr. Rosenberg testified that the
`
`function of “correlating the location of each remote platform with a map database”
`
`may be implemented using the “map engine.” This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and Petitioner’s reply
`
`argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a database” discloses the
`
`“map engine for manipulating said map database” element of claim 18.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`20. Observation #20
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 100, line 19 through page 105, line 4, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the function of “correlating between maps stored in the database”
`
`described in the ’970 Patent is implemented using the “map database” and “map
`
`engine.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17,
`
`paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to
`
`10 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`opinion and Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map
`
`from a database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database”
`
`element of claim 18.
`
`21. Observation #21
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 105, line 5 through page 114, line 5, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the function of deriving street names from the map database described
`
`in the ’970 Patent requires manipulating the map database and also requires use of
`
`the map engine. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages
`
`14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on
`
`pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinion and Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or
`
`obtaining a map from a database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said
`
`map database” element of claim 18.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`22. Observation #22
`
`In Exhibit 2022, page 114, line 6 through page 124, line 14, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testified that the function of “access[ing] said map database for correlating map to
`
`said location information, so as to obtain correlated location information” requires
`
`“using a map database in the process of correlation” and a “map engine.” Further,
`
`Dr. Rosenberg testified that the function of correlating the map to said location
`
`information is an example of manipulating the map database. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Rosenberg’s opinions on pages 14 to 17, paragraphs 27 to 33 of
`
`Exhibit 1020 and Petitioner’s reply argument on pages 8 to 10 of Paper 39. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion and
`
`Petitioner’s reply argument that “accessing and/or obtaining a map from a
`
`database” discloses the “map engine for manipulating said map database” element
`
`of claim 18.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Thomas Engellenner/
`Thomas Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 30th day of December, 2014, a true and correct
`
`copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations Regarding Cross-
`
`Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Witness Dr. Craig Rosenberg was served on the
`
`following counsel for Petitioner Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a Location Labs via email
`
`and Federal Express Mail:
`
`
`
`
`mark.hogge@dentons.com
`scott.cummings@dentons.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Thomas Engellenner/
`Thomas Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark L. Hogge
`Scott W. Cummings
`Dentons US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington DC 20005
`Tel: (202)408-6400
`Fax: (202)408-6399
`
`Dated: December 30, 2014