throbber
Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`----------------------------------------------------
` CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
` Plaintiff, Action No.
` vs. #IPR2014-00397
` BLACKBERRY LTD.,
` Defendant.
`----------------------------------------------------
`
` 1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
` NEW YORK, NEW YORK
` September 25, 2014, 10:36 A.M.
`
`
`
`
` DEPOSITION of JOSHUA W.
` PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE, taken by Plaintiff,
` pursuant to Order, before Christine Cutrone,
` a Notary Public for and within the State of
` New York.
`
`Page 1
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 1
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
` OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
` MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
` BY: ROBERT C. MATTSON, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER A. BULLARD, ESQ.
` E-mail: Rmattson@oblon.com
` E-mail: Cbullard@onlon.com
`
` KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
` Attorneys for Defendant
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` BY: JAMES HANNAH, ESQ.
` E-mail: Jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`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 2
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 2
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
` E X A M I N A T I O N S
` Witness Page
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE 4
`
` MR. BULLARD 4
` MR. HANNAH 40
` MR. BULLARD 43
`
` EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY MARKED - REFERENCED
`
` Exhibits Page
` Exhibit 1, '623 patent 5
` Exhibit 1003, declaration 5
` Exhibit 1007, US Patent Number 5,748,104 - 28
` Argyroudis
`
`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 3
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 3
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE, having first
` been duly sworn by a Notary Public, for and
` within the State of New York, upon being
` examined, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. BULLARD:
` Q. Please state your name for the record.
` A. Joshua W. Phinney, PH.D.
` Q. What is your present business address?
` A. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1740, New
` York, New York 10170.
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Phinney.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Are you here today for your deposition
` relating to your declaration filed in IPR 2014-00400?
` A. Yes, I am.
` Q. Does that matter relate to US Patent
` number 6,034,623?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. May I refer to this patent as the '623
` patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to hand you a copy of the
` '623 patent which is already in the record as
`
`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 4
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 4
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` Exhibit 1.
` Is this a copy of the '623 patent?
` MR. HANNAH: Do you have a
` copy for me?
` MR. MATTSON: Yes.
` (Copy was given to
` Mr. Hannah.)
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. So for the purpose of this deposition,
` may I refer to the filing date July 21st, 1997 as the
` time of the invention?
` A. Okay.
` Q. And next I'm going to hand you a copy
` of your declaration which has already been entered
` into the record in this matter as Exhibit 1003.
` Is this a copy of your declaration?
` (Witness peruses document.)
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Great. Did you have an opportunity to
` fully review your declaration as filed before this
` deposition?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Are there any errors in your
` declaration?
`
`Page 5
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 5
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` A. None that I'm aware of.
` Q. Great. So let's turn to some of the
` references that were applied in your declaration.
` So I'm going to hand you a copy of US
` Pattern number 5963650 to Simionescu.
` Do you mind if I call this pattern,
` refer to it as Simionescu?
` A. That's fine.
` Q. Do you understand the difference
` between anticipation and obviousness as it relates to
` patent claims?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Does, in your opinion, Simionescu
` teach all the elements of Claim 3 of the '623 patent?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. So do you need to modify any of the
` teachings of Simionescu to meet all the elements of
` Claim 3?
` A. I think they could depend on how one
` interprets Claim 3.
` Q. Can you elaborate on that?
` A. So referring to it, if I could, to
` Figure 4 of this '623 patent, we can see flash EPROM
` 86 that contains two software programs that are part
`
`Page 6
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 6
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` of the data link layer of the modem that's described
` generally in Figure 4. In there we could see a masc
` software and art software. Masc is M-A-S-C. And I
` read Claim 3 to require that both pieces of software
` are present concurrently within the modem. And that
` both are capable of running at different times on the
` same modem.
` Q. Let's take a look then at your
` declaration. In particular let's start with the
` heading above Paragraph 123 which states: Simionescu
` renders obvious Claim 3 of the '623 patent.
` So what are the differences between
` Simionescu and the invention as recited in Claim 3?
` A. If we look at the different elements
` of Claim 3 such as the R transceiver for sending and
` receiving data in the serial port, and the
` microprocessor coupled to the RF transceiver in the
` transport as well as the two modes of operation that
` are described further in that element, all of those
` elements are there. But if that claim should be
` interpreted that the two modes are both loaded
` simultaneously or present simultaneously or capable
` of running at different times on the same radio
` modem, that's where I address in Paragraph 126. That
`
`Page 7
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 7
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` motivated by cost savings and flexibility,
` manufactured data acquisition modules were planted
` obvious to offer as a single product. A module that
` could be configured as a general purpose radio modem
` or as a special purpose telemetry module.
` Q. Where does Simionescu disclose the
` first mode recited in Claim 3?
` A. So for instance, I provide citations
` in Paragraph 126 of my declaration stating that when
` a customizable -- I should first clarify, is the
` first mode the general purpose rate modem mode?
` Q. Let's look at the claim itself. Let's
` take a step back.
` So does Claim 3 recite a dual mode of
` radio modem?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are there two modes recited in Claim
` 3?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what are the two modes?
` A. So a first mode that configures the
` radio modem to operate as a general purpose radio
` device coupled to the host processing system via the
` serial port. And the second mode -- or was your
`
`Page 8
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 8
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` question just about the first mode? I'm sorry. I
` forgot.
` Q. I think my first question was about
` where the first mode is found. And then to be more
` clear, so you can answer that question, as to what
` the two modes are.
` So you could go ahead an answer what
` the two modes are, or we can go back to that other
` question.
` A. Sorry. First mode that configures the
` radio modem to operate as a general purpose radio
` device in a second mode that configures the radio
` modem to operate as a special purpose telemetry
` computer.
` Q. So where does Simionescu disclose the
` first mode?
` A. Here in Paragraph 126 of my
` declaration, I discuss the first mode with reference
` to Simionescu at comp 12 minus 5 to 21. And I state
` that for a modem application, the telemetry system of
` Simionescu functions as a wireless gateway where
` symbols are communicated over RS 32 or RS 485 link.
` There may be others.
` Q. I see that you also refer to the first
`
`Page 9
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 9
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` mode in a particular language that you just quoted
` from Claim 3 relating to a first mode in Paragraph
` 127 of your declaration; is that right?
` A. Yes. I also discuss the first mode in
` Paragraph 127.
` Q. And you also note that the data
` acquisition module of Simionescu may be programmed so
` that connected serial devices can use the data
` acquisition module as a wireless modem?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. So taking a step back.
` When you refer to it being programmed
` so that connected serial devices could use the data
` acquisition module as a wireless modem, you're
` referring to preloaded software?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` A. For that software to run it would have
` had to been loaded. And what I'm trying to indicate
` with my response is the distinction -- I'm trying to
` show is whether or not that software is loaded at the
` same time that other software for operation in the
` second mode is loaded.
` Q. Do you discuss anywhere in your
`
`Page 10
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 10
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` declaration loading two types of software at the same
` time?
` A. Inasmuch as I described the two types
` of application being present in the two modes in
` Simionescu, I do in that sense. I interrupted Claim
` 3 in light of the specification to require that both
` types of software in the first mode and the second
` mode simultaneously loaded incapable of operation at
` different times on the same mode.
` Q. To be clear, you're saying that
` Simionescu discloses that two types of software are
` loaded simultaneously?
` A. That's how I interpreted Claim 3.
` Q. I see.
` A. But if we look at the words of Claim
` 3, for instance, in the last element, where the
` microprocessor includes a reprogrammable memory for
` storing a radio configuration and control program
` that causes the radio modem to operate in one of two
` modes. I think another interpretation of that is
` that need not require that software for operation in
` both modes is present simultaneously in the device.
` In that both types of software are capable of
` executing on the same radio modem.
`
`Page 11
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 11
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` Q. Let's turn to the second mode. Where
` is the second mode disclosed in Simionescu?
` A. So I provide citations to the
` Simionescu in Paragraph 128, and also discuss it
` briefly in Paragraph 126 in my declaration.
` So for instance, Column 14 Line 67 to
` Column 15 Line 30 and the other citations
` particularly in Paragraph 128.
` Q. So let's look at Paragraph 128.
` And you include very broad citations
` to Simionescu there. And then you say that in this
` embodiment standard software application could be
` preloaded before attachments to the IO device 206.
` You just mentioned that in your
` interpretation of Claim 3 that both software does not
` need to be loaded simultaneously.
` So if I'm understanding correctly then
` that your position is based on in 127 where you say
` that Simionescu could be programmed so that connected
` serial devices can be used in the data acquisition
` module as a wireless modem. In the alternative then
` Paragraph 128 it can be programmed differently in
` advance?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
`
`Page 12
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 12
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` form.
` A. I think at the beginning of your --
` after my last answer, I think that you perhaps
` misstated what my opinion is.
` Q. Please clarify.
` A. So I wasn't sure when you went by -- I
` thought you said that in my opinion software for
` operation of both modes need not be loaded on the
` device at the same time and be capable of operation.
` I think that's what you said. I may be misheard.
` Q. Yes. I think that was my
` understanding of your answer to the question that you
` had mentioned earlier that Claim 3 can be interpreted
` so that both types of software do not need to be
` loaded simultaneously.
` A. Right. It can be interpreted that
` way. I think just the words -- taking the words in
` isolation not looking in light of the spec that
` showed us that memory with both -- I think just the
` words by themselves could be interpreted that way.
` Q. Let me be more precise and ask you.
` In Paragraph 127, you refer to the
` first mode, correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`Page 13
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 13
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` Q. In Paragraph 127, you say that the
` data acquisition module of Simionescu can be
` programmed. So that connected serial devices can use
` a data acquisition module as a wireless mode,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In Paragraph 127, you're stating that
` the data acquisition module can be programmed for the
` first mode?
` A. Yes. As long as it's clear -- that
` statement doesn't say that's exclusive of other
` software that may be loaded on the device for
` operation in another mode. But, yes, it could be
` programmed for operation in the first mode.
` Q. Paragraph 128 is your discussion of
` the second mode?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Again, in Paragraph 128, you say in
` this embodiment, standard software applications can
` be preloaded before attachments to the IO device 206.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You're stating that software could be
` preloaded to perform the second mode?
` A. That's correct. Again, I just want to
`
`Page 14
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 14
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` make that same qualification that I made in my last
` answer, that doesn't exclude the possibility of
` software for operation of other modes also being
` loaded at that time.
` Q. Does Simionescu ever disclose software
` being loaded for two different modes at the same
` time?
` A. I don't believe it does so explicitly
` which is why I wrote the last sentence in Paragraph
` 126, that software for operation in two modes would
` be obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
` Q. Where are you reading that in
` Paragraph 126?
` A. That would be -- I'm looking on Page
` 65 of the original pagination. Three lines from the
` bottom. I say motivated by cost savings and
` flexibility and manufacturer data acquisition modules
` would find it obvious to offer as a single product a
` module that could be configured as a general purpose
` radio modem for IO devices with serial communication
` or as a special purpose telemetry module for devices
` such as passive sensors and computer control
` equipment.
` Q. So would a device that can be
`
`Page 15
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 15
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` preloaded with a software to perform in a first mode,
` but can also be preloaded in the alternative with
` software to perform in a second mode, isn't that a
` single product that could be configured depending
` upon which software is alternatively loaded on to it
` into two modes?
` A. Yes. And that really gets to the
` heart of the interpretation of Claim 3 where the
` configuration need not simultaneously load software
` for operation in both modes.
` Q. So my understanding then is in
` Paragraph 126 of your declaration, you don't say that
` software for both modes simultaneously is loaded on a
` device of Simionescu. Only that the device of
` Simionescu could be configured for different modes;
` is that correct?
` A. Yes. And what I mean by configured
` for different modes is that similar to what we see in
` the specification of the '623 patent, where we
` observe the masc protocol and the art protocol
` software for operating those two modes both present.
` What I meant is that -- I meant to reflect that
` understanding of the claim in light of the
` specification.
`
`Page 16
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 16
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` Q. So I think I understand. The teaching
` of having two software or one software or however
` many software that performs both modes, that's not
` Simionescu. That's when you look at the '623 that's
` where you get that understanding; is that correct?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` A. In my view Simionescu describes the
` software for operation in two modes. A question
` about whether or not as a result of that Simionescu
` renders Claim 3 obvious, would depend on how one
` interprets Claim 3.
` So when I wrote this section, I
` interpreted Claim 3 in light of the specification to
` require that software for operation in both modes is
` simultaneously present on the device incapable of
` operation in the same device.
` Q. So you just said Simionescu describes
` software for operation in two modes.
` Are you saying that Simionescu
` describes a single piece of software that provides
` for dual mode configuration?
` A. What I mean to state is that
` Simionescu describes software for operation in a
`
`Page 17
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 17
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` first mode, and it describes software for operation
` in a second mode.
` Q. But Simionescu does not describe that
` software simultaneously existing on the device at the
` same time; is that correct?
` A. To the extent that it doesn't
` explicitly describe all that software for operation
` in both modes simultaneously, present to my view,
` would be obvious for a manufacturer of data
` acquisition modules to offer that functionality in a
` single configurable product.
` Q. Which is more than what you refer to
` in your declaration; is that correct?
` A. That's what I mean here by the last
` sentence in Paragraph 126 I take it that we are
` discussing. You're asking about that.
` Q. That's correct. I'm referring to the
` sentence in Paragraph 126 where you refer to the
` single product, a module that could be configured.
` What I'm saying is that when you're
` saying that there's software that performs two modes
` on Simionescu or that it would be obvious to do so,
` that is more than what you said in your
` declaration, because your declaration simply stated a
`
`Page 18
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 18
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` device that could be configured for one mode or
` another mode?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` A. I'm not sure I understand your
` question.
` Q. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at
` a different portion of your specification to provide
` more clarity.
` Could you look at Paragraph 53 of your
` declaration. And in Paragraph 53 you state: In a
` customizable telemetry application, the same pins may
` be repurposed as general purpose digital IO signals
` for interfacing with devices including passive device
` or computer controllable equipment. Is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Then in Paragraph 128, you refer to in
` this embodiment standard software applications can be
` preloaded before attachment to the IO device 206. Is
` that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And then we keep referring back to in
` Paragraph 126, your statement that it would have been
` obvious to offer as a single product a module that
`
`Page 19
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 19
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` could be configured as a general purpose radio modem
` for IO devices with serial communication or as a
` special purpose telemetry module for devices such as
` passive sensors and computer control equipment. Is
` that correct?
` A. Yes.
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` Q. So in each of these instances, you're
` referring to a device being repurposed; is that
` correct?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` A. (No response.)
` Q. When you refer to the same pins being
` repurposed in Paragraph 53, is it correct that you're
` repurposing that?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` A. Well, if we could look at Simionescu,
` the last figure, I think it's Figure 10. It's
` actually not the last figure. Look at Figure 10, and
` corresponding to that the table one that we see in
` Columns 14 and 15. Simionescu describes different
`
`Page 20
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 20
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` modes of operation where the same pins of the
` connector could have different functions in different
` modes.
` So for instance a general purpose by
` directional IO line such as DIO 1, could be
` repurposed to a serial communication interface
` signal. So in the two modes one is able to repurpose
` for the same pin for different tasks depending on the
` mode.
` Q. Does Simionescu ever disclose that
` both of those modes are available without loading
` additional software?
` A. Simionescu discloses that you could
` operate in one of these modes by loading software
` without -- this goes back to that qualification that
` I said earlier, that Simionescu does disclose loading
` software for operating in one of these modes. It
` doesn't rule that possibility out. But to the extent
` it doesn't say explicitly that one piece of software
` can allow operation in one mode, and in a second mode
` that would be obvious in my opinion which is why I
` wrote the last sentence in Paragraph 126.
` Q. Thank you. So just to be clear,
` Simionescu does not disclose dual modes, but it's
`
`Page 21
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 21
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` your position that it would be obvious to do so?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
` form.
` A. I disagree with that. I want to make
` clear. It discloses a first mode and it discloses a
` second mode. And understanding how that relates to
` obviousness or anticipation to me comes down to how
` we would interpret Claim 3 of the '623 patent. When
` I wrote the declaration, I interpreted Claim 3 in
` light of the specification to require that both
` software for both modes be present simultaneously on
` the device, incapable of running at different times
` on the same device. But reading the word of Claim 3,
` I think it's a reasonable interpretation that that
` may not be a requirement.
` Q. You refer to the table in Simionescu
` that illustrates different pinouts.
` Is that table one starting on Column
` 14 of Simionescu?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does Simionescu disclose anywhere that
` software can be preloaded that allows either pinout
` configuration without preloading additional software?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
`
`Page 22
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 22
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` form.
` A. I think that is within the scope of
` Simionescu. I think that a person would understand
` that type of operation could be -- is present as much
` as there's like a first mode and a second mode
` described. And that it would be an obvious design
` choice as I stated in Paragraph 48 -- sorry. Not 48.
` Paragraph 53. I think that would be an obvious
` design choice motivated by cost savings and
` flexibility.
` Q. So where does Simionescu disclose a
` single software that will provide both pinouts?
` A. I hope I'm answering the question. To
` be clear in saying that Simionescu describes as first
` mode corresponding to one pinout to be similar to two
` pinouts, for instance, that we see in Figure 4 of the
` '623 patent provides software for operating in one
` mode. Provides one pinout. It describes other
` instances where different pinouts are possible
` depending on the software that is loaded. It doesn't
` -- it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that
` both modes are software for operation and both modes
` are present simultaneously. And that's why I wrote
` that Simionescu renders obvious Claim 3. Because I
`
`Page 23
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 23
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` think that motivated by flexibility or cost savings
` that would be an obvious design choice.
` Q. To be clear, your position is
` that Simionescu discloses that a first pinout
` is possible when a software is loaded; is that
` correct?
` A. Right. With that qualification in my
` answer that doesn't exclude, you know, other software
` could also be loaded.
` Q. Is it also your position that
` Simionescu discloses that a second pinout can be
` achieved if a software is loaded on the device; is
` that correct?
` A. That's correct with that same
` qualification.
` Q. You mentioned that Simionescu does not
` preclude the possibility that software for the first
` mode and software for the second mode are there at
` the same time.
` But my question is, does Simionescu
` ever explicitly state that both pieces of software to
` provide a dual mode device without additional loading
` is present; is that correct?
` MR. HANNAH: Objection to
`
`Page 24
`THORSNES LITIGATION SERVICES, LLC | 877.771.3312 | www.thorsnes.com
`
`CYPRESS V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2014-00400
`BLACKBERRY EX. 2003, pg. 24
`
`

`

`Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., PE
`
`September 25, 2014
`
`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
`
` JOSHUA W. PHINNEY, Ph.D., PE
` form.
` A. I believe I stated earlier that
` Simionescu does not disclose explicitly that software
` like you're describing is present. That's why my
` opinion is one of obviousness. But I want to make
` clear that whether or not that's a requirement of
` Claim 3, I think would depend on how one reads this
` claim.
` Q. So let's talk a little bit about your
` background.
` In Paragraph 9 of your declaration,
` you indicate that you draw upon your experience and
` knowledge of control and design and controller
` interfacing using wireless commu

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket