`
`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