(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE (USA) )
`INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. ) No. IPR2014-00525
` )
`IPR LICENSING, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` Videotaped deposition of DR. WAYNE E. STARK,
`taken before NADINE J. WATTS, CSR, RPR, and Notary
`Public, pursuant to the Rules of the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office, pertaining to the taking of
`depositions, at Suite 3600, 455 North Cityfront Plaza
`Drive, in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, at
`9:52 o'clock a.m. on the 24th day of March, A.D., 2015.
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00001
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 2
`
` There were present at the taking of this
`deposition the following counsel:
`
` BRINKS, GILSON & LIONE by
` MR. BRIAN A. JONES and
` MR. CHARLES M. McMAHON
` NBC Tower - Suite 3600
` 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60611
` (312) 321-4200
` bjones@brinksgilson.com
` cmcmahon@brinksgilson.com
` on behalf of the Petitioner;
` SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP by
` MR. DOUGLAS I. LEWIS
` One South Dearborn Street
` Chicago, Illinois 60603
` (312) 853-4169
` dilewis@sidley.com
` on behalf of Microsoft Corporation;
` LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP by
` MS. JULIE M. HOLLOWAY
` 505 Montgomery Street
` Suite 2000
` San Francisco, California 94111
` (415) 391-0600
` julie.holloway@lw.com
` on behalf of Patentee InterDigital.
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Walter Cwik, legal videographer
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00002
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 3
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DR. WAYNE E. STARK
` TAKEN MARCH 24, 2015
`
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`Mr. Brian A. Jones 5, 107
`Ms. Julie M. Holloway 103
`
` EXHIBITS
` PAGE
`EXHIBIT 1001-00001 14
` United States Patent 8,380,244 B2
`EXHIBIT 1003-00001 90
` United States Patent 6,243,581 B1
`EXHIBIT 1005-03 77
` GSM 03.60 version 6.1.1
`EXHIBIT 2005-0001 5
` Declaration of Dr. Wayne E. Stark
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00003
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins tape No. 1 in the
`videotaped deposition of Wayne Stark in the matter of
`ZTE Corporation, et al. versus IPR Licensing, Inc., in
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office, before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case No.
`IPR2014-00525.
` This deposition is being held at 455 North
`Cityfront Plaza, Chicago, Illinois on March 24th, 2015
`at approximately 9:52.
` My name is Walter Cwik, and I am a certified
`legal video specialist in association with Merrill
`Corporation. The court reporter today is Nadine Watts
`in association with Merrill Corporation.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves for
`the record.
` MS. HOLLOWAY: Julie Holloway of Latham & Watkins
`for Patentee InterDigital.
` MR. JONES: Brian Jones on behalf of ZTE Corporation
`and ZTE (USA), Petitioner. With me is Charles McMahon.
` MR. LEWIS: Douglas Lewis of Sidley Austin, LLP for
`Microsoft.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter please
`swear in the witness.
` (Witness sworn.)
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00004
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` DR. WAYNE E. STARK,
`called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`sworn, was examined upon oral interrogatories and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
` by Mr. Jones:
` MR. JONES: Q Good morning, Dr. Stark.
` A Good morning.
` Q You provided a declaration in response to ZTE's
`petition for inter partes review in this case; is that
`correct?
` A Yes.
` (Document marked Exhibit 2005-0001
` tendered to witness.)
` Q I'll hand you a copy of your petition. Do you
`recognize Exhibit 2005 as the declaration you submitted
`in this matter?
` A Yes.
` Q So my questions today will be limited to your
`opinions and the bases for your opinions in this
`declaration, Exhibit 2005. Do you understand that?
` A Yes.
` Q You provided your declaration in response to Dr.
`Bims' declaration that he provided in this IPR?
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00005
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A Yes.
` Q And you provided your own independent analysis
`of the references that Dr. Bims relied on; is that
`correct?
` A I believe I did my own analysis independently,
`yes.
` Q And you compared the subject matter of the
`recited claims in the '244 patent to the references that
`form the basis for the IPR?
` A Yes.
` Q In performing your analysis, you reviewed the
`materials identified in your declaration, your personal
`knowledge, and any experience in the design,
`development, and operation of relevant systems; is that
`correct?
` A Roughly, yes.
` Q And you've never designed or manufactured a cell
`phone; is that correct?
` A That's correct.
` Q And in 1999 you were not a member of the ETSI
`standards setting organization; is that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And in 1999 you weren't a member of any
`standards organizations, were you?
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00006
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A No.
` Q So I want to ask you some questions about
`secondary considerations in your declarations. So
`starting at page 7 paragraph 24, if you'd like to
`reference that.
` A Page?
` Q 7.
` A Page 7?
` Q Paragraph 24. Did you find that?
` A Yes.
` Q All right. You state that the obviousness
`analysis must be addressed -- sorry, that the obvious --
`obviousness analysis must address secondary
`considerations, correct?
` A Obviousness/non-obviousness analysis must
`address secondary considerations.
` Q And you include a list of secondary
`considerations that may be included in your analysis?
` A Yes.
` Q And you indicate on page 8 of your declaration
`that you might look at whether the claimed invention was
`commercially successful where there's a nexus or
`connection between the commercial success of the claimed
`invention, correct?
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00007
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A Yes.
` Q All right. Well, let's turn to your analysis of
`commercial success on page 57 of your declaration. I
`think it starts at paragraph 140 and continues to
`paragraph 143.
` A Yes.
` Q And these paragraphs provide your only opinions
`in this declaration as to commercial success, correct?
` A I believe that's true.
` Q And the only example of commercial success you
`point to is ZTE's statement that it is a top-five global
`manufacturer of cell phones in terms of market share; is
`that correct?
` A That's a quote in my declaration, yes.
` Q And that's the only quote you provide in your
`declaration as to the commercial success?
` A That's correct.
` Q And you never had any marketing or sales
`positions in companies, have you?
` A No.
` Q And you're not a financial analyst?
` A No.
` Q Nevertheless, you state that ZTE's success is
`due in part to the claimed features of the '244 patent?
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00008
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A That's correct.
` Q In this declaration you don't identify any
`specific portion or amount of ZTE's success that is
`allegedly due to the claimed features of the '244
`patent, do you?
` A No.
` Q And you provide no citations to any analysis in
`your declaration showing that ZTE's position in the
`marketplace is due to the '244 patent?
` A Correct.
` Q You agree that in order for ZTE's commercial
`success to be attributed to the '244 patent, ZTE's
`success would have to be due to its sales of dual-mode
`phones, correct?
` A Can you repeat the question?
` Q Sure. You agree that in order for ZTE's
`commercial success to be attributed to the '244 patent,
`ZTE's success would have to be due to its sales of
`dual-mode phones, correct?
` A Yes. There would be dual-mode phones, yes.
` Q Okay. You'd agree that if the success was due
`to a single-mode phone, that the success would not be
`related to the '244 patent, correct?
` A Right, the '244 is about dual-mode phones.
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00009
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q And you provide no indication of what percentage
`of ZTE's cell phone sales are dual-mode phones, do you?
` A No.
` Q And you agree that even for ZTE's dual-mode cell
`phones sales, to the extent they exist, other factors
`might have contributed to the success of ZTE's sales?
` A Yes, there's a lot of factors that contribute to
`the success of sales, including advertising and
`marketing related things.
` Q And you didn't account for those advertising and
`marketing things in your declaration here, did you?
` A No.
` Q And in your declaration in this IPR you provided
`no analysis that would isolate which particular factors
`might have been more influential or less influential in
`deriving success for ZTE's phones, do you?
` A I think that's very hard to do, and it might be
`necessary for a marketing guy to do that.
` Q Nonetheless, you did not do that?
` A I did not do that.
` Q So let's turn to your analysis then of licensing
`by others in your declaration at paragraphs 134 to 135.
` Here you indicate that the '244 patent has been
`a significant part of InterDigital's licensing program,
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00010
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q But you cite no licensing negotiations that
`featured the '244 patent family, correct?
` A I didn't cite any, that's correct.
` Q And you cite no licenses that actually include
`the '244 patent, do you?
` A I didn't cite any, no.
` Q And you cite no evidence that any company
`licensed InterDigital's patent family because of the
`'244 patent, correct?
` A I didn't cite any, that's correct.
` Q So moving on to skepticism and failure of others
`in paragraph 30 -- 136 to 134, you provide your opinions
`regarding skepticism, failures of others, and long-felt
`need, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And yet you cite no evidence in your declaration
`to support your statement that the cellular operators
`were concerned with centrally allocated channels?
` A I didn't provide any citations there.
` Q And you don't identify in your declaration any
`specific perceived difficulties in providing coverage
`using networks for different ranges, capacity, and
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00011
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`bandwidth, do you?
` A What was the first part of the question? Was
`citing --
` Q You don't identify in your declaration any
`evidence about the perceived difficulties?
` A I didn't have -- I don't have any cites in that
`section.
` Q And you state that the '244 patent solved
`previously unresolved technical problems, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q But other than just taking your word for it,
`your declaration does not identify any evidence of those
`alleged previously unresolved technical problems?
` A I didn't put a citation to it, other than my
`analysis in the rest of the declaration.
` Q And you also provide no indication in your
`declaration as to how long these problems had been
`unresolved, have you?
` A Not in this section of the report. But I think
`earlier in the sections I talk a little bit about the
`history of the '244 and the problems that it solved.
` Q And how long was that thing?
` A How long was what?
` Q Did those problems remain unresolved.
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00012
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A Well, I think once the '244 -- the application
`that led to the '244 was made, it wasn't until -- I
`mean, at that point dual-mode phones didn't really
`exist, not on a commercial -- a commercial significant
`way. And it wasn't until the early, mid-2000s, 2005,
`2007-ish, when dual-mode phones that had the capability
`of being dual mode became commercially successful.
` Q So the feature you're pointing to with respect
`to long-felt need is just the feature of dual mode; is
`that correct?
` A Well, the whole issue is -- the whole patent is
`about dual-mode phones and how to use those efficiently.
` Q All right. Moving on to unexpected results in
`paragraphs 144 to 145, you provide your opinions
`regarding the unexpected results of the '244 patent,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Yet you provide no indication in your
`declaration why one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have expected that the selection of a plurality of
`physical channels by the subscriber unit would not be
`able to provide reliable data communications?
` A Can you read the question again?
` Q Sure. In 145 you state, in my opinion, a person
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00013
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention would not have expected selection of a
`plurality of physical channels by the subscriber unit to
`provide reliable data communications, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q But you provide no evidence as to why that would
`be?
` A I don't have any citations there, correct.
` Q All right. Let's talk a little bit about the
`claims of the '244 patent. And let me give you a copy
`of the '244 patent that's been premarked.
` (Document marked Exhibit 1001-00001
` tendered to witness.)
` Q Do you recognize Exhibit 1001-1 as the '244
`patent --
` A Yes.
` Q -- discussed in your declaration?
` A Yes.
` Q Now, first of all, it's your opinion in this
`declaration that the claims of the '244 patent are
`entitled to a priority date of the parent application
`filed on September 21st, 1999; is that correct?
` A Yes, that's correct.
` Q And you do not suggest in your declaration that
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00014
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`the claims would be entitled to an earlier priority
`date, correct?
` A That's correct.
` Q And in your analysis of the prosecution history
`of the '244 patent, you understand that the '244 patent
`resulted from a continuation of U.S. Patent 7,616,970?
` A Yes.
` Q And we can call that the '970 patent?
` A Sure.
` Q And you testified on behalf of InterDigital
`regarding the validity of the '970 patent at the
`International Trade Commission, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And you understand from your review of the
`prosecution history of the '244 patent that the '970
`patent and the '244 patent share a common specification?
` A Correct.
` Q They're identical, right?
` A Yes.
` Q And we can all agree though that the '244 patent
`has different claims than the '970 patent?
` A Yes.
` Q You agree that even though they have different
`claims, the claims are understood in light of that same
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00015
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`specification, correct?
` A Correct.
` Q So with that in mind, let's talk about your
`opinions in this declaration related to claim
`construction.
` At paragraph 54 of your declaration you assert
`that only two claim elements require construction; is
`that correct?
` A Yes. I say, for purposes of assessing validity,
`the only terms that require construction in my opinion
`are assigned physical channels and maintain a
`communication session with the cellular wireless network
`in an absence of the plurality of assigned physical
`channels.
` Q And those are the only two claim terms that you
`assert require construction?
` A That's correct.
` Q And before providing your opinions in this
`declaration, you had an understanding of the scope and
`meaning of the claims to one of ordinary skill in the
`art in light of the specification?
` A Yes. I mean, I was at the ITC. So before the
`declaration, before -- before that happened, I had
`familiarity with the '970 that was in the family --
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00016
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`that's in the same family.
` Q And you applied that same understanding to those
`terms in forming your opinions in this declaration,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q So let's talk about that assigned physical
`channels term that you mentioned.
` First of all, the assigned physical channels
`required by the claim of the -- claims of the '244
`patent are channels at the physical layer; is that
`right?
` A Yes, it's physical layer channels, assigned
`physical channels. So that would be physical layer.
` Q So we could just call those the assigned
`physical layer channels, correct?
` A Sure, if you want to.
` Q You don't make a distinction between a physical
`channel and a physical layer channel?
` A No.
` Q Now, the specification describes those physical
`layer channels as physical links, right?
` A If you can point me to the passage you're
`referring to, I'll --
` Q Sure.
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00017
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A -- look it up and see.
` Q At column 5, lines 29 through 37, the
`specification describes radio channels 30 as the
`physical links, correct?
` MS. HOLLOWAY: Where was this, please, Brian?
` MR. JONES: Q Sure. Columns 5, lines 29 through
`37.
` A Yes, it describes the multi-channel digital
`transceiver provides access to one or more physical
`communication links, such as the illustrated radio
`channels 30.
` Q And so those radio channels 30 are the assigned
`physical channels required by the claims, correct?
` A Those are the physical channels.
` Q And those are the assigned physical channels
`that the claims are talking about, correct?
` A I believe so, yes.
` Q And if you look at figure 1 of the '244 patent,
`it also shows the radio channels 30 in that picture as
`the little lightning bolts off to the side; is that
`correct?
` A The lightning bolts are the electromagnetic
`waves propagating between the base -- a base station and
`a cellular -- a cell phone that -- the network and a
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00018
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`cell phone, and the physical layer channels are how the
`information gets mapped into signals that are
`transmitted using electromagnetic waves.
` Q Those are labeled as the radio channels 30,
`right?
` A Yes.
` Q And so those are the physical links described in
`the patent?
` A Yes, those would be the electromagnetic waves
`that transport the signals from the mobile cell phone to
`the network.
` Q Which are the physical channels described in the
`patent?
` A They refer to those as the radio links.
` Q I think column 5 refers to them as both the
`radio channels 30 --
` A Yes.
` Q -- and the physical links, correct?
` A Physical communication links and radio channels,
`yes.
` Q And those same radio links are shown in figure
`6, correct, as 160 labeled in figure 6?
` A Yes, 160 is the same type of diagram showing the
`signal being transmitted from the mobile to the base
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00019
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`station or vice versa.
` Q And so those radio channels 160 are also the
`assigned physical channels of the claims, correct?
` A Those are how the physical links are used to
`transmit information, yes.
` Q Well, then you state in paragraph 56 of your
`declaration that the subscriber unit is responsible for
`allocating the CDMA radio channels 160 as required,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And so those radio channels 160 are the assigned
`physical channels of the claims, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And at column 10 of the '244 patent, around line
`40, the '244 patent specification calls the radio
`channels 160 the assigned radio channel bandwidth,
`correct?
` A Around line what? 60?
` Q Column 10, line 40, 41, 42, 43.
` A Okay. What was the question now?
` Q At column 10 of the patent, around line 40, 41,
`42, 43, the specification calls the radio channels 160
`the assigned radio channel bandwidth, correct?
` A Yes, it says initially assigned radio channel
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00020
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`bandwidth 160.
` Q And it goes on to say in column 10, line 21
`through 27, that the radio channels 160 include both
`forward link channels and reverse link channels,
`correct?
` A So where are you reading? Column 10, line --
` Q 21 through 27.
` A Okay. It talks about forward link direction and
`reverse link direction.
` Q Right. So the --
` A Reverse link is from the mobile to the network,
`and forward link is the network to the phone.
` Q Right. And both those forward link and reverse
`link directions are part of the radio channels 160,
`correct?
` A Yes, 160 kind of indicates the signal's going
`back and forth either way. It doesn't have an arrow to
`show one -- only one way.
` Q It doesn't happen in one direction; it calls it
`bidirectional, correct?
` A I don't know if it calls it bidirectional, but
`there's a few directions.
` Q And so column 10, line 21, says, it should be
`understood that data signals travel bidirectionally
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00021
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`across the CDMA radio channels 160, correct?
` A Column 10, line -- Which line?
` Q 21.
` A Yes, bidirectionally, it calls it that, meaning
`it goes in both directions.
` Q Right. So radio channels 160 include both
`forward link channels and reverse link channels,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And -- Right. So the specification does not
`provide details for a protocol that defines the physical
`layer channels in the '244 patent, does it?
` A Say that once again.
` Q The specification of the '244 patent does not
`provide details for a protocol that would define the
`physical layer channels, does it?
` A Well, yes, I think it talks about various types.
`I know it talks about CDMA as one type of defining the
`physical layer channels.
` Q Right. So like I guess maybe you're talking
`about column 5 of the patent?
` A Yes.
` Q Line 29 through 37?
` A Yes.
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00022
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q The specification explains that physical links
`are preferably known wireless communication error
`interfaces using digital modulation techniques, such as
`code division, multiple access, CDMA, standards
`specified by IS-95?
` A Correct.
` Q And that's the disclosure in the '244 patent of
`what the assigned physical channels are, correct?
` A That's one example of what the physical channels
`could be. They could be channels defined by a CDMA
`protocol or a standard.
` Q So that's one way they could be defined. But
`the patent doesn't describe in detail any other way they
`could be defined, does it?
` MS. HOLLOWAY: Object, overbroad.
` Brian, the parties agree on claim construction.
`Why are we spending time on the details of the
`specification that are not in either expert's
`declaration?
` MR. JONES: I think your objection is noted, and I'd
`like Dr. Stark --
` MS. HOLLOWAY: It's a question, Brian.
` MR. JONES: We can talk about it later.
` MS. HOLLOWAY: All right.
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00023
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` THE WITNESS: So the question is --
` MS. HOLLOWAY: Excuse me. I'm just noting we have
`limited time, and if you're not going to spend time on
`Dr. Stark's actual opinions, we're not going to be too
`sympathetic to complaints when it's time for us to
`leave.
` THE WITNESS: So it talks about CDMA. I don't
`recall a specific -- another example of it using a
`different type of transmission method or multiple access
`method in the patent.
` MR. JONES: Q Right. And so the patentee directs
`the reader to the known cellular protocols in order to
`describe the physical channels, correct?
` A The physical links are -- are described in one
`example as being CDMA.
` Q The known CDMA IS --
` A IS --
` Q -- 95 standard at the time?
` A IS-95 standard at the time, yes.
` Q Okay. And the patentee doesn't describe
`anything else other than the known standards at the time
`regarding those physical channels, right?
` A I think it describes other things. I think it
`describes things about the bit error rate, and those are
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00024
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`related to the channels. Column 5, line 53 or 4, talks
`about bit error rate that's directly related to the
`channels that you're using. I think it talks about it
`other places, too.
` Q But in those cases, the bit error rate and the
`CDMA channels themselves are understood in view of the
`known CDMA IS-95 standards, correct?
` A I think bit error rate is known whether you use
`CDMA or any other standard. It's something that is not
`CDMA specific. It's true for any wireless link or wired
`link that you have reliability that's determined by the
`bit error rate of the channel or the physical layer. So
`bit error rate is not CDMA specific.
` Q But bit error rate is related to sending data
`over the physical links, correct?
` A No.
` Q What's it related to?
` A Receiving data over a physical link.
` Q So in one direction you have bit error rate, but
`in the other direction there is no bit error rate?
` A No.
` Q So bit error rate is bidirectional?
` A I never said it wasn't.
` Q Then maybe I didn't understand your question. I
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00025
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`said bit error rate is related to sending or receiving
`data over a physical link, correct?
` A Well, you said it was over sending, and I said
`it was over receiving. It had to do with receiving.
`You make an error at the receiver, not at the
`transmitter, and that's in both directions, and it's not
`specific to CDMA only. It's general. It applies to any
`modulation method that you can use.
` Q So bit error rate relates to receiving data over
`a physical link; is that fair?
` A Bit error rate is the probability that the
`receiver makes an error in receiving a bit that's
`transmitted over the error. That's the bit error rate,
`is the probability that a bit that's transmitted is
`received incorrectly.
` And it's a general concept. It's not specific
`to CDMA. CDMA has bit error rates. Other modulation
`techniques would have bit error rates, too.
` Q For example, GPRS or a GSM standard would also
`have a bit error rate associated?
` A Any digital communication system will have a bit
`error rate associated with it.
` Q So we talked a little bit about CDMA being
`disclosed in column 5. That same passage in column 5,
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation - Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1025-00026
`
`
`
`Dr. Wayne E. Stark March 24, 2015
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`lines 29 through 37, suggest, as you do, that the
`physical channels could be defined by other wireless
`communication protocols known at the time, correct?
` A Other wireless communication protocols in either
`types of links may also be used to advantage with the
`invention, yes. It describes other things.
` Q So CDMA that was known at the time and other
`wireless communication protocols, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Now, the '244 patent specification doesn't
`provide details of how physical layer channels become
`assigned, does it?
` A I think it does refer to how they become
`assigned.
` Q Well, let's talk about what you say in your
`declaration. At paragraph 55 you suggest that the '244
`patent's claims are directed to a subscriber unit,
`right?
` A Where are you reading? Paragraph 55?
` Q Of your declaration.
` A Yes.
` Q Paragraph 55, page 22.
` A
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
