205
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
` Petitioner
` V.
` UUSI, LLC
` Patent Owner
` Case IPR2014-00648
` Patent 8,217,612
` Case IPR2014-00649
` Patent 7,548,037
` Case IPR2014-00650
` Patent 7,579,802
`
`
` Deposition of Dr. Mark Ehsani
` March 14th, 2015
` 8:07 a.m.
`
` Reported By:
` KELLY BRYANT
` Job No: 38004
`
`
`
`WEBASTO EX. 1024
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC. v. UUSI, LLC
`IPR2014-00650
`Page 1
`
`

`

`208
`
` I-N-D-E-X
` Page
` Appearances.......................................... 207
` Court Reporter's Certificate........................ 389
`
` DR. MARK EHSANI
`
` DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDERS............... 210
` CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KESKAR................. 307
` REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDERS............. 372
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` NO. DESCRIPTION page
`
` Exhibit 3 Patent Number 7548037 the '037 Patent.... 214
` Exhibit 1004 '037 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response.. 237
` Exhibit 2003 Prosecution history of the '037.......... 241
` Exhibit 4 '037 Declaration In Support Of........... 259
` Exhibit 2015 '037 Patent Figure 3C.................... 268
` Exhibit 2016 649 IPR with '037 Patent................. 268
` Exhibit 5 1649 IPR Patent.......................... 273
` Exhibit 1008 649 IPR for the '037 Patent.............. 361
` Exhibit 6 IPR 648 to '612 Patent................... 373
`
`209
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` (March 14, 2015)
` VIDEOGRAPHER: This begins the videotaped
` deposition of Mark Ehsani, In the Matter of Webasto Roof
` Systems, Inc., versus UUSI, LLC --
` MR. SANDERS: Why don't we not start, we
` need the official exhibits. I just noticed there is no
` paper out.
` Thank you. Sorry about that.
` VIDEOGRAPHER: In the Matter of Webasto Roof
` Systems, Inc., versus UUSI, LLC, in the U.S. Patent
` Office court. This deposition is being held at
` Residence Inn by Marriott at 720 University Drive East,
` College Station, Texas 77840.
` My name is Daniel Valentine from the firm of
` David Feldman Worldwide, and I am a legal video
` specialist. The court reporter is Kelly Bryant, in
` association with David Feldman Worldwide.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves for
` the record?
` MR. SANDERS: Charles Sanders, at Goodwin
` Procter, for the petitioner, Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
` MR. KESKAR: Hemant Keskar, Harness & Dickey
` & Pierce, for the patent owner, UUSI, LLC.
` VIDEOGRAPHER: And will the court reporter
`2 (Pages 206 to 209)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`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
`25
`
`206
` ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DR. MARK
` EHSANI, a witness at the instance of the Petitioner, and
` duly sworn, taken in above-styled and numbered cause on
` the March 14, 2015, before Kelly Bryant, CSR, in and for
` the State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`207
`
`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
`
` A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S
` FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` Goodwin Procter
` Exchange Place, 53 State Street
` Boston, MA 02109
` BY: CHARLES H. SANDERS, ESQ.
` csanders@goodwinprocter.com
`
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` Harness, Dickey & Pierce
` 5445 Corporate Drive
` Suite 200
` Troy, MI 48098
` BY: HEMANT M. KESKAR, ESQ.
` hkeskar@hdp.com
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Daniel Valentine, Videographer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`210
`
`212
`
`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
`
`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
`
` please swear in the witness?
` (Witness sworn)
` VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the record at
` 8:07 a.m.
` DR. MARK EHSANI,
` having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
` BY MR. SANDERS:
` Q. And just to be clear, Dr. Eshani, you were here
` yesterday. You understand that this is Day 2 of your
` deposition?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. All right. I had a couple of questions about
` your testimony yesterday. We were discussing at the end
` of the day the '037 patent, and you directed me to
` Columns 13 and 14 in response to one of my questions.
` You read a sentence in Column 13, Line 46, that
` begins "unique software algorithms." I'll give you a
` minute to find it.
` A. What line again?
` Q. Line 46 at Column 13.
` A. Okay.
` Q. My question is: Do you believe that the -- those
` unique software algorithms were commercially available?
` A. As I recall, the question was, is there any
`
`211
`
` mention of software or techniques to calculate the K
` waiting factors of the algorithms. That's the question
` I was addressing. And I showed you instructions and
` directions and guidances that the patent gives to
` someone of ordinary skill in the art to figure that out.
` Now, with that understanding, what is your
` question?
` Q. Yes, sir. Thank you for not answering my
` question.
` You need to be careful, Dr. Ehsani, listen
` carefully to my questions and answer my questions. You
` have other speeches to make, you can make them in
` response to questions on redirect. So please listen
` carefully, Dr. Ehsani.
` Do you believe that the unique software
` algorithms residing in Line 46 of Column 13 were
` commercially available?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Based on the fact that the claims of Nartron's
` patents were issued by the U.S. Patent Office, did you
` believe that a presumption of validity applied for the
` purposes of your analysis?
` A. That's my understanding that U.S. Patent Office
` is a reliable source. It does due diligence with the
` help of the inventor. The inventor is obliged to bring
`
`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
`
`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
`
` to the attention of the examiner all the prior art that
` is relevant and sort out the distinction between his or
` her patent and the prior art.
` And the -- the U.S. examiner will also
` independently, through his own resources and expertise,
` bring to bear other prior art, and that going through
` that exercise, which is rather rigorous, produces a
` fairly substantial prosecution history and -- and record
` and most often modification and -- and settlement on --
` on specific claims -- claims.
` Through that laborious process, the patent is
` finally issued, and it is presumed to be valid, unless
` otherwise legally established.
` Q. And did you apply what you just mentioned in your
` prior answer for purposes of your analysis in this
` proceeding?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Focusing back on the '037 patent -- and we
` discussed some of these issues with regard to the '612,
` '802 patents yesterday, and I just want to see whether
` the answers are any different for the '037.
` Does the '037 patent -- excuse me.
` The '037 patent does not disclose the minimum
` amount of resistive force that would be detected as an
` obstacle, correct?
`
`213
`
` A. Are you talking about in terms of Newton's?
` Q. In terms of Newton's or some other measure of
` force?
` A. You mean some other units of -- of force,
` physical force.
` Q. Correct.
` A. I don't recall. I'd have to look at it. I
` wouldn't be surprised if it did, but it is totally
` irrelevant to the gist of the gist of the patent.
` Patents don't -- they give you a method and apparatus,
` and that depends on the application of the user.
` It has -- it is not something that neither the
` patent -- patentee nor I would consider, as an expert
` would consider relevant to the -- to the significance of
` the patent or its claims.
` Q. The '037 patent does not disclose use of any
` systems or methods set forth in the patent to meet any
` regulatory requirements, correct?
` A. I have to, again, refresh my memory. It seems
` like in the preamble, it does acknowledge the existence
` of -- the existence or forthcoming regulatory
` constraints that it attempts to be capable of -- of --
` of meeting.
` Q. You mentioned "preamble." Are -- are you
` referring to the discussion of the National Highway
`3 (Pages 210 to 213)
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`214
` Traffic Safety Administration's Standard 118 in the
` background section of the '037 patent?
` A. Among others. You -- those are the examples I
` had in mind.
` Q. Now, as I think you suggest in your prior answer,
` but correct me if I don't have this correct, the '037
` patent never states that any of the systems or methods
` disclosed therein will satisfy that standard?
` A. Is that a statement or a question?
` Q. I'll let you confirm for me whether or not that
` is correct?
` A. My belief, as an expert, is that this patent is
` capable of meeting those standards. That is the very
` gist and purpose of this patent to -- to meet or exceed
` the standards that would be established or applied at
` the time or in the near future to that time.
` That is the very essence of this patent, the
` capability of meeting very stringent hard and soft
` obstacle detection of windows on similar objects.
` Q. And what evidence, if any, did you consider that
` the systems or methods disclosed in the '037 patent can,
` in fact, satisfy those standards?
` A. The specification of the patent is my evidence.
` Q. Does the '037 patent distinguish between a fully
` opened window that is frozen due to temperature and a
`215
`
` fully opened window faced with an obstruction?
` A. I believe it does.
` Q. And how does the '037 patent make that
` distinction?
` A. I have to refresh my memory, but I seem to
` remember that there are specific temperature sensors
` that are incorporated in some embodiments of the
` practicing of the patent.
` Q. I would like to direct your attention to Claim 13
` of the '037 patent. It's one of the claims that you
` evaluated for purposes of your deposition prep?
` A. I believe that was one of the claims that was
` challenged.
` Q. And you see in Claim 13 in the third paragraph
` after the preamble, there is a claim limitation reciting
` sensing a value of the parameter during movement of the
` window or panel along its travel path.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you offered an interpretation of that claim
` limitation, correct?
` A. We can refer to my report. I assume that you're
` being truthful.
`
` Q. I'm showing you what's been previously marked as
` Exhibit 2003 in IPR 201400649, or Patent Number 7548037,
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`216
`
` the '037 patent.
` This is the Declaration that you signed in
` connection with the '037 patent, correct?
` A. It appears that way.
` Q. And I'd like to direct your attention to Page 28,
` and you see there on Page 28, excuse me, of
` Exhibit 2003, in the '649 IPR, that you have a heading
` for Claim 13.
` A. I see that.
` Q. In paragraph 52, in the first sentence, you refer
` to the claim limitation for sensing a value of the
` parameter during movement of the window or panel along
` its path of travel?
` A. That's what it says here.
` Q. Now, if you look forward to Paragraph 54 of your
` Declaration, feel free to review it.
` My question is: You believe that sensing a value
` of the parameter was defined in the prosecution history
` of the '037 patent, correct?
` A. That is my opinion, it appears here.
` Q. And right above Paragraph 54 on the last line of
` Paragraph 53, you state at the end of that paragraph
` sensing, in quotes, is not used in Claim 13 in the
` traditional sense, and, therefore, must not be construed
` using its conventional plain meaning.
`
`217
`
` Do you see that?
` A. That -- that is on the paper.
` Q. And the definition that you've proposed for the
` sensing limitation is more narrow than the broader plain
` meaning of sensing, correct?
` A. No, that's not correct.
` Q. Okay. Well, how does the plain meaning of
` sensing compare to the definition that you've prepared?
` A. There's no comparison between the two.
` Q. What, in your view, is the plain meaning of
` sensing?
` A. Well, to -- well, depends in what context,
` biological context? Intellectual type logical context?
` Electrical engineering context? There are different
` contexts.
` You can look at the reliable dictionary sensing.
` The question is too broad to be answered intelligently.
` Q. What, in your view, would be the plain meaning of
` sensing if the prosecution history that you cite in
` Paragraph 54 did not exist?
` A. As you probably know as a -- as a patent
` attorney, an inventor can be his own lexicographer. He
` can call this anything he wants to, as long as it
` becomes clear to a person of ordinary skill in the -- in
` the art which part of the specifications he's referring
`4 (Pages 214 to 217)
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`218
` to. He can define sensing to mean -- to mean jumping
` out of the window, if he wants to.
` So it is -- you have to, as you know, interpret
` things certain ways. You probably know it better than I
` do, independent of the way you're asking this question.
` But you go to the intrinsic evidence to get the
` meaning of the word "sensing" from the intrinsic
` evidence. If that is for any reason ambiguous, then you
` go to extrinsic evidence.
` And my understanding is that the first generation
` or layer of that extrinsic evidence is the prosecution
` history, and then you go to other places.
` Such a definition of sensing has no necessary
` connection to the plain and ordinary meaning of the
` word, unless it happens to overlap it.
` That's why the question is meaningless to compare
` the sensing in this sense to the sensing in general the
` way you asked it.
` Q. You stated in your Declaration: According to the
` claim term, sensing is not used in Claim 13 in the
` traditional sense.
` What did you mean by that?
` A. Well, the way -- as we say in Texas, it ain't
` what you think it is.
` Q. What was the traditional sense that you had in
`219
` mind when you said that sensing is not used in Claim 13
` in the traditional sense?
` A. I did not think of it that way.
` Q. So did -- when you used the term "traditional
` sense" in your Declaration, did that have some meaning
` to you?
` A. It did indeed.
` Q. What was its meaning?
` A. The meaning is it is not what you think it is.
` It is what the patent says it is. Traditional for you
` or anybody else who has a tradition of thinking about
` that word.
` It doesn't matter what my tradition is, whatever
` you think it is, it ain't.
` Q. So your view of the term "traditional sense" is
` it means something different than what anybody thinks it
` is?
` A. That's not what I said.
` Q. Okay. So traditional sense is what anybody
` thinks it is?
` A. That's not what I said.
` Q. Okay. Then what do you mean by "traditional
` sense"?
` A. I explained it. Would you like me to repeat it?
` Q. Well, yes, if that was your explanation, then
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`220
`
` please repeat it.
` A. Okay. I did not specify whose tradition.
` As I mentioned to you in the early part of this
` question, there are different contexts for sensing.
` Tradition has to do with a discipline of thought,
` biological, psychological, mathematical, mechanical
` engineering, electrical engineering, many others. There
` are many, many different traditions.
` What I'm saying is clear your brain of all of
` those. Read the patent. That's the meaning of sensing.
` Q. Did you read the patent to determine the meaning
` of sensing?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Did you find the word "sensing" used
` throughout the patent in many different contexts?
` A. Sir, that's a nonsensical question. The -- the
` claims can choose any words they want. You look for the
` interpretation and the definition of those words in the
` specifications. They may occur as such or they may not.
` You look for it because you -- your job is to
` interpret the claims in a meaningful way in the context
` of the specs. You know that. I know that.
` I don't understand what your question is.
` Q. Did you look at how sensing was used each time it
` appeared in the specification of the '037 patent?
`
`221
`
` A. That's the reason I came up with this report.
` Q. And in your report, the only thing that you cite
` to is the prosecution history of the '037 patent for
` your definition of sensing, correct?
` A. I -- if you truthfully represent that that is
` what I said, I will accept your -- I will conditionally
` accept your claim, but, otherwise, I have to read my
` patent carefully to see if that's the only thing I say
` about it.
` Q. All right. If you look at Paragraphs 52 through
` 54, which is where you interpreted the claim term
` involving "sensing," and you can tell me whether you
` find any citations to the specification.
` Other than the statement of the definition that
` you got from the prosecution yesterday?
` (Reading)
` A. I believe you have read my report, right? It
` doesn't say that that's the only basis of my opinion. I
` give a fairly sufficient eloquent description of why
` sensing means what it does in the context of the patent.
` As you know, the word does not have -- have to
` appear in the body of the patent. It has to be
` meaningfully construed from it. So I give you good
` arguments why in the context of the patent sensing must
` mean what it -- I said it means, and then I backed it up
`5 (Pages 218 to 221)
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`222
`
`224
`
`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
`
`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
`
` by more specific documentation of the prosecution
` history.
` It would be a misrepresentation to pose the
` question the way you did. It's not just from the
` prosecution history. That's wrong.
` Q. So you believe that the term "sensing" has the --
` the definition that you provided in the '037 patent?
` A. That's not what I said.
` Q. So the word "sensing" has other meanings in the
` '037 patent other than the definition that you provided?
` A. Again, you're putting words in my mouth and
` misrepresenting what I said.
` Q. Well, is the only meaning of sensing in the '037
` patent the definition that you've provided for the term
` "sensing" in your Declaration?
` A. And that's not what I said in my report either.
` I said what I said, and I said it deliberately the way I
` said it.
` Sensing means the left side of the inequality.
` That's all I wanted to say. I'm not here to say any
` more. I'm not here to change it. I'm not here to say
` any less. That's it.
` Q. Do you -- do you have an opinion one way or
` another whether the '037 patent uses the word "sensing"
` to have a different meaning than that definition that
`
`223
`
` you just described?
` A. Are we talking about Claim 13, or are we again
` slipping into some generalities here?
` Q. I am talking about the '037 patent that you said
` you reviewed coming up with your definition.
` A. Correct.
` Q. My question is: Do you have an opinion one way
` or another of whether the '037 patent uses the term
` "sensing" to have a meaning other than the definition
` that you've set forth in Paragraph 54 of your
` Declaration?
` A. We have to review the other independent claims
` to -- to see what -- what else I might have said about
` it. Right now, I'm focusing my attention on Claim 13,
` and I have described it to you this way.
` Q. Okay. So --
` A. Now, you can ask me specific questions. Again,
` jumping around on defocusing my question --
` Q. Sir, I'm not --
` A. I'm generalizing it. Please, sir, one at a time.
` Q. Yes. And you finished your answer.
` A. I did not.
` Q. And now you interrupted my question, sir?
` A. You interrupted it, sir. I am --
` Q. Excuse me.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` A. I am answering your questions.
` Q. Excuse me.
` A. If you interrupt me, I will simply not give
` answers.
` Q. Excuse me, sir. This is my deposition. I will
` ask you questions, and you need to focus on listening
` carefully and answering them.
` If you have speeches you want to give and
` characterizations of my questions, you can take that up
` with your counsel, but that's not what I need today?
` A. I will answer your questions the way I choose to
` answer them.
` I answer them for the length of time I think is
` sufficient for the answer, and you will be quiet until I
` finish my answer, or you interrupt, in which case I will
` withdraw the answer in its totality.
` Q. Well, so far you've proven incapable of answering
` my question. So I'll give you one more chance, and then
` we can simply mark the transcript and move on. I'll be
` very clear.
` Do you have an opinion one way or another whether
` the '037 patent uses the term "sensing" in a way that is
` different from the definition that you've provided in
` Paragraph 54 of your Declaration?
` A. I cannot answer that without reviewing the entire
`
`225
`
` patent. I've answered you a specific answer for the
` original question which was in the context of Claim 13.
` Q. Do you have an opinion one way or another whether
` the term "sensing" has the same meaning in all the
` claims of the '037 patent?
` A. I have to review my -- my report carefully to see
` if I have implied any other meaning. Again, I don't
` work from memory. I work from my report. I don't have
` believe system. I have a report.
` Q. Did you write your report, Dr. Ehsani?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Do you know where to find the testimony that you
` have provided in your Declaration about the sensing
` term?
` A. Every claim is explained in my report, and we
` have to look at it to see what I said about sensing.
` I'm not here to answer a memory question. I'm here to
` answer a report question, as well as any other
` curiosities you might have.
` But -- but if you ask me about sensing any
` particular place in my patent, I will answer it. To
` just look at the sky and say, sensing anywhere else in
` the report or in the -- no, I can't answer questions
` like that. You have to ask specific questions.
` Q. You have your report in front of you, Dr. Ehsani.
`6 (Pages 222 to 225)
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`226
` My question is: Do you have an opinion one way or
` another whether the term "sensing" is used to have the
` same meaning in all the claims of the '037 patent?
` A. We have to look at them one at a time.
` Independent claims are not related to each other. They
` don't necessarily have to have the same meaning.
` Q. Dr. Ehsani, you have your report in front of you,
` you can do what study you need to answer my question.
` My question one is more time: Do you have an
` opinion one way or another whether the term "sensing"
` has the same meaning in all the claims of the '037
` patent?
` A. We have to look at them one at a time. If you
` give me the time, I will do that.
` MR. SANDERS: You have your report. Let's
` see what it takes.
` Let's just note for the record that
` Dr. Ehsani is now reviewing the '037 patent itself.
` THE WITNESS: That is incorrect, sir. I'm
` looking at your instruction at the claims that you
` directed me to.
` Q. (BY MR. SANDERS) You're not holding the '037
` patent, Dr. Ehsani?
` A. It wasn't about holding. It's about referring
` to the -- to the claims that you instructed me to look
`
`227
`
` at.
` If you wish me not to look at the -- at the
` claims, I would be happy not.
` Q. You, Dr. Eshani, can look at anything you want
` that's in front of you. You asked for time to review
` your Declaration, and then you went to review the
` patent.
` So if you need to review any of the other
` materials, please feel free.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I would just like an answer to my question.
` A. Again, your question became slippery. Here's
` what I understand your question to be --
` Q. No. I will state my question again. I don't
` need your interpretation of it.
` A. No. I have to tell you my understanding of your
` question, sir.
` Q. No. If you don't understand my question and you
` can't answer it, then say so, but I don't need a
` reinterpretation of it. I need an answer to my
` question.
` My question is: Do you have an opinion one way
` or another whether the term "sensing" has the same
` meaning in all the claims of the '037 patent?
` A. Exactly. And you do not allow me to read the
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`228
`
` claims to tell you. That is not correct.
` Q. Dr. Ehsani, I specifically instructed you that
` you can review whatever you wish. Review whatever you
` wish and answer my question.
` A. Then why did you interrupt me, sir, when I picked
` up the patent to read the claims to which your question
` is addressed?
` You said, you're looking at the patent.
` Yes, I am looking at the patent. The claim's are
` in in the patent. I have to read the claims in the
` patent. Is that okay with you? Or would you like for
` me to do it without reference to the patent?
` Q. Dr. Ehsani, I've told many times now you can
` review whatever is in front of you here. So stop
` fencing with me, and I want an answer to my question. I
` will ask it one more time.
` You can review anything you want. If there's
` something that you don't have that you need to answer my
` question, you let me know, but I need an answer to my
` question.
` And my question is: Do you have an opinion one
` way or the other whether the term "sensing" is used to
` have same meaning in all the claims of the '037 patent?
` (Reading)
` A. Sir, where is Claim 13 in my report?
`
`229
` Q. Claim 13 in your report is at Page 28, Paragraphs
` 52 through 54, which were the paragraphs that we were
` discussing previously before I asked my question.
` A. You're right.
` I believe they could have different meanings in
` different parts of the patent.
` Q. Sitting here today, do you have an opinion one
` way or the other as to whether the term "sensing" has
` the same meaning in all the claims of the '037 patent?
` A. Sitting here today, I believe that sensing can
` have different meanings in different references in
` patent '037.
` Q. Does the term "sensing," in your view, actually
` have different meanings in different claims of the '037
` patent?
` A. When you say "actually," meaning, as opposed to
` what? It can have different meanings.
` Q. Is the meaning of the term "sensing" in Claim 1
` of the '037 patent, the same as the meaning you've
` provided for the term "sensing" in Claim 13 of the '037
` patent?
` A. Not necessarily. They could be different.
` Q. Do you believe that it is different or not?
` A. It can be interpreted to be different
` meaningfully, yes, I haven't addressed it.
`7 (Pages 226 to 229)
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`230
` Q. So sitting here today, you don't have an opinion
` one the other as to whether the meaning of the term
` "sensing" in Claim 1 is the same as the meaning of the
` term "sensing" in Claim 13?
` A. That's not what I said.
` Q. Is the meaning of the term "sensing" in Claim 1
` of the '037 patent the same as the meaning of the term
` "sensing" in Claim 13 of the '037 patent?
` A. Not necessarily.
` Q. For purposes of your analysis -- you -- you
` analyzed Claim 1, correct?
` A. I've reported it.
` Q. And in analyzing whether the prior art met the
` requirements of Claim 1, you considered the language of
` Claim 1, correct?
` A. Repeat the question again.
` Q. In analyzing whether the prior art met the
` requirements of Claim 1 of the '037 patent, you analyzed
` the language of Claim 1 of the '037 patent, right?
` A. I did.
` Q. During the course of your analysis for the
` purpose of these proceedings, did you interpret the term
` "sensing" in Claim 1 of the '037 patent in the same way
` that you interpreted the term "sensing" in Claim 13 of
` the '037 patent?
`
`231
`
` A. I don't believe I have reported in my claim the
` analysis of the word "sensing" in Claim 1.
` Q. Right. It's not in your Declaration?
` A. What -- what -- the concept is in other related
` patents.
` Q. I'm not asking about other related patents.
` A. As I mentioned to you -- as I mentioned to you, I
` stand by what I reported.
` I believe the meaning of the sensing can be
` different in the -- in two independent claims because
` they're addressing different things, but I did not -- I
` don't see having analyzed the word "sensing" in Claim 1
` in my report.
` Q. I agree. It's not in your report, Dr. Ehsani,
` and I'm entitled to ask questions beyond what's in your
` report to find out if you applied some opinion that you
` had that wasn't expressed there, or if you simply had
` not reached an opinion, and that's the -- the background
` of my question. So I will ask one more time, and then
` we can just mark the transcript and move on.
` For purposes of your analysis in this proceeding,
` did you interpret the term "sensing" in Claim 1 of the
` '037 patent in the same way that you interpreted the
` term "sensing" in Claim 13 of the '037 patent?
` A. Not necessarily.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`232
` Q. Did you apply a different meaning for sensing in
` Claim 1 of the '037 patent than the meaning you provided
` for the term "sensing" in Claim 13 of the '037 patent
` for purposes of reaching your opinions in this matter?
` A. Only to the extent that I have reported.
` Q. So if it's not in your report, you haven't
` considered it?
` A. That's not what I said.
` MR. SANDERS: Let's just mark