William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 2015
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IPR No. 2014-00717
`
` IPR No. 2015-00335
`
` Patent No. 6,108,686
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
` and
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A. INC.,
`
`and LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
` DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM O. PUTNAM
`
` April 28, 2015
`
` 8:59 a.m.
`
` Atlanta Airport Marriott
`
` 4711 Best Road
`
` Atlanta, Georgia
`
`Reported by:
`
`F. Renee Finkley, RPR, RMR, CRR, CLR, CCR-B-2289
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`1/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 2015
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IPR No. 2014-00717
`
` IPR No. 2015-00335
`
` Patent No. 6,108,686
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
` and
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A. INC.,
`
`and LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
` DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM O. PUTNAM
`
` April 28, 2015
`
` 8:59 a.m.
`
` Atlanta Airport Marriott
`
` 4711 Best Road
`
` Atlanta, Georgia
`
`Reported by:
`
`F. Renee Finkley, RPR, RMR, CRR, CLR, CCR-B-2289
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`1/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 2015
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`On behalf of the Petitioners:
`
` GREGORY S. DISCHER, Esq.
`
` MICHAEL S. SAWYER, Esq.
`
` Covington & Burling LLP
`
` One City Center
`
` 850 Tenth Street, N.W.
`
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
`
` (202) 662-5485
`
` gdischer@cov.com
`
` msawyer@covc.com
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` GEORGE S. HAIGHT, IV, Esq.
`
` Pepper Hamilton, LLP
`
` 19th Floor, High Street Tower
`
` 125 High Street
`
` Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2736
`
` (617) 204-5165
`
` haightg@pepperlaw.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
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`2/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 2015
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS: WILLIAM O. PUTNAM PAGE
`
` Examination By Mr. Discher 4
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`No. 1 Notice of deposition 5
`
`No. 2 Expert report of Putnam 6
`
`No. 3 Exhibit E of Putnam's declaration 24
`
`No. 4 U.S. patent number 6,108,686 38
`
`No. 5 U.S. patent number 5,740,549 175
`
` (Exhibits retained by counsel for Petitioners.)
`
`
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`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
`
`
`
`3/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` WILLIAM O. PUTNAM,
`
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. DISCHER:
`
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Putnam. Please state
`
`your name and address for the record?
`
` A. My name is William Putnam. My address is
`
`2530 Burnt Hickory Road, Marietta, Georgia.
`
` Q. Have you been deposed in an inter partes
`
`review proceeding before?
`
` A. Yes, I have.
`
` Q. And so you generally understand the
`
`procedures, and that you're under oath now?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. If you don't understand a question
`
`that I ask, or hear it, please feel free to ask me to
`
`rephrase the question or repeat it, so that you can
`
`hear it. If you don't do that, I will assume that
`
`you've understood and heard the question. Your
`
`answers are being recorded by a court reporter, so
`
`please give an audible response as opposed to nodding
`
`or hand gestures, so the record is clear. Are there
`
`any reasons you feel that you cannot testify fully
`
`and accurately today?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`4/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` A. No, not that I'm aware of.
`
` Q. Do you have any medical conditions that
`
`would inhibit your ability to testify fully and
`
`accurately today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Are you taking any medications or drugs
`
`that would inhibit your ability to testify fully or
`
`accurately today?
`
` A. No, I'm not.
`
` Q. Your counsel needs time to make any
`
`objections before you answer.
`
` MR. DISCHER: Counsel, in order to
`
` accomplish all the deposition today, I would
`
` seek your cooperation in adhering to the trial
`
` guideline requirements at pages 48772 of the
`
` Federal Rules of single word, non-speaking
`
` objections, such as objection, form, objection
`
` scope. I assume you're familiar with those
`
` rules. This will expedite the deposition and
`
` provide minimal disruption to our questioning.
`
` Are we agreed on that?
`
` MR. HAIGHT: Yes.
`
` MR. DISCHER: Thank you.
`
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`5/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. (By Mr. Discher) Mr. Putnam, have you
`
`seen this document before?
`
` A. I believe I have seen an electronic copy.
`
` Q. Okay. As you can see on the face page of
`
`this Exhibit 1, this is your notice of deposition
`
`that we have filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board?
`
` (Exhibit 2 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` Q. (By Mr. Discher) Counsel, have you seen
`
`Exhibit 2 before -- excuse me, witness, have you seen
`
`Exhibit 2 before?
`
` A. Based on the title, it appears to be a
`
`copy of my expert report in this matter.
`
` Q. Okay. And can you please turn to page 42
`
`of this paper, Exhibit 2?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Does that appear to be your signature at
`
`the bottom of the page?
`
` A. Yes, I believe that is an electronic
`
`facsimile of my signature.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you write this declaration?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. And can you tell me approximately when you
`
`started actually writing words down in preparation of
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`6/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`the first draft?
`
` A. I don't know how close you mean by
`
`approximately, but --
`
` Q. Your best estimate?
`
` A. As I recall, and I'm not certain of this,
`
`approximately two weeks before the date of
`
`submission, give or take some days, I'm not sure.
`
` Q. Okay. So it's dated February 25th, so
`
`perhaps sometime in the earlier part of February,
`
`then?
`
` A. I think that's -- I think that's
`
`approximately correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you actually prepare the
`
`first draft yourself?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. And was that in conjunction with
`
`counsel's input, did you talk to counsel before
`
`preparing the draft, or is this completely on your
`
`own after just reviewing any other papers that you've
`
`cited in your declaration that you have reviewed?
`
` A. Well, of course, I had some interaction
`
`with counsel when I was retained in the matter. And
`
`then I also had some previous interaction with
`
`counsel representing Black Hills Media prior to
`
`Pepper Hamilton taking responsibility for this
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`7/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`particular patent. So it's hard to answer without
`
`more specificity.
`
` Q. So when you prepared this first draft, I
`
`generally understood your answer to indicate there
`
`were some consultations with counsel before you
`
`actually started preparing the draft sometime earlier
`
`in February?
`
` A. That's correct, but I don't recall to what
`
`extent they were related to writing this declaration,
`
`and to what extent they constituted just discussion
`
`of the patent itself.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you write every word of
`
`this declaration?
`
` A. I did. Well, let me qualify that. There
`
`are some elements -- it doesn't have a case caption
`
`on the front, and there are quotations from other
`
`sources. So I typed it, if that's what you mean.
`
`And the original content, that is content that is not
`
`taken from another source and attributed, is mine.
`
` Q. Can you give me an example somewhere in
`
`the declaration what you mean content taken from
`
`another source?
`
` A. The paragraphs that are numbered on pages
`
`1 through 42 would be primarily original content.
`
`And then if you look at, for example, some of the
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`8/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`footnotes contain quotations from dictionaries or
`
`references that I've listed. For example, footnote
`
`15 quotes an encyclopedia entry. I believe there may
`
`be some quotations in the text of the document itself
`
`as well.
`
` Q. And did you exchange any drafts of this
`
`declaration with counsel?
`
` A. Exchange?
`
` Q. Submit for them to look at and review
`
`before you signed it on February 26?
`
` A. Yes. Yes, I did give them a copy to
`
`review before I signed it.
`
` Q. Just one copy?
`
` A. I gave them a copy of my working document,
`
`which I don't consider a draft, because I don't keep
`
`drafts or operate in terms of drafts, but I gave them
`
`a copy of the working document about a week or so
`
`before submission.
`
` Q. And were there any changes subsequent to
`
`that?
`
` A. I made some additions to it, additional
`
`citations, it wasn't finished at that point.
`
` Q. Is everything included in this declaration
`
`that you want to be included?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`9/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. There's nothing that you wanted to include
`
`that was left out?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And there's nothing in your declaration
`
`that you wanted to omit that is present?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. I'd like to turn to paragraphs 8 and 9 of
`
`your declaration. This is under the heading Roman
`
`Numeral III, materials reviewed and considered. And
`
`it looks like you have ten bullet points there of
`
`materials that you reviewed and considered. Do you
`
`see that?
`
` A. I see it.
`
` Q. Did you review any other material in
`
`connection with the preparation of this declaration?
`
` A. I would say in connection with the
`
`preparation of the deposition -- or the declaration,
`
`no.
`
` Q. Okay. Were you instructed to not review
`
`any other material?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you review the prosecution history of
`
`the '686 patent at issue here?
`
` A. I did look at the file history at some
`
`point, but I'm not sure that that was in -- I think
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`10/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`that was when I first reviewed the patent prior to
`
`starting the declaration.
`
` Q. Okay. So did you consider the prosecution
`
`history or anything contained in the prosecution
`
`history for purposes of preparation of this
`
`declaration?
`
` A. I did look through it to see if there was
`
`anything relevant to the questions I was asked to
`
`consider. I don't recall there being anything that I
`
`considered relevant.
`
` Q. Okay. So I understand your testimony to
`
`be that you did review the prosecution history, but
`
`you didn't find anything relevant in the prosecution
`
`history for purposes of your declaration, is that an
`
`accurate statement?
`
` A. I don't know if I would put it exactly
`
`that way. What I'm saying here in paragraph 8 that,
`
`in forming my opinions, I've reviewed and relied upon
`
`these materials. So my recollection is that I did
`
`review the file history for the '686 patent. I don't
`
`recall there being anything that would materially
`
`affect my opinions with regard to the questions I was
`
`asked to consider. So I don't know that I have
`
`referenced it here, but in looking at the patent,
`
`yes, I did read the file history.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`11/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. Okay. And I see on page 5 of your
`
`declaration, I believe it's the sixth bullet that
`
`refers to the patent owner's preliminary response
`
`dated August 7th, 2014. Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you recall if you had any involvement
`
`in the preparation of that patent owner's preliminary
`
`response dated August 7, 2014?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. So you had no involvement with the
`
`preparation of that document prior to when it was
`
`filed?
`
` A. Not that I recall.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you aware of the fact that the
`
`patent owner also submitted a subsequent patent
`
`owner's response also on February 25th in conjunction
`
`with your declaration -- or filed on the same day as
`
`your declaration?
`
` A. You're talking about a response filed
`
`through Pepper Hamilton.
`
` Q. By Pepper Hamilton's counsel in this case?
`
` A. It is my understanding that such a
`
`response or some sort of brief was filed.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you have any involvement
`
`with the review or preparation of that document?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`12/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` A. No, not that I recall.
`
` Q. So you did not see that document prior to
`
`when the patent owner response was filed on February
`
`25th?
`
` A. I don't think so.
`
` Q. Have you seen it since then?
`
` A. I don't think so.
`
` Q. So you've not seen the patent owner
`
`response filed on February 25th in conjunction with
`
`this inter partes review trial?
`
` A. I don't believe so. I have not, to my
`
`recollection, received a copy.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to turn to paragraphs 11
`
`to 13. In paragraph 13, you refer to how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to combine and/or modify the prior art to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention. Do you see that beginning at
`
`approximately I guess the second -- the third line of
`
`paragraph 13, bottom of the page.
`
` A. Are you referring to the last line there
`
`in paragraph 13, last line on page 7.
`
` Q. Just read paragraph 13 starting at the
`
`beginning and perhaps go to the bottom of the page,
`
`just take your time.
`
` A. Yes, I see paragraph 13.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`13/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. Okay. And do you see the part about a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine and/or modify, approximately the
`
`last two lines?
`
` A. I see some language to that effect.
`
` Q. And did you write that?
`
` A. I believe so, yes.
`
` Q. And where did you obtain that analytical
`
`framework from?
`
` A. From counsel.
`
` Q. Okay. So they informed you of that
`
`language?
`
` A. Well, they informed me of the legal
`
`standard, and I also have some previous experience,
`
`as I said earlier, in similar matters. So we
`
`discussed my understanding of it, and they reviewed
`
`my understanding of it, and expression of it here.
`
`And as I recall, that was the extent of it. But
`
`they -- the basis for this is their explanation to me
`
`of the legal standard.
`
` Q. Okay. And so it's your understanding that
`
`there needs to be a motivation to combine and/or
`
`modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention?
`
` A. It's my understanding that that's an
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`14/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`element of the analysis for determination of
`
`obviousness.
`
` Q. An element?
`
` A. Well, it is one element in the analysis.
`
` Q. Are there other elements that you're aware
`
`of?
`
` A. As listed in the paragraph, yes.
`
` Q. And what elements are those? What other
`
`elements besides this -- focusing on the motivation
`
`to combine here, what other elements are there
`
`besides motivated to combine or motivation to
`
`combine?
`
` A. You understand I'm not a lawyer, so this
`
`is a statement of my understanding in my own words of
`
`what is a legal standard, which I'm sure you're
`
`probably more familiar with than I. But as I've said
`
`here, it's my understanding that there are a number
`
`of what I would regard as elements, the first of
`
`which is whether or not each element of a claim is
`
`present in a reference or a combination of
`
`references.
`
` Another element would be whether or not
`
`the person of skill in the art would have a
`
`motivation to combine those elements, and that's what
`
`I've tried to state here.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`15/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. And is your understanding that there can
`
`be other things outside of a motivation to combine
`
`that might lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine elements from references?
`
` A. Not sure I understand the question.
`
` Q. Okay. Does there have to be an express
`
`motivation to combine references?
`
` A. I'm not sure what you mean by an express
`
`motivation.
`
` Q. If I reference A, and I have reference B.
`
`And reference A pertains to ramafrats, and reference
`
`B does that have an express indication of
`
`applicability to ramafrats in order to have a
`
`motivation to combine?
`
` A. Well, I don't know what a ramafrat could
`
`be.
`
` Q. It's a hypothetical term. You can pick
`
`any term you want. It could be a networking card,
`
`that is design of a networking card for a local area
`
`network, let's say.
`
` A. Are you asking me whether -- you're asking
`
`me a hypothetical question that if a first reference
`
`described a networking card, and there were a second
`
`reference that also described a networking card, that
`
`in order to combine those, whether or not there would
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`16/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`be -- again, you used the term express, I think you
`
`said indication. And I'm not clear on what you mean
`
`by that.
`
` But if there were, in my mind, an explicit
`
`statement that you should take this card and combine
`
`it with that card or something like that, is that
`
`what you're asking?
`
` Q. Well, I don't understand your statement,
`
`and I'm trying to find out what it means. That's
`
`really what I'm trying to do. And I'm trying to give
`
`some examples, but I understand they're not clear to
`
`you. So I'm just going to leave it as an open-ended
`
`question, and let you ask questions about -- the
`
`question is, you make a statement about, quote, would
`
`have modified to combine and/or modify the prior art.
`
`Do you see that?
`
` A. No, that's not what it says.
`
` Q. Okay. Can you tell me what you mean by
`
`this paragraph?
`
` A. I mean exactly what it says. I'm not
`
`clear on what you don't understand about the
`
`statement.
`
` Q. Okay. So when taken as a whole, can you
`
`read with me starting on the third line of paragraph
`
`13? I'm going to start after the comma -- prior art,
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`17/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`comma, when taken as a whole and viewed by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to combine and/or modify the prior art to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention?
`
` A. Okay. I see the section that you read.
`
` Q. Okay. And so in your analysis, what are
`
`the criteria or factors that you considered that
`
`might have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to combine or modify the prior art to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention?
`
` A. Are you asking whether I did an analysis
`
`to determine elements of motivation to combine, is
`
`that what you're asking?
`
` Q. Well, you're making a general statement
`
`here, and I'm not asking for your analysis as such.
`
`I'm just asking for general principles that led you
`
`to make this statement.
`
` A. Well, what led me to make this statement
`
`is my understanding of the standard for obviousness,
`
`and this is a layman's paraphrase of a discussion
`
`with counsel regarding a legal standard. I'm not a
`
`lawyer, and I'm not qualified to give you a legal
`
`discussion on determination of obviousness. That's a
`
`legal question, and I'm a computer expert.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`18/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. Okay. So did you, in this motivation to
`
`combine statement in paragraph 13, did you factor
`
`predictability of results in your analysis?
`
` A. It's my understanding that predictability
`
`of results could be one element in such an analysis,
`
`but again, you're getting into the legal standards
`
`for that sort of determination. And my task and the
`
`scope of my task was not to do a legal analysis under
`
`the law and render a definitive statement on whether
`
`or not a claim is obvious. It's my understanding
`
`that that's the purview of the board. That's for
`
`them to determine, not me as a technology expert.
`
` Q. Did you consider whether the invention is
`
`a substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results?
`
` A. I don't know whether and to what extent I
`
`would have considered that. I recall hearing that in
`
`a discussion of determination of obviousness, but
`
`again, that's part of the legal standard or case law.
`
`And again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a technology expert.
`
` Q. So my question was, did you consider that?
`
` A. I don't know that I could answer that, I
`
`mean, there are a lot of things that go through my
`
`mind as a subject matter expert in technology when I
`
`read a patent or when I read a reference. The things
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`19/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`that you've asked about, statements regarding
`
`combinations or statements regarding substitutions or
`
`things like that, those are all present in my mind at
`
`some point, because I have some awareness of these as
`
`I said from previous work and from discussion of
`
`counsel.
`
` So to the extent that that constitutes
`
`consideration, then perhaps so, but I don't know if
`
`that's what you would consider to be the kind of
`
`consideration that you're inquiring about. So to
`
`that extent, you know, I don't know any other way to
`
`answer the question than to say that in this
`
`paragraph, I've given you my layman's understanding
`
`as given to me by counsel and colored by my
`
`experience to some extent as to what this term
`
`obviousness means.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you consider whether the
`
`invention is achieved from choosing from among a
`
`finite number of identifiable predictable solutions
`
`that have a reasonable expectation of success?
`
` A. Again, I would give you the same answer.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to talk about push versus
`
`pull technology, and perhaps we can use, as a
`
`starting point, you could turn to paragraph 22 of
`
`your declaration?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`20/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` A. I'm sorry, what -- did you say 22?
`
` Q. Yes. Paragraph 22, page 12.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Can you tell me what the difference is
`
`between push and pull technology?
`
` A. That's what the paragraph does.
`
` Q. Okay. So is that -- this paragraph is an
`
`exhaust of your complete understanding of the
`
`differences between push and pull technology?
`
` A. I would say it's the best statement that I
`
`could formulate that would convey that understanding.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you familiar with short
`
`messaging system technology?
`
` A. To some extent.
`
` Q. And you're generally familiar how that
`
`works? I mean, get a text message, so forth, you're
`
`familiar with that?
`
` A. I have some familiarity with -- if you're
`
`referring to the SMS standard or SMS technology, I do
`
`have some familiarity with that.
`
` Q. Okay. And do you have an understanding or
`
`opinion as to whether SMS technology would be push
`
`technology?
`
` A. No, I don't have any opinion on that.
`
` Q. Okay. And with regard to e-mail
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`21/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`technology, do you have an understanding if that
`
`would be push or pull technology?
`
` A. It would depend.
`
` Q. And what would it depend on?
`
` A. Well, e-mail is not a protocol in itself,
`
`and it's a very broad technology area. There are a
`
`wide variety of e-mail systems and have been since
`
`the early days of electronic mail. So absent some
`
`more specificity, I can't really answer the question.
`
` Q. Are you familiar with any e-mail
`
`protocols?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Which ones are you familiar with?
`
` A. I'm familiar with several, the POP
`
`protocol suite, POP, all capitals.
`
` Q. Sure, POP 3?
`
` A. POP 3, for example. There were earlier
`
`versions. Also SMTP, that's all capitals.
`
` Q. So let's take POP 3, do you have an
`
`understanding or opinion of whether POP 3 would fall
`
`under push or pull technology?
`
` A. I haven't done that analysis, so I can't
`
`give you a definitive opinion on that.
`
` Q. Okay. And I think you also mentioned
`
`SMTP?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`22/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you have an understanding or opinion of
`
`whether SMTP would fall under push or pull
`
`technology?
`
` A. Again, I haven't done a specific analysis
`
`of that protocol.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. In general, based on my knowledge of them,
`
`I'm not sure that either of those protocol examples
`
`would be exercised push or pull. Again, it would
`
`depend, and I would need more information.
`
` Q. Okay. How do you define push technology?
`
` A. I don't.
`
` Q. So when you use that term in your
`
`declaration, you don't have a definition of that
`
`term?
`
` A. That's not what I said.
`
` Q. Okay. So my question was, how do you
`
`define push technology?
`
` A. And my answer was, I don't.
`
` Q. Do you have -- is that because you didn't
`
`put it in your declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So sitting here right now today, you don't
`
`have a definition of push technology?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`23/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` A. I didn't say that. That's not correct.
`
` Q. Okay. What definition of push technology
`
`are you applying?
`
` A. There are several definitions available
`
`depending on your source. I've provided reference to
`
`at least two in the declaration.
`
` Q. Okay. And are you adopting both of those,
`
`then?
`
` A. I'm not adopting any of them. It's not up
`
`to me to adopt one.
`
` Q. But you accept both definitions since
`
`you've cited them?
`
` A. Well, I don't know what you mean by
`
`accept. I've certainly referenced them, they're
`
`included in the footnotes and the exhibits for
`
`purposes of information and elimination, but that's
`
`up to the board to decide what they accept.
`
` (Exhibit 3 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` Q. (By Mr. Discher) Mr. Putnam, are you
`
`familiar with this document?
`
` A. I'll need a few moments to look at it. It
`
`appears to be a copy of Exhibit E that was submitted
`
`with my declaration, but without comparing it more
`
`closely, I can't be sure that it's a true copy, but
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`24/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
`it appears to be that document.
`
` Q. Okay. I believe it is a true copy, but we
`
`can certainly look at exhibit -- you have your
`
`declaration, can we do that?
`
` A. Well, again, I have a copy of my
`
`declaration, not my actual declaration, so that
`
`document appears to be a copy, but I don't know that
`
`it's a true copy.
`
` Q. Yes. I understand. So can you turn to
`
`Exhibit E of the copy of the declaration that you
`
`have before you?
`
` A. I have that.
`
` Q. Okay. And on page -- there's a page with
`
`a definition of push technology. Do you see that?
`
` A. I see a page, but I note that it's labeled
`
`at the bottom 1 of 4. I don't see a Bates number or
`
`anything to reference, so I'm not sure we're looking
`
`at the same page or not.
`
` Q. Sure. So I have, in your declaration,
`
`there's a -- in the lower right-hand corner, there's
`
`a page 1/4?
`
` A. Yes, that's what I referred to.
`
` Q. Okay. And do you see the definition of
`
`push technology on that page?
`
` A. I do. Well, I see a definition.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`25/217
`
`Samsung v. BHM
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016
`
`
`
`William O. Putnam
`
`Atlanta, GA
`
`April 28, 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
`
`25
`
` Q. A definition. And this is exhibit -- this
`
`is Exhibit E in your declaration, correct?
`
` A. As I said, I believe that -- assuming that
`
`this is a true copy of my declaration, then that's
`
`probably correct. I did submit this document or one
`
`that should be the original of this document with my
`
`declaration.
`
` Q. And if you look at the definition of push
`
`technology there?
`
` A. Yes, I have.
`
` Q. Is there anything that you disagree with
`
`in that definition?
`
` A. I'd have to read the whole thing again
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
