·1· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · · · · ________________________________________
`·2
`
`·3· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4
`
`·5 ___________________________________
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·6 HTC CORPORATION; HTC AMERICA, INC.;)
`· ·SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; and )
`·7 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) Case Nos.
`·8· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,· · ·) IPR2015-00987,
`· · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·) Patent 7,365.871
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) and
`· ·E-WATCH, INC. and E-WATCH· · · · · ) IPR2015-00989
`10 CORPORATION,· · · · · · · · · · · ·) Patent 7,643,168
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`11· · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.· ·)
`· ·___________________________________)
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF KENNETH PARULSKI
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · · TAKEN ON
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24 REPORTED BY:· ARLEEN M. DUCKAT,
`
`25· · · · · · · ·CSR No. 4085
`
`E-Watch, Inc.
`Exh. 2019
`Petitioner - HTC Corporation, et al.
`Patent Owner - E-Watch, Inc.
`IPR2014-00987/IPR2015-00541 and
`IPR2014-00989/IPR2015-00543
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`·1· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · · · · ________________________________________
`·2
`·3· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4
`·5 ___________________________________
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·6 HTC CORPORATION; HTC AMERICA, INC.;)
`· ·SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; and )
`·7 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) Case Nos.
`·8· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,· · ·) IPR2015-00987,
`· · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·) Patent 7,365.871
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) and
`· ·E-WATCH, INC. and E-WATCH· · · · · ) IPR2015-00989
`10 CORPORATION,· · · · · · · · · · · ·) Patent 7,643,168
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`11· · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.· ·)
`· ·___________________________________)
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16· · · ·DEPOSITION OF KENNETH PARULSKI, taken on
`17· · · ·behalf of the Patent Owner, at 11988 El Camino
`18· · · ·Real, Suite 350, San Diego, California,
`19· · · ·commencing at 9:10 a.m. and ending at 2:00 p.m,
`20· · · ·on Thursday, May 21, 2015, before
`21· · · ·Arleen M. Duckat. C.S.R. No. 4085.
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S
`·2
`·3· ·FOR THE PETITIONER HTC:
`·4· · · ·PERKINS COIE
`· · · · ·BY:· JACK KO, J.D., PH.D.
`·5· · · ·2901 North Central avenue, Suite 2000
`· · · · ·Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
`·6· · · ·Telephone:· 602.351.8074
`· · · · ·E-mail:· · ·JKo@perkinscoie.com
`·7· · · ·and
`· · · · ·PERKINS COIE
`·8· · · ·BY:· BABAK TEHRANCHI, PH.D., ESQ.
`· · · · ·11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`·9· · · ·San Diego, California· 92130-2594
`· · · · ·Telephone:· 858.720.5734
`10· · · ·E-mail:· · ·BTehranchi@perkinscoie.com
`11· ·FOR THE PETITIONER SAMSUNG:
`12· · · ·PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
`· · · · ·BY:· PHILLIP W. CITROEN, ESQ.
`13· · · ·875 15th Street, N.W.
`· · · · ·Washington, DC· 20005
`14· · · ·Telephone:· 202.561.1991
`· · · · ·E-mail:· · ·phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`15
`16· ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER:· (VIA SPEAKERPHONE ONLY)
`17· · · ·DiNOVO, PRICE, ELLWANGER & HARDY, LLP
`· · · · ·BY:· GREGORY DONAHUE, ESQ.
`18· · · ·7000 North MoPac expressway, Suite 350
`· · · · ·Austin, Texas· 78731
`19· · · ·Telephone:· 512.539.2626
`· · · · ·E-mail:· · ·gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`·2
`·3 W I T N E S S:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page
`·4 KENNETH PARULSKI
`·5
`·6· · · · ·Examination by Mr. Donahue· · · · · · · · ·5
`·7
`·8 INFORMATION TO BE INSERTED:
`·9· · · · ·(None)
`10 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
`11· · · · ·(None)
`12 EXHIBITS:
`13 Deposition· · · · ·Description· · · · · · · · ·Marked
`14· ·Exhibit 1001(a)· ·Case No. IPR2015-00987,· · · · · · · 11
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 7,643,B2
`15
`16· ·Exhibit 1001(b)· ·Case No. IPR2015-00989· · · · · · · ·92
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 7,365,871 B2
`17
`· · ·Exhibit 1002· · · Case No. IPR2014-00987,· · · · · · · 69
`18· · · · · · · · · · ·UK Patent application
`19· ·Exhibit 1004· · · Longginou reference· · · · · · · · ·104
`20· ·Exhibit 1008· · · Reply Declaration of Kenneth· · · · · 9
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·Parulski, Case No. IPR2015-00541
`21
`· · ·Exhibit 1009· · · Reply Declaration of Kenneth· · · · ·90
`22· · · · · · · · · · ·Parulski, Case No. IPR2015-00543
`23· ·Exhibit 2009· · · Notice of Deposition of Kenneth· · · ·7
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·Parulski
`24
`· · ·Exhibit 2010· · · Notice of Deposition of Kenneth· · · ·7
`25· · · · · · · · · · ·Parulski
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`· · · · · · · · · · · · (Continued)
`·2
`·3 EXHIBITS: (Continued)
`·4 Deposition· · · · ·Description· · · · · · · · ·Marked
`·5· ·Exhibit 2011· · · Petitioner's Reply to patent· · · · ·20
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·owner's response for the '987
`·6
`· · ·Exhibit 2012· · · Definition from the Oxford· · · · · ·22
`·7· · · · · · · · · · ·Dictionary
`·8· ·Exhibit 2013· · · Fax from Wikipedia· · · · · · · · · ·62
`·9· ·Exhibit 2014· · · JPEG from Wikipedia· · · · · · · · · 63
`10· ·Exhibit 2015· · · Merriam Webster definition of· · · · 64
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·"JPEG"
`11
`· · ·Exhibit 2016· · · Some specifications of an HTC One· · 75
`12
`· · ·Exhibit 2017· · · Merriam Webster definition of· · · · 91
`13· · · · · · · · · · ·"buffer"
`14· ·Exhibit 2018· · · Institution decision of· · · · · · ·103
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2014-00985
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Page 6
`·1· · · ·SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · 9:10 A.M
`·3
`·4
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·KENNETH PARULSKI,
`·6· · · · · · · having duly been sworn, was
`·7· · · · · · · examined and testified as follows:
`·8
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`10
`11 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`12· · · Q.· Good morning, Mr. Parulski.· My name is Greg
`13 Donahue.· I'm working with DiNovo, Price, Ellwanger &
`14 Hardy, and I represent E-Watch, Inc., and
`15 E-Watch Corporation in a patent litigation matter
`16 against, among others, HTC and Samsung.· And I also
`17 represent E-Watch and E-Watch Corporation in these
`18 IPR proceedings, which are numbered IPR2014-00987 and
`19 IPR2014-000989.
`20· · · · · Do you understand that?
`21· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`22· · · Q.· Have you ever been deposed before?
`23· · · A.· Yes, I have.
`24· · · Q.· Okay.· In what type of cases have you been
`25 deposed before?
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · · A.· Yeah.
`·2· · · Q.· Have you seen these documents before?
`·3· · · A.· Yes, I have.
`·4· · · Q.· Okay.· Do you understand that you're here
`·5 today to testify regarding your reply declarations
`·6 that you submitted on April 20, 2015, in conjunction
`·7 with IPR2014-00987 and -2014-00989?
`·8· · · A.· Yes, I understand that.
`·9· · · Q.· Let me just take a few minutes.· It sounds
`10 like you've been deposed; so I won't take too long
`11 going over some basics about depositions.
`12· · · · · But if at any time you need or want to take
`13 a break, if you would just let me know, I will
`14 attempt to accommodate you, and, hopefully, you'll be
`15 able to complete any pending answer, but then we can
`16 take a break as needed.
`17· · · · · Please feel free to speak up if you need to
`18 use the bathroom or want to get a drink of water or
`19 anything.
`20· · · · · In order to ensure that we maintain a clear
`21 and accurate record, I'll also ask that you give
`22 verbal answers to my questions rather than, you know,
`23 shaking your head or making some sort of a hand
`24 gesture, which would be difficult for the court
`25 reporter to record and in this instance impossible
`
`Page 7
`·1· · · A.· I've been deposed as an inventor during my
`·2 years at Eastman Kodak Company.· I've also been
`·3 deposed as a corporate witness for
`·4 Eastman Kodak Company.· And I was deposed as an
`·5 expert witness one time.
`·6· · · Q.· So you've been deposed in patent cases
`·7 before; is that correct?
`·8· · · A.· Yes, that's correct.
`·9· · · Q.· Have you ever been deposed before in
`10 conjunction with an IPR proceeding?
`11· · · A.· No, I have not.
`12· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Okay.· Let me introduce the
`13 relevant deposition notices, which are marked as
`14 Exhibits 2009 and 2010.
`15· · · · · · (Exhibits 2009 and 2010 marked.)
`16· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· If someone on that end could
`17 dig into the stack and maybe -- but it may make sense
`18 to pull off that cover page that says "2009" and the
`19 cover page that says "2010" so it's just purely the
`20 actual deposition notice.
`21· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I have the papers now.
`22 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`23· · · Q.· Okay, great.
`24· · · · · So you have both exhibits, 2009 and 2010, in
`25 front of you, which are the two deposition notices?
`
`Page 9
`·1 for me to see since I'm appearing telephonically.
`·2· · · · · So, then, and I also ask that you allow me
`·3 to finish my question before you begin answering, and
`·4 I will, of course, extend you the same courtesy, to
`·5 allow you to finish your answer before I begin with
`·6 another question.
`·7· · · · · Does that seem fair?
`·8· · · A.· Yes, it does.
`·9· · · Q.· Okay.· Are you on any medications today that
`10 would prevent you from being able to testify
`11 truthfully and accurately?
`12· · · A.· No.
`13· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· So I would like to introduce
`14 Exhibit 1008 in the IPR2014-00987 proceeding.· This
`15 is your -- Mr. Parulski's reply declaration in that
`16 proceeding.
`17· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1008 marked.)
`18 MR. DONAHUE:
`19· · · Q.· Hopefully, you have a copy of that there as
`20 well.· I believe I asked opposing counsel to have a
`21 copy available.
`22· · · · · Do we have one of those?
`23· · · A.· Yes, we do.
`24· · · Q.· Could you just let me know when it's in
`25 front of you.
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`·1· · · A.· It's in front of me now.
`·2· · · Q.· Okay.· Thank you.
`·3· · · · · Let's start by going to paragraph 18, which
`·4 is on Page 7.· And referring, I guess, specifically
`·5 to the last sentence of paragraph 18, you make the
`·6 statement:
`·7· · · · · "The '871 patent treats the cellular
`·8· · · · · telephone 164 as a mere add-on device
`·9· · · · · 'whereby the image data signal can be
`10· · · · · transmitted via the cellular telephone to a
`11· · · · · remote facsimile machine over standard
`12· · · · · cellular and telephone company facilities.'"
`13· · · · · Do you see that?
`14· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`15· · · Q.· Okay.· Do you agree with me that the '871
`16 patent has limitations in the claims that are related
`17 to the transmission of images?
`18· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection to form.
`19· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Generally, the '871 patent has
`20 many claims limitations, but certainly that includes
`21 transmission of images.
`22 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`23· · · Q.· Okay.· Do you agree with me that the '871
`24 patent has limitations that are directed specifically
`25 to the type of signals that can be transmitted and
`
`Page 12
`
`·1 through 8.
`·2· · · · · Go ahead and read that --
`·3· · · A.· Okay.
`·4· · · Q.· -- if you would, and then I'll ask my
`·5 question.
`·6· · · A.· This is the limitation that begins, "The
`·7 wireless telephone"?
`·8· · · Q.· Correct.
`·9· · · A.· Okay.· Thank you.
`10· · · · · Okay.· I've read that section.
`11· · · Q.· Okay.· Now, do you agree with me that that
`12 limitation is directed specifically to the type of
`13 signals that can be transmitted and received by the
`14 device?
`15· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`16· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, generally -- generally,
`17 the limitation relates to the wireless telephone
`18 being operable to transmit and receive non-audio
`19 digital signals, which are -- which are types of
`20 digital signals.· And then --
`21 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`22· · · Q.· Okay.
`23· · · A.· -- this is the non-audio digital signals,
`24 including a selected digitized framed image.· So that
`25 would be a type of image.
`
`Page 11
`
`·1 received by a device?
`·2· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`·3· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I -- I don't have the exact
`·4 claim in front of me for the '871 patent, and it
`·5 would be helpful to have that in front of me.
`·6 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`·7· · · Q.· Yeah, let's do that.· I didn't intend this
`·8 to become a memory test.
`·9· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· So let's go ahead and
`10 introduce Exhibit 1001 from --
`11· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.
`12· · · · · MR. DONAHUE: -- IPR2014-00987.
`13· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1001 marked.)
`14 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`15· · · Q.· Which, again, you'll have to look in that
`16 stack of documents.· There should be a cover page
`17 that says Exhibit 1001, IPR2014-00987.
`18· · · A.· Yes, I have it in front of me now.
`19· · · Q.· Okay.· Great.· Thank you.
`20· · · · · And maybe to assist you, maybe if we just
`21 flip to claim 12 of that patent, and I think it's
`22 column 17, lines 1 through 8, is a specific
`23 limitation that may deal with what we want to talk
`24 about here.
`25· · · · · So if you could go to column 17, lines 1
`
`Page 13
`·1· · · Q.· Okay.· Let me ask you to turn to -- or,
`·2 actually, if you'll look at your Exhibit 1008, that
`·3 is also in front of you now, paragraph 19.· It begins
`·4 by saying:
`·5· · · · · "Second, I do not agree with PO's expert
`·6· · · · · that my definition of a POSITA excluded
`·7· · · · · 'experience in the design of cellular
`·8· · · · · communications devices.'"
`·9· · · · · Do you see that?
`10· · · A.· Yes, I do see that.
`11· · · Q.· Okay.· And then on the next page it
`12 continues on and says:
`13· · · · · "To the contrary, the definition I provided
`14· · · · · assumed that the person would have had a
`15· · · · · sufficient level of familiarity and
`16· · · · · knowledge with communications devices
`17· · · · · capable of transmitting digital image data."
`18· · · · · If you could look at your definition of
`19 "POSITA" in paragraph 16 and then tell me where
`20 familiarity and knowledge of communications devices
`21 capable of transmitting digital image data is
`22 included.
`23· · · A.· Well, in paragraph 16, I say that:
`24· · · · · ". . . a person of ordinary skill in the art
`25· · · · · would have at least a bachelor's degree in
`
`

`

`Page 14
`·1· · · · · electrical engineering, computer experience,
`·2· · · · · or a related field, and 3-5 years experience
`·3· · · · · in designing digital imaging system" --
`·4· · · · · "digital imaging devices."
`·5· · · · · And --
`·6· · · Q.· Yes.
`·7· · · A.· -- in my opinion, such a person who had a
`·8 degree in electrical engineering or communications --
`·9 or computer sciences would have, first of all,
`10 learned about communications as part of the course
`11 work.· Certainly I did it in the late 1970s when I
`12 was receiving my degree in electrical engineering.
`13· · · · · And, furthermore, as part of their work in
`14 digital image and devices, they would have had
`15 knowledge of how to communicate the digital images
`16 from a device, such as a digital camera, over various
`17 communications, various types of communications, for
`18 example, how to get the images out of the device off
`19 a computer, how a computer might share those images
`20 over the Internet.
`21· · · · · So this is what I was referring to when I
`22 say that I believe my definition of a person of
`23 ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient
`24 level of familiarity and knowledge with communication
`25 devices that are capable of transmitting digital
`
`Page 16
`·1· · · A.· I believe that it says three to five years
`·2 of experience in designing digital imaging devices.
`·3· · · Q.· Okay.· So that's the only thing you list
`·4 under the experience prong of your definition of
`·5 POSITA; correct?
`·6· · · A.· Yes, I think that's fair.
`·7· · · Q.· Okay.· Let's take a look at paragraph 20 now
`·8 in that Exhibit 1008.· And it says:
`·9· · · · · "Finally, in the event that the Board finds
`10· · · · · that the level of still that I used is
`11· · · · · different than what has been suggested by
`12· · · · · the PO, my opinions regarding the '871
`13· · · · · patent would not change even under the PO's
`14· · · · · definition."
`15· · · · · Do you see that?
`16· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`17· · · Q.· So I don't see any reason provided in
`18 paragraph 20 for why your opinions wouldn't change
`19 even under the PO's definition of POSITA.
`20· · · · · Why didn't you provide a reason for why your
`21 opinion wouldn't change in this paragraph?
`22· · · A.· Well, the reason is really described earlier
`23 relative to paragraph 18, which I think you directed
`24 me to earlier.· And I -- where I write:
`25· · · · · "First, the '871 patent provides no new
`
`Page 15
`
`·1 image data.
`·2· · · Q.· Okay.· But there is no specific mention of
`·3 communications devices or transmission of digital
`·4 image data in your definition; correct?
`·5· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`·6· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, in my -- my
`·7 definition -- and I believe you're referring to --
`·8 again, to paragraph 16 --
`·9 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`10· · · Q.· Correct.
`11· · · A.· -- my definition doesn't go through an
`12 extremely detailed list of all of the skills that
`13 such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`14 acquired.· They would have acquired skills, for
`15 example, at least at a high level some understanding
`16 of optics and photography in order to capture images,
`17 some understanding of image sensors in digital image
`18 processing.
`19· · · · · So I don't list the details of any of the
`20 areas that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`21 would have had.
`22· · · Q.· Is it fair, though, to say that under the
`23 experience part of your definition of POSITA, the
`24 only thing you expressly state is designing digital
`25 imaging devices.· Is that correct?
`
`Page 17
`·1· · · · · teachings related to the design of cellular
`·2· · · · · communication devices.· It simply describes
`·3· · · · · the use of conventional, well-known
`·4· · · · · imaging-related formats and protocols" --
`·5· · · · · -- and so on.
`·6· · · · · So I believe that's the reason that you are
`·7 looking for that perhaps should have been included at
`·8 the end of paragraph 20.
`·9· · · Q.· So, essentially, you're somewhat dismissive
`10 of the transmission functionality of the '871 patent;
`11 so it's irrelevant whether or not that's included in
`12 the definition of "POSITA"?
`13· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection to form.
`14· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I wouldn't say I'm dismissive.
`15 I would say that the '871 patent, as I've written, is
`16 using conventional, well-known formats and protocols,
`17 such as Group-III fax, JPEG compression.· It's
`18 using -- it is transmitting the digital image data
`19 over standard cellular and telephone company
`20 facilities.· It's not describing the details of a
`21 cellular telephone.
`22· · · · · So I don't believe it would be necessary to
`23 be an expert in cellular communications technologies
`24 or devices in order to be a person of ordinary skill
`25 in the art for the '871 patent.
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`·1 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`·2· · · Q.· Do you consider yourself an expert in
`·3 cellular communications technologies?
`·4· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`·5· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I consider myself to be a
`·6 person of ordinary skill in the art concerning
`·7 digital imaging devices and, for example, smartphone
`·8 cameras.· I don't know that I would necessarily
`·9 consider myself to be an expert in all cellular
`10 communication technology.
`11 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`12· · · Q.· Okay.· If we could now move to paragraph 23
`13 of your reply declaration, which is, again,
`14 Exhibit 1008, and specifically looking at the last
`15 two sentences of paragraph 23, where it says:
`16· · · · · "PO's interpretation of 'non-audio digital
`17· · · · · signal' is inconsistent with the language of
`18· · · · · claim 12, which shows that 'non-audio
`19· · · · · digital signal' refers to what is being
`20· · · · · transmitted, not how data is being
`21· · · · · transmitted.· For example, claim 12 recites
`22· · · · · one type of a non-audio digital signal by
`23· · · · · stating 'the non-audio digital signals
`24· · · · · including a selected digitized framed
`25· · · · · image.'"
`
`Page 20
`·1 the claims.· And I guess I would agree there might be
`·2 other forms the claims might have taken.· But I'm
`·3 simply interpreting the claim as it is written.
`·4 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`·5· · · Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.
`·6· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· If we could look at
`·7 Exhibit 2011.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2011 marked.)
`·9· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· And, again, I'll have to ask
`10 for your assistance to dig through that stack.
`11 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`12· · · Q.· I very much appreciate you working with me.
`13 I apologize that I had to appear telephonically.
`14· · · A.· Okay.· And 2011 is the petitioner's reply to
`15 the --
`16· · · Q.· Yes.
`17· · · A.· -- patent owner's response for the '987.
`18 Okay.
`19· · · Q.· Yeah.· Thank you.
`20· · · A.· Okay.· I do have the document in front of me
`21 now.
`22· · · Q.· Okay.· Thank you.
`23· · · · · Let's take a look at page 4, section 2.· And
`24 I guess I really just want to call your attention
`25 specifically to the -- it looks like it's the second
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· · · · · Do you see that?
`·2· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`·3· · · Q.· If non-audio digital signal is already
`·4 included -- already includes non-speech data, such as
`·5 an image or text, as opposed to referring to how the
`·6 signal is being sent, why would it be necessary to --
`·7 also including a selected digitized framed image?
`·8 Wouldn't that be redundant?
`·9· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`10· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, I believe that digitized
`11 frame image is one type of non-audio digital signal
`12 and that there can be other types of non-audio
`13 digital signals, such as, for example, text.
`14 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`15· · · Q.· But if the claim is going to require a
`16 digitized framed image anyway, why wouldn't you
`17 simply claim the selected digitized framed image and
`18 not mention anything else, and by -- pursuant to
`19 claim construction, that would mean that the text
`20 wouldn't be excluded; it would just be an optional
`21 feature in addition to sending a selected digitized
`22 framed image?
`23· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection to form.
`24· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not a patent attorney, and
`25 I'm in -- and certainly I wasn't involved in drafting
`
`Page 21
`·1 sentence on -- in section 2 on page 4.· And it says:
`·2· · · · · "PO's argument appears to center on
`·3· · · · · whether the broadest reasonable construction
`·4· · · · · of 'non-audio digital signals' refers to the
`·5· · · · · transmission protocol (i.e., non-fax
`·6· · · · · protocols) versus the underlying data being
`·7· · · · · transmitted (i.e., non-speech data such as
`·8· · · · · image or text data)."
`·9· · · · · Do you see that?
`10· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`11· · · Q.· So according to the definition the
`12 petitioner provides, which is non-speech data such as
`13 image or text data, the non-audio digital signal
`14 limitation is essentially saying a wireless telephone
`15 being selectively operable to transmit and receive
`16 non-speech data such as an image, including a
`17 selected digitized framed image.
`18· · · · · Isn't that redundant?
`19· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`20· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, again, I'm not a patent
`21 attorney, and I haven't, frankly, analyzed the claim
`22 from the view that you're -- that you're now
`23 proposing.· But it does seem like when it mentions --
`24 or being selectively operable to transmit and receive
`25 non-audio digital signals, that could, for example,
`
`

`

`Page 22
`·1 mean receive either a digital image or a text.· And
`·2 then -- but when it says the non-audio digital
`·3 signals including a selected digitized frame image,
`·4 that is being more specific in pointing to the fact
`·5 that the non-audio digital signal must include a
`·6 digitized frame image.
`·7· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Let's go ahead and introduce
`·8 the next exhibit, then.
`·9· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2012 marked.)
`10 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`11· · · Q.· You can put the 2011 away.
`12· · · A.· Okay.
`13· · · Q.· If we look at now Exhibit 2012.· If you
`14 could fish that one out of the stack and let me know
`15 when you've done that.
`16· · · A.· Okay.· I have Exhibit 2012.· It's a
`17 definition from the Oxford Dictionary?
`18· · · Q.· Correct.
`19· · · A.· Okay.
`20· · · · · MR. KO:· Counsel, is this part of the IPR
`21 record, or is this a new exhibit?
`22· · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· This is a new exhibit.
`23· · · · · MR. KO:· Okay.
`24 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`25· · · Q.· Do you have that in front of you now?
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· · · Q.· Do you agree with that definition of
`·2 "signal"?
`·3· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`·4· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, as I understand -- so
`·5 I'm just reading this line.· It says:
`·6· · · · · "2An electrical impulse or radio wave
`·7· · · · · transmitted or received" -- and it's got a
`·8· · · · · colon -- "equipment for receiving TV
`·9· · · · · signals."
`10· · · · · And I'm not sure what that -- that
`11 "equipment for receiving TV signals" refers to.· That
`12 may be indicating that this particular definition,
`13 out of -- out of what appear to be many definitions
`14 for a signal, is most applicable to receiving TV
`15 signals.
`16 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`17· · · Q.· Okay.· But you don't agree that that
`18 definition of "signal" is -- is necessarily accurate
`19 in terms of defining "signal" for telecommunications,
`20 in general?
`21· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`22· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I guess I would prefer to have
`23 a little more time to study the definition --
`24 possible definitions of "signals" here to see whether
`25 this is the most appropriate definition, for example,
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· · · A.· Oh, yes, I do.· Sorry.
`·2· · · Q.· Okay.· If you'll flip to the second page,
`·3 there's a definition.· It's got a number "2" by it.
`·4 It's in the middle of the page on page 2.· It says:
`·5· · · · · "An electrical impulse or radio wave
`·6· · · · · transmitted or received."
`·7· · · · · Do you see that?
`·8· · · · · MR. KO:· Can you repeat it?
`·9· · · · · THE WITNESS:· It's on -- on -- when you --
`10 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`11· · · Q.· It's the middle -- yeah.· It's the middle of
`12 the second page of the document.· It's -- there's a
`13 little number "2" by it, and it says:
`14· · · · · "An electrical impulse" --
`15· · · A.· Okay.· Okay.· I was --
`16· · · Q.· -- "or radio wave."
`17· · · · · Do you see that?
`18· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`19· · · · · Sorry.· I was counting the --
`20· · · Q.· Okay.
`21· · · A.· -- front page as the first page, so . . .
`22· · · Q.· No problem.· I know it's just increasing the
`23 degree of difficulty because I can't help by pointing
`24 you to anything.· So I appreciate your patience.
`25· · · A.· Yes.
`
`Page 25
`
`·1 relative to the '871 patent.
`·2 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`·3· · · Q.· Okay.· Well, let's proceed.· And noting that
`·4 you may not agree with that definition, let me ask
`·5 this next question.
`·6· · · · · Doesn't a non-audio digital signal, based on
`·7 that definition, seem to mean a non-audio digital
`·8 electrical impulse or radio wave that is transmitted
`·9 carrying certain data?
`10· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`11· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, if you apply what I
`12 believe is the definition here, an electrical impulse
`13 or radio wave transmitted or received, then you would
`14 be, I believe, considering the modulation frequency,
`15 for example.· So the modulation frequency might in
`16 the case of television transmission, in the case of
`17 certain -- certainly cellular telephony would be a
`18 very high frequency, hundreds of megahertz, if not
`19 higher, and would necessarily be non-audio because it
`20 would be well above the range of audio -- of audible
`21 frequencies that you'd be able to hear.
`22 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`23· · · Q.· Do you agree that audio signal and audio
`24 data are different concepts?
`25· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`·1· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Again, I haven't really
`·2 studied this particular issue.· Audio signal, I
`·3 believe, is more general than audio data.· Audio
`·4 signal could indicate an analog signal, for example,
`·5 or a digital signal.· Audio data would indicate, I
`·6 believe, digital data, so that the -- the audio data
`·7 would be in the form of digital data.
`·8 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`·9· · · Q.· Do you agree that pre-1998 cellular systems
`10 could use audio signals that carry out -- that could
`11 carry voice or image data?
`12· · · A.· I'm not sure what you mean by "carry voice
`13 or image data."
`14· · · Q.· Do you understand that cellular systems
`15 could use an audio signal that was capable of sending
`16 voice or image data using the audio signals?
`17· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`18· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Certainly the pre-1998
`19 cellular systems could transmit digital data; they
`20 could transmit digital voice data; they could
`21 transmit digital image data.· Some cellular --
`22 earlier cellular systems, they used analog audio
`23 transmission.
`24· · · · · It is possible to transmit other types of
`25 information, including digital images, over those
`
`Page 27
`·1 channels.· For example, my -- my thesis in 197 --
`·2 1979 and 1980 involved transmission of digital images
`·3 over an FM radio that was normally used as a public
`·4 service, a police-type radio normally used to
`·5 transmit audio.
`·6· · · · · So I do have personal experience
`·7 transmitting digital images over a channel intended
`·8 for -- for speech.
`·9 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`10· · · Q.· Okay.· Let's look back at Exhibit 1008
`11 again, paragraph 24.· It says:
`12· · · · · "Patent owner's interpretation of a
`13· · · · · 'non-audio digital signal' also ignores a
`14· · · · · large portion of the '871 Patent
`15· · · · · specification that describes embodiments
`16· · · · · that use Group-III fax, which uses so-called
`17· · · · · 'audio tones' as described by the PO."
`18· · · · · Do you see that?
`19· · · A.· Yes, I do.
`20· · · Q.· So you mention large portions of the '871
`21 patent that describe embodiments to Group-III fax.
`22· · · · · Are you aware of any sections of the '871
`23 patent specification that discuss transmissions by
`24 means other than Group-III fax?
`25· · · A.· I believe in -- in -- in the patent, the
`
`Page 28
`·1 '871 patent, in figure 4, there is an embodiment that
`·2 includes format select box 59, and there's a path A,
`·3 which is a Group-III fax path.· There's a path B that
`·4 includes JPEG compression and a PC modem protocol.
`·5 There's a path C that includes wavelet compression
`·6 and a PC modem protocol and a path D that includes
`·7 any conversion and any compression in any protocol.
`·8· · · · · So at least those last three, B, C, and D,
`·9 do not use Group-III fax.
`10· · · Q.· Okay.· Isn't it possible that the non-audio
`11 digital signal limitation that appears in claim 12 is
`12 included to differentiate claim 12 from prior art or
`13 from other claims?
`14· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`15· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Again, I am not a patent
`16 attorney and, of course, wasn't involved in drafting
`17 the claim; so I can't really comment on why that
`18 limitation is included.
`19 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`20· · · Q.· I believe you mentioned in your declaration
`21 that you were an inventor on more than 200 patents.
`22 I think it was paragraph 13.
`23· · · · · Have you ever had claims drafted that apply
`24 to certain aspects or embodiments of the
`25 specification and not to others?
`
`Page 29
`
`·1· · · A.· Yes, I think that's fair.
`·2· · · Q.· Are you familiar with the concept of
`·3 continuation patent applications?
`·4· · · A.· Again, I'm not a patent attorney, but as an
`·5 inventor, I -- I do know that some of my own patents
`·6 were continuation applications.
`·7· · · Q.· Are you aware whether there are continuation
`·8 applications of the '871 patent?
`·9· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form.
`10· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mean currently pending
`11 continuing applications?
`12 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`13· · · Q.· Just in general, '871 patent continuations,
`14 whether they -- they've now gone abandoned, whether
`15 they've issued, whether they're currently pending,
`16 are you aware of any continuations related to the
`17 '871 patent?
`18· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form and relevance.
`19· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not aware of any currently
`20 pending continuation applications.
`21 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`22· · · Q.· Have you analyzed all of the continuations
`23 of the '871 patent?
`24· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection.· Form and relevance.
`25· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I have analyzed the '871
`
`

`

`Page 30
`·1 patent claims and some of the '168 patent claims. I
`·2 have not analyzed any others.
`·3 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`·4· · · Q.· Okay.· Is it possible that some of these
`·5 other continuations have claims directed to the
`·6 various embodiments listed in the specification?
`·7· · · · · MR. KO:· Objection to form.
`·8· · · · · THE WITNESS:· I -- I haven't analyzed any of
`·9 those to know whether it's -- whether they possibly
`10 relate to any of -- any of the other embodiments.
`11 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`12·