1
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`------------------------:
`GOOGLE, INC., :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` : Case No. IPR2015-00180
` v. :
` : Patent 8,601,154
`SIMPLEAIR, INC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`------------------------:
`
` Atlanta, Georgia
` Thursday, June 25, 2015
`
`Videotaped Deposition of:
`
` VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.,
`held at the offices of The Entertainment Law Group,
`3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750, Atlanta, Georgia,
`pursuant to Notice, before JoRita B. Meyer, a
`Registered Professional Reporter, Registered Merit
`Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Certified
`Court Reporter for the State of Georgia beginning at
`8:57 a.m., when were present on behalf of the
`respective parties:
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`------------------------:
`GOOGLE, INC., :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` : Case No. IPR2015-00180
` v. :
` : Patent 8,601,154
`SIMPLEAIR, INC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`------------------------:
`
` Atlanta, Georgia
` Thursday, June 25, 2015
`
`Videotaped Deposition of:
`
` VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.,
`held at the offices of The Entertainment Law Group,
`3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750, Atlanta, Georgia,
`pursuant to Notice, before JoRita B. Meyer, a
`Registered Professional Reporter, Registered Merit
`Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Certified
`Court Reporter for the State of Georgia beginning at
`8:57 a.m., when were present on behalf of the
`respective parties:
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`2
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
` 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
` 2 On behalf of the Petitioner:
` 3 STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` 4 Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` 5 BY: MICHAEL V. MESSINGER, ESQ.
` mikem@skgf.com
` 6 BY: ROBERT W. MOLITORS, ESQ.
` molitors@skgf.com
` 7 BY: JOSEPH E. MUTSCHELKNAUS, ESQ.
` jmutsche@skgf.com
` 8
`on behalf of the Patent Owner:
` 9
` DOVEL & LUNER LLP
`10 201 Santa Monica Blvd.
` Suite 600
`11 Santa Monica, CA 90401
` 310.656.7066
`12 BY: GREGORY DOVEL, ESQ.
` greg@dovellaw.com
`13
`14
`15 ALSO PRESENT:
`16 George Bush, Videographer
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`3
` 1 (June 25, 2015, 8:57 a.m.) 08:32
` 2 (Deposition Exhibit Number 1002 was marked 08:55
` 3 for identification) 08:55
` 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the 08:57
` 5 beginning of video one in the videotaped 08:57
` 6 deposition of Dr. Vijay Madisetti. 08:57
` 7 Today's date is June 25, 2015, and the 08:57
` 8 time on the record is 8:57 a.m. 08:57
` 9 Would counsel present please identify 08:57
`10 themselves and state who they represent. 08:57
`11 (Whereupon, appearances were entered on 08:57
`12 the video record) 08:57
`13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And would the court 08:58
`14 reporter please swear in the witness. 08:58
`15 /// 08:58
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`4
` 1 VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D., called as a 08:58
` 2 witness, having been duly sworn by a Certified 08:58
` 3 Court Reporter, was examined and testified as 08:58
` 4 follows: 08:58
` 5 E X A M I N A T I O N 08:58
` 6 BY MR. DOVEL: 08:58
` 7 Q Dr. Madisetti, I've placed in front of you 08:58
` 8 Exhibit 1002, which is the declaration containing 08:58
` 9 the testimony you submitted in this case. 08:58
`10 Are you familiar with it? 08:58
`11 A Yes, I am. 08:58
`12 Q Did you sign it on page 73? 08:58
`13 A Yes. 08:59
`14 Q In your testimony -- I'd like you first to 08:59
`15 turn to page -- excuse me, paragraph 79. In your 08:59
`16 declaration in paragraph 79 you state, "In my 08:59
`17 opinion, the phrase 'communicatively coupled' means 08:59
`18 coupled for communication, including, for example, 08:59
`19 coupled to allow communication between functions or 08:59
`20 processes on the same or different servers." 08:59
`21 Is that right? 08:59
`22 A Yes, I describe that in paragraph 79 on 08:59
`23 page 36. 08:59
`24 Q Is it your opinion that one of ordinary 08:59
`25 skill in the art would understand the phrase 08:59
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`5
` 1 "communicatively coupled" as it's used in the 08:59
` 2 SimpleAir patent to mean coupled for communication, 09:00
` 3 including, for example, coupled to allow 09:00
` 4 communication between functions or processes on the 09:00
` 5 same or different servers? 09:00
` 6 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:00
` 7 THE WITNESS: "Communicatively coupled" is 09:00
` 8 used in the -- in the claim. I would like to 09:00
` 9 look at the claim and -- 09:00
`10 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:00
`11 Q Why would you like to look at the claim? 09:00
`12 A If you give me the patent, I can look at 09:00
`13 it, the '154. 09:00
`14 Q I understand that, but my question is: 09:00
`15 Can you answer that question? 09:00
`16 A Yes. "Communicatively coupled" is used in 09:00
`17 the claim many times. In the context of the claim, 09:00
`18 in light of the specification, "communicatively 09:00
`19 coupled" means coupled for communication, including, 09:00
`20 as an example, coupled to allow communications 09:00
`21 between functions or processes on the same or 09:00
`22 different servers. 09:01
`23 Q Is that how one of ordinary skill in the 09:01
`24 art would understand the phrase "communicatively 09:01
`25 coupled"? 09:01
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`6
` 1 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:01
` 2 THE WITNESS: One of ordinary skill in the 09:01
` 3 art would understand "communication coupled" as 09:01
` 4 stated here in the light of the specification 09:01
` 5 and the language of the claim. 09:01
` 6 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:01
` 7 Q I think you may have misspoken. You said 09:01
` 8 "communication coupled." Did you mean 09:01
` 9 communicatively coupled? 09:01
`10 A Yes, communicatively coupled. 09:01
`11 Q Is it the case that if -- does 09:01
`12 communicatively coupled -- withdrawn. 09:01
`13 I'm going to place in front of you -- 09:01
`14 let's just take a look here. I'm going to place in 09:01
`15 front of you a copy of the '154 patent. This will 09:01
`16 be Exhibit Number 1001. We'll mark it at the next 09:01
`17 break here. 09:02
`18 I'd like you to turn to the next-to-last 09:02
`19 page. You'll see Claim 1. 09:02
`20 (Deposition Exhibit Number 1001 was marked 09:02
`21 for identification) 09:02
`22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 09:02
`23 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:02
`24 Q You'll see that one of the things that 09:02
`25 Claim 1 requires is a central broadcast server that 09:02
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`7
` 1 is communicatively coupled to at least one 09:02
` 2 information gateway, correct? 09:02
` 3 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:02
` 4 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to a 09:02
` 5 particular line? 09:02
` 6 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:02
` 7 Q Yes. I'm referring to column 32, line 09:02
` 8 30 -- or line 51, where it says, "wherein the 09:02
` 9 central broadcast server," and then skipping down to 09:02
`10 line 55, "is communicatively coupled to at least one 09:03
`11 information gateway." 09:03
`12 A Yes, I can see in column 32, line 55, it 09:03
`13 says "is communicatively coupled to at least one 09:03
`14 information gateway." 09:03
`15 Q Does the claim require that the central 09:03
`16 broadcaster be something that is different from the 09:03
`17 information gateway? 09:03
`18 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:03
`19 THE WITNESS: The -- there is a 09:03
`20 construction for the central broadcast server 09:04
`21 on page 33 that says -- in my declaration, that 09:04
`22 says "one or more servers that are configured 09:04
`23 to receive data from a plurality of information 09:04
`24 sources and" the processes -- "and process the 09:04
`25 data prior to its transmission to one" of -- 09:04
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`8
` 1 "one or more selected remote computing 09:04
` 2 devices." 09:04
` 3 This is from the District Court's that has 09:04
` 4 been applied, as modified by the claim. 09:05
` 5 And to answer your question, the central 09:05
` 6 broadcast server would include the information 09:05
` 7 gateway. 09:05
` 8 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:05
` 9 Q In other words, it's your testimony that 09:05
`10 one of ordinary skill in the art would read the 09:05
`11 claim such that the information gateway may be a 09:05
`12 component of the central broadcast server? 09:05
`13 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:05
`14 THE WITNESS: The language is -- is -- the 09:05
`15 language in the claim says the central 09:06
`16 broadcast server is communicatively coupled to 09:06
`17 at least one information gateway. But in the 09:06
`18 context of the claim and the specification, to 09:06
`19 one of ordinary skill in the art, the 09:06
`20 information gateway would be part of the 09:06
`21 central broadcast server, though I am not 09:06
`22 offering a particular claim construction at 09:06
`23 this point. 09:06
`24 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:06
`25 Q Is it the case that a component may be 09:06
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`9
` 1 communicatively coupled -- withdrawn. 09:06
` 2 Is it the case that a central broadcast 09:06
` 3 server may be communicatively coupled with a part of 09:06
` 4 itself? 09:06
` 5 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:06
` 6 THE WITNESS: There could be portions of 09:07
` 7 the central broadcast server -- for instance, 09:07
` 8 an information gateway; another component could 09:07
` 9 be a transmission gateway -- and these 09:07
`10 components could be communicatively coupled to 09:07
`11 each other. 09:07
`12 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:07
`13 Q My question was -- withdrawn. 09:07
`14 Let's assume we've got a central broadcast 09:07
`15 server that includes as components an information 09:07
`16 gateway and a transmission gateway. Could the 09:07
`17 transmission gateway in that configuration be 09:07
`18 communicatively coupled to the central broadcast 09:07
`19 server? 09:07
`20 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:07
`21 THE WITNESS: Again, that's a -- it's not 09:07
`22 quite clear as to what the central broadcast 09:07
`23 server is. But in the light of the claim and 09:07
`24 the language of the claim and the 09:08
`25 specification, I understand that the 09:08
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`10
` 1 communicatively coupled here refers to the 09:08
` 2 coupling between the information gateways and 09:08
` 3 the transmission gateways. 09:08
` 4 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:08
` 5 Q You haven't answered my question. Let me 09:08
` 6 rephrase it for you. 09:08
` 7 A Sure. 09:08
` 8 Q I want you to assume we've got a central 09:08
` 9 broadcast -- withdrawn. 09:08
`10 Does the claim permit the information 09:08
`11 gateway to be a component of the central broadcast 09:08
`12 server? 09:08
`13 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:08
`14 THE WITNESS: In the light of the 09:08
`15 specification, yes, the language of the claim 09:08
`16 permits the information gateway to be a 09:08
`17 component of the central broadcast server. 09:08
`18 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:08
`19 Q Can the information -- if the information 09:08
`20 gateway -- withdrawn. 09:08
`21 If the information gateway is a component 09:08
`22 of the central broadcast server, can the information 09:08
`23 gateway be communicatively coupled to the central 09:08
`24 broadcast server? 09:08
`25 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:08
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`11
` 1 THE WITNESS: If -- in that sense, the 09:09
` 2 information gateway would be communicatively 09:09
` 3 coupled to other components in the central 09:09
` 4 broadcast server. If one of ordinary skill 09:09
` 5 would understand that interpretation, it can be 09:09
` 6 communicatively coupled in that scenario. 09:09
` 7 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:09
` 8 Q Would one of ordinary skill in the art 09:09
` 9 read the claim such that the information gateway 09:09
`10 could be a component of the central broadcast server 09:09
`11 and still communicatively coupled with the central 09:09
`12 broadcast server? 09:09
`13 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:09
`14 THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, in 09:10
`15 that scenario, if one of ordinary skill in the 09:10
`16 art understands that phraseology to mean that 09:10
`17 the information gateway is communicatively 09:10
`18 coupled to other components in the central 09:10
`19 broadcast server, that's how it would be read. 09:10
`20 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:10
`21 Q In your analysis of Claim 1, you present 09:10
`22 the opinion that Claim 1 would be obvious based upon 09:10
`23 a combination of Yan and Kane; is that correct? 09:11
`24 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:11
`25 THE WITNESS: My interpretation, for 09:11
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`12
` 1 instance, in paragraph -- starting from 09:11
` 2 paragraph 89 on page 41, I express support for 09:11
` 3 my opinion that Yan, in view of Kane, renders 09:11
` 4 Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 24, and 09:11
` 5 29 obvious. 09:11
` 6 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:11
` 7 Q My question was about Claim 1, though. 09:11
` 8 It's your opinion that Yan and Kane, when combined, 09:11
` 9 would render Claim 1 obvious, right? 09:12
`10 A Yes, sir. 09:12
`11 Q In doing your analysis for Claim 1, did 09:12
`12 you identify in your declaration any prior art that 09:12
`13 disclosed any elements of Claim 1 other than Yan or 09:12
`14 Kane? 09:12
`15 A Maybe you could repeat the question, if 09:12
`16 possible. 09:12
`17 Q Let me rephrase it. 09:12
`18 Was it your conclusion that you could 09:12
`19 identify each of the elements of Claim 1 in either 09:12
`20 Yan or Kane, or both? 09:12
`21 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:12
`22 THE WITNESS: Yes, one of ordinary skill 09:12
`23 in the art would combine Yan and Kane to render 09:12
`24 each limitation of the Claim 1 obvious. 09:13
`25 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:13
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`13
` 1 Q My question was a little different. Did 09:13
` 2 you in your declaration conclude that each of the 09:13
` 3 limitations of Claim 1 was disclosed in Yan or Kane? 09:13
` 4 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:13
` 5 THE WITNESS: The question is not entirely 09:13
` 6 clear. But if I understand it, Yan and Kane 09:13
` 7 disclose more than one limitation. There are 09:13
` 8 limitations where both Yan and Kane disclose 09:13
` 9 the same limitation. So there is -- for each 09:13
`10 limitation, it is Yan or Kane, or both Yan and 09:13
`11 Kane, as outlined in my declaration and the 09:13
`12 claim chart that's attached to it. 09:14
`13 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:14
`14 Q Did you identify any limitation of Claim 1 09:14
`15 that was not disclosed in Yan and was also not 09:14
`16 disclosed in Kane? 09:14
`17 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:14
`18 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 09:14
`19 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:14
`20 Q Did you include any alternative opinions 09:14
`21 that, if a certain limitation is not disclosed in 09:14
`22 Yan, not disclosed in Kane, it would be disclosed in 09:14
`23 some third prior art? 09:14
`24 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:14
`25 THE WITNESS: With respect to which claim, 09:14
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`14
` 1 sir? 09:14
` 2 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:14
` 3 Q Claim 1. 09:14
` 4 A As outlined in my declaration for Claim 1, 09:14
` 5 I analyzed Claim 1 in view of the combination of Yan 09:15
` 6 and Kane. And I do rely on my experience and the 09:15
` 7 background information that I cite in my declaration 09:15
` 8 as to what one of ordinary skill in the art would 09:15
` 9 know at the time, and offer the basis for my opinion 09:15
`10 that the combination of Yan and Kane renders Claim 1 09:15
`11 obvious. 09:15
`12 Q You haven't answered my question. 09:15
`13 In your declaration, did you include as an 09:15
`14 alternative opinion that, if a certain limitation of 09:15
`15 Claim 1 is not disclosed in Yan and is not disclosed 09:15
`16 in Kane, it's still disclosed in some third prior 09:15
`17 art you've identified? 09:15
`18 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:15
`19 THE WITNESS: With respect to Claim 1, I 09:15
`20 have not identified a third reference because 09:15
`21 it's my opinion that both Yan and Kane, 09:16
`22 individually or together, disclose and render 09:16
`23 obvious each limitation of Claim 1. 09:16
`24 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:16
`25 Q Did you include in your declaration for 09:16
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`15
` 1 any limitation the alternative opinion that if Yan 09:16
` 2 or Kane were found not to disclose that limitation, 09:16
` 3 it would have been obvious to modify Yan or Kane to 09:16
` 4 include the limitation? 09:16
` 5 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, scope. 09:16
` 6 THE WITNESS: I think there are portions 09:16
` 7 in my declaration where I do cite that there 09:17
` 8 are ways by which -- known ways and predictable 09:17
` 9 ways by which Yan and Kane may be modified 09:17
`10 under certain scenarios or certain alternative 09:17
`11 claim constructions. 09:17
`12 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:17
`13 Q Well, for Claim 1, I didn't see any such 09:17
`14 opinions. I'm asking about Claim 1. 09:17
`15 A I'd have to look at my analysis -- 09:17
`16 Q Sure. 09:17
`17 A -- for Claim 1. 09:17
`18 For instance, in paragraph 109, if I 09:20
`19 understood the question right, I offer two 09:20
`20 different -- two -- two analyses with respect to how 09:20
`21 the user could access the information consistent 09:20
`22 with the claim construction for the terms "data 09:20
`23 channel" and -- and "online and offline models." 09:21
`24 Both of them are present in Yan. And so 09:21
`25 there are some alternative hypotheses, but I don't 09:21
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`16
` 1 see locations where there's an additional 09:21
` 2 modification that is needed for Yan or Kane in my 09:21
` 3 analysis of Claim 1. 09:21
` 4 Q Was it the case that because you concluded 09:21
` 5 that all of the limitations of Claim 1 were 09:21
` 6 expressly disclosed in Yan or Kane -- 09:21
` 7 A Or both. 09:21
` 8 Q -- or both, that you did not need to offer 09:21
` 9 an opinion about modifying Yan or Kane? 09:21
`10 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:22
`11 THE WITNESS: With respect to Claim 1, 09:22
`12 that is generally the case, absent a detailed 09:22
`13 review of my declaration. 09:22
`14 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:22
`15 Q Well, you went up to paragraph 109. Why 09:22
`16 don't you finish Claim 1, which goes through 09:22
`17 paragraph 112, so we can have a clear record? 09:22
`18 A Yes, I've examined up to paragraph 112, 09:23
`19 and it's my opinion that Yan or Kane, or both, 09:23
`20 disclose each and every limitation, and the 09:23
`21 combination thus renders obvious each and every 09:23
`22 limitation of Claim 1. 09:23
`23 Q My question, sir, is: In your declaration 09:23
`24 did you express the alternative opinion that if Yan 09:23
`25 or Kane were found not to include a particular 09:23
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`17
` 1 limitation, that it would have been obvious to 09:23
` 2 modify Yan or Kane to include that limitation? 09:24
` 3 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:24
` 4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall with respect 09:24
` 5 to Claim 1. 09:24
` 6 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:24
` 7 Q You don't recall what? 09:24
` 8 A I don't recall offering an opinion that a 09:24
` 9 particular limitation is -- may require modification 09:24
`10 of either Yan or Kane. 09:24
`11 Q You've just looked through your 09:24
`12 declaration for the portion of your analysis that 09:24
`13 where you've analyzed Claim 1; is that right? 09:25
`14 A Yes. 09:25
`15 Q When you just reviewed your declaration, 09:25
`16 did you identify anyplace where you offered the 09:25
`17 opinion that a limitation may be met by modifying 09:25
`18 Yan or Kane, if the limitation is deemed to be not 09:25
`19 disclosed in Yan or Kane? 09:25
`20 A I reviewed my declaration, and I don't see 09:25
`21 a specific disclosure to that. And I -- 09:25
`22 Q Would you agree, sir, that if -- 09:25
`23 withdrawn. 09:25
`24 How confident are you that each limitation 09:25
`25 of Claim 1 is disclosed in Yan or Kane? 09:25
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`18
` 1 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:25
` 2 THE WITNESS: Very confident. It's my 09:25
` 3 opinion that each and every limitation of Claim 09:25
` 4 1 is present in Yan or -- and/or Kane. And the 09:25
` 5 combination renders that limitation obvious. 09:26
` 6 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:26
` 7 Q Did you conclude that each limitation of 09:26
` 8 Claim 1 was expressly disclosed in Yan or Kane, or 09:26
` 9 both? 09:26
`10 A Yes. 09:26
`11 Q I didn't see anyplace where you asserted 09:26
`12 that a limitation is not expressly disclosed, 09:26
`13 however, it is inherent. 09:26
`14 Is that the case? 09:26
`15 MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form. 09:26
`16 BY MR. DOVEL: 09:26
`17 Q Let me give you a clearer question. 09:26
`18 Did you in your declaration express the 09:26
`19 opinion that there were any limitations in Claim 1 09:26
`20 that would be inherent in Yan or Kane? 09:26
`21 A It is my opinion that Yan or Kane, or 09:27
`22 both, expressly or inherently disclose each and 09:27
`23 every limitation of Claim 1 and thus render it 09:27
`24 obvious. I mean, for instance -- for instance, in 09:27
`25 paragraphs 102, 103, and 104, it is my opinion that 09:27
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Madisetti, Ph.D., Vijay 06-25-2015
`
`19
` 1 the logic in the controller inherently uses 09:27
` 2 software. That's one of the opinions that I've 09:28
` 3 offered. 09:28
` 4 Q You say 102, 103, 104. I don't see the 09:28
` 5 word "inherent" in 102, 103, or 104. Can you find 09:28
` 6 it and point me to that? 09:28
` 7 A It's my opinion that, for example, in 09:28
` 8 paragraph 103, the use of the word "logic" in the 09:28
` 9 claimed information gateway that builds data blocks 09:28
`10 and assigns addresses and accesses a message 09:28
`11 database is a software and discloses software to one 09:28
`12 of ordinary skill in the art. 09:28
`13 Q My question, sir, is about -- we're 09:28
`14 talking about paragraph 103, right? 09:28
`15 A Yes, sir. 09:28
`16 Q And what you've said is that one of 09:28
`17 ordinary skill in the art would read the disclosure 09:28
`18 of Kane and understand that the controller was 09:28
`19 software; is that right? 09:28
`20 A One of ordinary skill in the art would 09:29
`21 understand that the controller would contain 09:29
`22 software and hardware. 09:29
`23 Q Okay. My question is a little different. 09:29
`24 It's not whether one of ordinary skill in the art 09:29
`25 would read and understand these limitations. 09:29
`
`(866) 448 -
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
