KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`SONY COMPUTER )
`
`ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA )
`
`LLC, )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` v. ) CASE NO.: IPR2015-00396
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS ) IPR2015-00476
`
`CORPORATION, ) IPR2015-00533
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
` )
`
` ) DEPOSITION OF KARON
`
` ) MACLEAN, VANCOUVER BRITISH
`
` ) COLUMBIA NOVEMBER 20 & 21,
`
` ) 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The discovery deposition of KARON MACLEAN, taken in
`
`the above-entitled cause, before Spencer J. Charest, BCSRA
`
`No.429, Official reporter, on the 20th and 21st of
`
`November, 2015, at 1253 Johnston Street, Vancouver, B.C.
`
`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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`SONY COMPUTER )
`
`ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA )
`
`LLC, )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` v. ) CASE NO.: IPR2015-00396
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS ) IPR2015-00476
`
`CORPORATION, ) IPR2015-00533
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
` )
`
` ) DEPOSITION OF KARON
`
` ) MACLEAN, VANCOUVER BRITISH
`
` ) COLUMBIA NOVEMBER 20 & 21,
`
` ) 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The discovery deposition of KARON MACLEAN, taken in
`
`the above-entitled cause, before Spencer J. Charest, BCSRA
`
`No.429, Official reporter, on the 20th and 21st of
`
`November, 2015, at 1253 Johnston Street, Vancouver, B.C.
`
`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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 1
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` ERISE IP
`
` 5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd.
`
` Suite 200
`
` Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`
` (720) 689-5440
`
` BY: MR. ABRAN KEAN.
`
` On behalf of the Petitioner;
`
` GREEN ESPEL PLLP
`
` 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
`
` SUITE 2200
`
` MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
`
` BY: ROBERT J. GILBERTSON,
`
` On behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
` ALSO PRESENT: CALLIE PENDERGRASS,
`
` SENIOR TECHNICAL ADVISOR
`
`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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 2
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
` I N D E X
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
`EXAMINATION PAGE.
`
`Page 3
`
`Examination of Karen MacLean by Mr. Kean 4
`
`Examination of Karon Maclean by Mr. Gilbertson 267
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1027 Photocopy of hand-drawn
`
` illustration by Ms. Maclean 188
`
`Exhibit 1028 Itaya et al., patent of input
`
` system including resistance film
`
` touch panel and pushed position
`
` detecting device 222
`
`Exhibit 1029 Press release for the FingerWorks
`
` iGesture Pad 236
`
`Exhibit 1030 Article from the New York Times
`
` dated January 24th, 2002 246
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 1031 Document entitled "A Multi-Touch
`
`19
`
` Three-Dimensional Touch Sensitive
`
` Tablet" 261
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 3
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
` EXAMINATION BY
`
`MR. KEAN:
`
` Q. Will you state your name for the record, please.
`
` A. Karen MacLean.
`
` Q. And, Dr. MacLean, the same ground rules from the
`
`other day are going to apply on today's deposition. So
`
`verbal answers, please. I will try not to speak over you.
`
`If you want to break at any time just let me know and we
`
`can take a break.
`
` A. Okay. Thanks.
`
` Q. One thing that came up the other day is you
`
`mentioned at some point you were feeling kind of tired?
`
` A. M'mm-hmm.
`
` Q. If that happens today we can certainly take a
`
`break whenever you would like.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. If you answer my questions I'm going to assume
`
`that you're able to answer them fully and honestly. Is
`
`that fair?
`
` A. Yes, and I will be clear when I want a break.
`
` Q. Okay. Very good. Today's deposition is going to
`
`cover opinions you offered in declarations in three
`
`proceedings. The first is IPR2015-00396, and I'm going to
`
`refer to that today as the 00396 proceeding. Would you
`
`understand what I'm talking about?
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 4
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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. Yes.
`
` MR. GILBERTSON: Can I interject on that.
`
` MR. KEAN: Sure thing.
`
` MR. GILBERTSON: Here on the record. One thing
`
`we did in an earlier deposition that I think was helpful
`
`is to ask that in the reporting of the deposition when 396
`
`is used as a shorthand that it be typed as 00396, and when
`
`533 is used, 00533, and when 476 is used, 00476. So that
`
`even if the words that come out of our mouth are 476 it
`
`will be helpful for the judges to have it say 00476. This
`
`is because we refer to patent numbers with just three
`
`digits very often but what we're referring to with 00396,
`
`00533 and 00476 is not patent numbers, but action numbers.
`
`So if the court reporter is amenable to that and if all
`
`the parties are I would like to make that request.
`
` MR. KEAN: I think that's a good idea and a
`
`helpful way to structure this.
`
` (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
`
` MR. KEAN:
`
` Q. Okay. Dr. MacLean, I'm going to hand you what
`
`has previously been marked 2007 in the 00396 proceeding.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Please turn with me to the last page of that
`
`document and confirm that that's your signature?
`
` A. Yes, that's my signature.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 5
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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. Before we get started today on your declarations,
`
`is there any changes or corrections that you need to make
`
`this to declaration?
`
` A. Not to this declaration. There will be a small
`
`change -- or clarification to a later one.
`
` Q. Okay. If you turn to pages 8 through 10 in this
`
`document, it's a list of exhibits analyzed.
`
` A. M'mm-hmm. Yes.
`
` Q. Will you confirm that you analyzed fully each of
`
`the documents listed here?
`
` MR. GILBERTSON: Objection to the form as to the
`
`word "fully."
`
` THE WITNESS: I have read all of the exhibits
`
`listed here.
`
` MR. KEAN:
`
` Q. Are there any documents that you reviewed in
`
`preparing your opinion that are not listed here?
`
` A. I would say not extensively. I certainly did
`
`broader research than this, but these were the ones that I
`
`thought were worth putting in as exhibits.
`
` Q. The second proceeding we're going to be
`
`discussing today is IPR2015-00476 and I will be referring
`
`to that today as the 00476 proceeding. Will you
`
`understand what I'm referring to?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 6
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
` Q. And I'm going to hand you what has been marked as
`
`Exhibit 2007 in that proceeding, that proceeding being the
`
`00476 proceeding. And I'm going to ask you the same set
`
`of questions. First, would you confirm that that's your
`
`signature on the last page of the document.
`
` A. Yes, this is my signature.
`
` Q. Do you need to make any corrections or changes to
`
`your opinions offered in this document?
`
` A. I am going to take a moment to make sure of which
`
`of these three I had a small clarification on, because I'm
`
`not seeing my notes where I thought they were. Just give
`
`me just a moment.
`
` I would like to correct what I said about the
`
`00396 declaration because that is the one that I had a
`
`problem with and I thought it was a later one. Sorry
`
`about that. Should I go ahead and say what that problem
`
`is?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. So it's on the exhibits listed. Sorry for not
`
`catching this. So on page 8 of the 00396 declaration
`
`Exhibit 1009 is erroneously listed as patent number
`
`7336260 to Martin et al, and it should say Martin 6563487,
`
`which is the one that is the correct exhibit to be using
`
`here.
`
` Q. Okay. And so you're just correcting --
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 7
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
` A. The only error is in the exhibit listing. I
`
`am -- in the declaration itself I am referring to the
`
`Page 8
`
`487 -- Martin 487.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. So it's simply a typographical error in the list
`
`of exhibits.
`
` Q. Sure thing. Thank you. Is that a typographical
`
`error that also appears in the 00476 declaration?
`
` A. No, because Martin does not show up. So what it
`
`was is there is two Martin references that come up in
`
`these larger proceedings and they got switched in the
`
`exhibit list, but neither Martin is listed in the other
`
`ones.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. So it was limited to this location.
`
` Q. Thank you. Are there any other changes or
`
`corrections you would like to make to either the 00396 or
`
`the 00476 declaration?
`
` A. No. I did discover a few typos here and there
`
`but I don't think anything that's of significance to the
`
`proceedings.
`
` Q. Thank you. And would you confirm in the 00476
`
`declaration, would you look at the exhibits analyzed there
`
`and confirm that you reviewed those documents. It's on
`
`pages 8 through 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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 8
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
` A. Yes, I have read all these exhibits.
`
` Q. Are there any other documents that you reviewed
`
`in preparing your opinions here that are not listed?
`
` A. Yes, I did look at a larger group of documents,
`
`but these are the ones I thought were important to bring
`
`forward.
`
` Q. What other type of documents did you look at?
`
` A. Well, for example, when I -- there's a few cases
`
`where I have listed academic papers, and in choosing the
`
`academic papers that I wanted to represent here I looked
`
`at a larger set and I choose representative ones.
`
` Q. Anything else?
`
` A. I looked on the web for different mentions and
`
`articles and things like that. So I did research, and as
`
`usual when you do research, you look at a large set of
`
`information and narrow it down to the most relevant items.
`
` Q. So is it fair to say that the exhibits listed
`
`here are what you viewed as the most relevant documents to
`
`your opinion?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you your third
`
`declaration that's relevant today. It's also
`
`Exhibit 2007, and this one is for the 00533 proceeding.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And the same set of questions. Will you please
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 9
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`confirm your signature is on the last page of this
`
`declaration.
`
` A. Yes, my signature is on the last page.
`
` Q. All right. And have any of your opinions in this
`
`declaration changed or do you require any corrections?
`
` A. No, no corrections on this one.
`
` Q. And if you turn with me to pages 8 through 10 of
`
`this document, will you confirm that you reviewed the
`
`exhibits listed here.
`
` A. Yes, I have read all of these exhibits.
`
` Q. And once again, are there any other exhibits that
`
`you reviewed in preparing your opinions that are included
`
`in this document that are not listed here?
`
` A. Same answer as before, which I did my broader
`
`research and then choose these as the most representative
`
`and relevant.
`
` Q. Okay. Before we get started on specific opinions
`
`today I want to try to understand your analysis in forming
`
`your opinions a little bit. Is it fair to say that you
`
`performed the same analysis for each of the references and
`
`each of the opinions you offered?
`
` A. By references you mean the other patents brought
`
`to play, for example, Pallakoff would be an example of
`
`what you mean by a reference?
`
` Q. That's right?
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 10
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
` A. Yes. Yes, I did comparable methods to my
`
`research in all cases.
`
` Q. And that would also be true for the 245 and 692
`
`proceedings that we discussed earlier this week?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. What is your understanding of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art?
`
` A. A general definition or the specific
`
`interpretation with respect to this case?
`
` Q. You know, I would like to do both, but first I
`
`would like to understand your understanding of what a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is and why that
`
`matters to an obviousness analysis.
`
` A. Well, I will refer to the definition that I was
`
`given for it to work with in this case, and that's in my
`
`declaration. Level of skill in the art, for example, in
`
`the 00476 declaration, which is the one I had open here,
`
`it's the same in all three of them. On page 13,
`
`paragraph 30 it says "I am" -- whoops, that's level of
`
`skill in the art. Yes. "Obviousness is to be judged from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill, not the
`
`perspective of an expert. Even if the invention would
`
`have been obvious to the brightest minds in the field that
`
`does not render it unpatentable. I understand that highly
`
`educated and trained individuals know more and thus more
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 11
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`inventions are obvious to them. On the other hand,
`
`individuals with little education or training would have
`
`more difficulty in making connections and therefore fewer
`
`inventions would be obvious to them."
`
` So this is how I was instructed to interpret this
`
`concept and that's what I did.
`
` Q. Are you aware that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art is an objective concept?
`
` A. By objective concept you mean it could be
`
`precisely defined or what -- I'm not quite sure what you
`
`mean by objective in this context.
`
` Q. Sure. Are you aware that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art is not -- it's not a subjective
`
`perspective, it's an objective perspective from --
`
` A. M'mm-hmm.
`
` Q. -- someone that would have a certain level of
`
`education and experience?
`
` A. I understand that there's a lot of guidance in
`
`this description to assess that, but I would also infer
`
`that there needs to be some interpretation of a particular
`
`concept about what skill in the art is referring to in
`
`this particular case. I mean, depending on the -- a
`
`discipline has to be stated, for example, before you can
`
`nail it down more precisely.
`
` I'm not sure I'm completely understanding your
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 12
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`question. As an objective con -- I understand that there
`
`is a way that it can be interpreted. There's lots of
`
`instruction here. But it will have to be interpreted in
`
`the context of the discipline and the case and the
`
`situation. That seems obvious to me.
`
` So if some subjectivity would come into it, I
`
`hope not. For example, I believe that my colleagues and I
`
`would probably come to the same definition of it -- the
`
`same interpretation of it in a given case, if that's what
`
`you mean.
`
` Q. And when you say the same interpretation of it,
`
`what are you referring to there?
`
` A. Well, later in my declaration I was asked to
`
`define what level of skill in the art meant in this
`
`particular context, so that would be what I'm referring
`
`to.
`
` Q. Are you aware that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art is supposed to approach problems with some
`
`level of creativity and commonsense?
`
` A. Some level, yes.
`
` Q. What's your understanding of "some level"?
`
` A. Well, the level that would come based on the
`
`training and knowledge you had, but also the kinds of
`
`problems that have been put before you. And I have taught
`
`quite a few students in my career and worked with
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 13
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`graduates and I think I understand the range of creativity
`
`that a typical person in this area would have at a certain
`
`level of training and experience.
`
` So there will be some, and it varies from
`
`individual to individual, and I think we're talking about
`
`an average level of creativity and skill.
`
` Q. In performing your analysis did you assume a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have some
`
`creativity and commonsense in evaluating whether or not it
`
`was obvious to combine references?
`
` A. Absolutely, yes.
`
` Q. Who would qualify as a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art for these three proceedings in your
`
`opinion?
`
` A. So this was section C in all three petitions. So
`
`again I'm looking at the 00476, somewhat arbitrary
`
`selection of the three, and in this one it's paragraph 52,
`
`page 23.
`
` And in this definition I largely agree with the
`
`definition provided by Dr. Welch. So there's some
`
`objectivity for you. We both came to large agreement.
`
` My one difference from Dr. Welch's opinion was to
`
`actually broaden the level of background training that an
`
`opinion of skill in the area of user interface design in
`
`particular handheld design would have. He mentioned
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 14
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`computer science and I said as well mechanical,
`
`biomechanical, industrial engineering, not just electrical
`
`engineering, computer science or computer engineering
`
`which is what he mentioned. So I actually broadened the
`
`definition of where a person might get their expertise
`
`from.
`
` Q. Why did you broaden it in that way?
`
` A. Well, for one thing, that's what my background is
`
`in so I do include myself in this definition. And at the
`
`time -- at the phase of my career where I would have met
`
`this definition, my background was in mechanical
`
`engineering and I feel that I met the definition. And I
`
`have taught many people who come from diverse backgrounds.
`
`You do not need a computer science background to be
`
`practising in human/computer interaction.
`
` Q. Let's discuss your background for a moment.
`
`Would you describe, after high school, your educational
`
`background.
`
` A. Certainly. I went to Stanford University for my
`
`undergrad and I majored in both biological sciences and
`
`mechanical engineering in the state for a second degree.
`
`My first intent had been to go to medical school and so I
`
`took a lot of biology and premedical sources which got me
`
`very interested in biomechanics and biology and
`
`physiology. But I wanted to build things, so I turned to
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 15
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`mechanical engineering.
`
` Then I went to MIT for my master's and ended up
`
`because of my joint interest in biomechanics and biology
`
`and physiology and engineering, I landed in a biomechanics
`
`lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the
`
`mechanical engineering department.
`
` And there I was exposed to people working on many
`
`biomechanics problems and I -- that is where I started
`
`working on haptics actually in my PhD degree.
`
` So I finished my master's. I worked as a robotics
`
`engineer in Utah for two years, and then I returned to MIT
`
`for my PhD. And at that time, that was in 1990, the field
`
`of haptics did not really exist, but the lab that I was in
`
`at MIT was very strong in teleoperation, as had been the
`
`robotics lab I worked in Utah. Probably the world leaders
`
`in that area. And that we were starting to experiment
`
`with virtual environments -- teleroboted environments that
`
`people could interact with, which were the very first
`
`haptic interfaces. So I was part of the first haptic
`
`interfaces that were ever built. And interacted with
`
`those people and I started working on that area too.
`
` So that's what my PhD involved. And then I worked
`
`in Silicon Valley from 1996 to 2000 and I was a member of
`
`a research staff of a place called Interval Research. At
`
`that point we were -- that's where I was really exposed to
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 16
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`the human/computer interaction side of things where I was
`
`hired to do human/computer interaction because it was felt
`
`that that's what I was practising. And I worked with
`
`other people who were seminal inventors in that area and
`
`lived in Silicon Valley at that time. And then I was
`
`hired by UBC, my present employer, to start their HCI
`
`curriculum and program to be the primary HCI faculty in
`
`their department. And I have continued to do that since.
`
` Q. I believe you mentioned your work with haptic
`
`interfaces. Would you describe that in a little more
`
`detail, please.
`
` A. What haptic interfaces are, is that your
`
`question?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Yes. Starting in the early 90s when I started
`
`working on them we actually didn't call them haptic
`
`interfaces. My first term for it was kinesthetic
`
`interfaces. And they were simply robots that interacted
`
`with people instead of pushing things or pushing things
`
`around or moving in the air.
`
` And so we had to learn a great deal about people
`
`and people's responses to them and people's perception of
`
`them in order to do that well, and this wasn't very
`
`well-known at the time. And so it was an advantage in
`
`this period, and it still is an advantage, to know a
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 17
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`certain amount of human physiology and human perception
`
`and to know about doing experiments on people, because it
`
`is hard to build the machines without the knowledge of the
`
`people and the interaction.
`
` So haptic interfaces started primarily as -- at
`
`least at that time in that way, as force feedback devices.
`
`So we were interacting with forces. And then it turned
`
`more and more towards there was more and more study of
`
`vibrotactile interfaces simply because they're much easier
`
`to construct and easier to embed into devices, for
`
`example, portable devices, because they don't need to be
`
`grounded, they don't need to have reaction forces, and
`
`they can actually be inserted into a device.
`
` But understanding how people perceive the haptic
`
`feedback, the vibrotactile feedback, was actually a very
`
`different kind of problem than trying to understand how
`
`people would perceive and interpret force feedback, which
`
`is more similar to what they feel in the real world.
`
` With vibrotactile feedback we are making synthetic
`
`sensations that people are not used to perceiving and it
`
`was a new concept that we had to teach to people and
`
`understand their perception of it.
`
` So a great deal of my research has focussed on this
`
`understanding -- this creating and designing sensations
`
`that people understand and also putting -- situating them
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 18
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`on devices and looking at the interaction techniques for
`
`people to make use of them.
`
` Q. Would you consider yourself an expert in
`
`software?
`
` A. I would not call myself an expert in software
`
`compared to my colleagues who are software engineers. I
`
`have written a lot of code and writing code is part of
`
`what I do. And my students are very expert in writing
`
`software. Some of them are software engineers. We
`
`produced very advanced code in my lab, for example. I
`
`would not call myself at the forefront. It is not what my
`
`research is.
`
` Q. In your experience and understanding would an
`
`operating system include software?
`
` A. An operating system is made of software.
`
` Q. In your experience and understanding would
`
`firmware include software?
`
` A. Firmware does include software. It is also made
`
`of software.
`
` Q. And in your experience and understanding would
`
`applications or programs be written with software?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. If something was written in software -- let me
`
`rephrase that.
`
` If a functionality was written in software would
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 19
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`Page 20
`
`that fact that it was in software give you any indication
`
`as to whether or not it was an operating system-level
`
`software program, a firmware software program or an
`
`application-level software program?
`
` A. I'm going to try and rephrase your question to
`
`make sure I understood it.
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` A. I think you said that simply the fact that
`
`something is represented in code in software, would that
`
`give any clue -- just the fact of it being software, would
`
`that give any clue whether it's firmware, operating system
`
`or application level?
`
` Q. Yeah. That's generally what I'm trying to get
`
`at, yes.
`
` A. All of those things are written in software so
`
`no, but the software might look very different for each of
`
`them.
`
` Q. How would it look different?
`
` A. That depends. It will depend a great deal
`
`depending on the kind of device, the kind of operating
`
`system, the level of operating system and what its primary
`
`purpose and function is. And not all systems have
`
`firmware, for example, so some of these levels might
`
`actually be absent.
`
` A very primitive microprocessor doesn't have an
`
`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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 20
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`operating system. You know, it might only have the
`
`firmware. So what is even present will maybe be different
`
`depending on the system and what it looks like and how
`
`sophisticated it is.
`
` For example, something that I have worked a lot
`
`with is a real-time operating system where very low
`
`latency is required and a very quick response time, and
`
`that kind of operating system looks fairly different and
`
`different specifications than, for example, a Windows
`
`operating system which doesn't have those requirements.
`
`It would be special purpose operating systems.
`
` Q. So just the fact that something is written in
`
`software would not signal to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art that it needs to be done in the operating
`
`system level; is that right?
`
` A. Not just mentioning -- applying the word
`
`"software" to it is not very specific. It's a broad term.
`
` Q. Likewise, just the fact that something is written
`
`in software would not signal to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art that it needs to be done at the
`
`application level; is that right?
`
` A. Not generally. No. There could be a context in
`
`a statement or statement that gave more insight into that,
`
`but not standing alone.
`
` Q. Looking back at paragraph 52 where you define the
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 21
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`level of skill in the art for these three proceedings, in
`
`addition to expanding the -- well, let me ask you this.
`
`Is it your understanding if someone had a biomechanical or
`
`an industrial engineering degree that they would also need
`
`to have some type of ability or facility with software and
`
`computers in order to be a person of skill in the art in
`
`this case?
`
` A. You said "also." Very frequently, but I will
`
`agree not in every case that comes automatically with it.
`
`It's rare even at this time, in the early 2000s, it would
`
`be rare to not have a pretty good -- it's very difficult
`
`to get through school, I think, as requirement of all of
`
`these programs that I have ever seen to have a certain
`
`amount of software ability.
`
` I would expect there to be more software
`
`experience in a computer science degree. I would
`
`certainly hope so. But there's usually quite a lot and
`
`sometimes an enormous amount in the other degree programs.
`
` So I did not feel it needed to be stated
`
`separately, but I -- I will acknowledge that you could
`
`certainly find some graduates of such programs who perhaps
`
`have less than I would want to see here. It would be
`
`unusual.
`
` Q. In this paragraph you go on to discuss what you
`
`quote as designed for human use in quotes in your
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 22
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`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
`
`definition. Do you see that?
`
` A. M'mm-hmm.
`
` Q. What do you mean by that?
`
` A. And this indeed is what I was focussing on more
`
`strongly in my definition of skill in the art more than
`
`the ability to write software or be familiar with
`
`software.
`
` Designed for human use is not easy, and in my
`
`belief it's better done with training. It's not something
`
`that you necessarily will do a good job in without
`
`training, any more than you could design an electrical
`
`circuit without some educational training in it.
`
` So what I mean by designing for human use
`
`principles of design, understanding basic tenets of human
`
`perception and how people, for example, tend to solve
`
`problems, how people tend to -- if you're designing for
`
`physical objects, how people tend to grasp things and
`
`basic biomechanical understanding of grasp. How people
`
`interpret things that they see.
`
` For example, an introductory human/computer
`
`interaction class will include some basic perception like
`
`basic principles of visual perception. Both techniques of
`
`evaluation, simple user-centered evaluation, and design
`
`principles of how you go about designing things, both
`
`principles for designing things that are going to be
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1037 Page 23
`
`
`
`KARON MACLEAN 11/20/2015
`
`Pa
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
