`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY COMPUTER, )
`
`ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, )
`
`LLC, )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` -vs- ) CASE NO.: IPR2015-00396
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS, ) IPR2015-00476
`
`CORPORATION, ) IPR2015-00533
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
`
`
`
`
` DEPOSITION OF PENG LIM
`
` DECEMBER 1 & 2, 2015
`
`
`
`Reported by:
`
`ANNE M. TORREANO, RPR, CCRR, CLR, CSR No. 10520
`
`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. 1038 Page 1
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 2
`
` TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015 &
`
` WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2015,
`
` Deposition of PENG LIM, held at the Marriott
`
`Hotel, 1800 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame,
`
`California, before Anne M. Torreano, a Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter, Registered Professional
`
`Reporter, California Certified Realtime Reporter and
`
`a Certified LiveNote Reporter.
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1038 Page 2
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
` INDEX
`
`Page 3
`
`PENG LIM PAGE
`
` BY MR. KEAN (DECEMBER 1) 5
`
` BY MR. KEAN (DECEMBER 2) 261
`
` --oOo--
`
`
`
` INDEX OF PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS REFERRED TO
`
`APLIX EXHIBIT 2009 (IPR2015-00476)
`
`APLIX EXHIBIT 2009 (IPR2015-00396)
`
`APLIX EXHIBIT 2009 (IPR2015-00533)
`
`APLIX EXHIBIT 2046 (IPR2015-00396)
`
`APLIX EXHIBIT 2045 (IPR2015-00396)
`
`SCEA EXHIBIT 1011
`
`SCEA EXHIBIT 1001
`
`SCEA EXHIBIT 1006
`
`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. 1038 Page 3
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 4
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`FOR THE Petitioner:
`
` ERISE IP
`
` BY: ABRAN KEAN
`
` 5600 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 200
`
` Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
`
` (720) 689-5440
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` GREENE ESPEL, PLLP
`
` BY: ROBERT J. GILBERTSON
`
` 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200
`
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
` (612) 378-8333
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` CALLIE PENDERGRASS, ERISE IP
`
` 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. 1038 Page 4
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015; 9:15 A.M.
`
` PENG LIM,
`
` having been duly sworn to tell the truth,
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. KEAN:
`
` Q. Good morning. Will you state your name for
`
`the record, please?
`
` A. Yes, my name is Peng Lim.
`
` Q. And, Mr. Lim, is there any reason that
`
`would prevent you from testifying accurately and
`
`truthfully today?
`
` A. No. I will testify accurately and
`
`truthfully today.
`
` Q. And today's deposition is going to cover
`
`opinions that you offered in three declarations
`
`prepared for the 00396 proceeding, the 00476
`
`proceeding, and the 0533 proceeding. And each of
`
`those proceedings reference the '313 patent.
`
` Would it be all right with you if I refer
`
`to these today as the 00396 proceeding, the 00476
`
`proceeding and the 0533 proceeding?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I'm going to hand you your declarations in
`
`each of these.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 5
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` Here is Exhibit 2009, and this is your
`
`declaration in the 00396 proceeding.
`
` Mr. Lim, will you please turn to the last
`
`page of that document and confirm that that's your
`
`signature?
`
` A. Yes, that's mine.
`
` Q. And will you please turn in the document to
`
`pages 9 through 11 and confirm that you've reviewed
`
`the exhibits that are listed there?
`
` A. Can I have a quick question? Can I use my
`
`own copy, which is the same, for the benefit of
`
`easier to flip through versus multiple copy? But
`
`it's up to you whatever that -- you know.
`
` Q. Yes, that's fine with me. Just for the
`
`record, if you're referring to a document, I may ask
`
`you what you're looking at, but that's fine with me.
`
`You can look at that version.
`
` A. So we're at 00396; right?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. And page?
`
` Q. 9 through 11.
`
` A. Yes, I did read through all the exhibits.
`
` Q. Are there any other exhibits you reviewed
`
`in preparing your opinion for this proceeding? And
`
`"this" being the 00396 proceeding.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 6
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` A. Any other exhibits?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Any other documents that you reviewed?
`
` A. When I did the research, you know, I might
`
`scan through some other documents. Those documents
`
`that I thought wasn't the most relative -- relevant
`
`to this case, I did not put it on.
`
` Q. So is it fair to say that the list of
`
`documents here are the documents that you thought
`
`were most relevant to your opinion?
`
` A. Based on what I've read, yes.
`
` Q. And any documents that you reviewed that
`
`you did not list here you thought were less relevant
`
`or less important to your opinion; is that accurate?
`
` A. That's correct. Either that or the
`
`information are presented in this exhibit already.
`
`So it will be either a repeat of the same point or
`
`the exhibit here give a better explanation.
`
` Q. Have any of your opinions in the 00396
`
`proceeding changed since you prepared your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. Opinions? No.
`
` Q. Do you have any additions or corrections to
`
`make to the declaration itself?
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 7
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. Will you please walk me through those?
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Should I go through all three or just stay
`
`with 00396, then we move on later?
`
` Q. Let's do 00396, and then we'll do the same
`
`thing for the other two.
`
` A. Perfect. All right.
`
` So on 00396, let's go to page 65.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. All right. Okay. So on paragraph 156 I
`
`listed claim 3, and there was a code of the claim 3
`
`that came from patent '313. And in there it say
`
`that, "the handheld electronic device of figure 1
`
`wherein the processor receives signal generated by
`
`the input elements of the first or second input
`
`assemblies when manipulated by the human user."
`
` You see that?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Okay. In paragraph 157, when I tried to
`
`summarize or rephrase what it was saying there in
`
`the second-to-last sentence, I say, "Claim 3 teaches
`
`that the signals generated by the first and second
`
`input assemblies."
`
` And sorry there was a typo. It should be
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 8
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`"or," and it was clearly shown at claim 3 say "or."
`
`It was just my typo.
`
` Q. Okay. So your change here is to change
`
`paragraph 157, and you want to change the "and" in
`
`the last sentence of that paragraph between "first
`
`and second" to "or"; is that right?
`
` A. That's correct, so that it match the claim
`
`3 language.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` MR. GILBERTSON: Just to clarify, it would
`
`be the first instance of the word "and." It comes
`
`up twice.
`
` MR. KEAN: Very good.
`
`BY MR. KEAN:
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
`
` Are there any other changes or additions
`
`you have to your declaration in the 00396
`
`proceeding?
`
` A. I think that's it. That's all I can
`
`remember right now.
`
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you your
`
`declaration in the 00476 proceeding, and we'll run
`
`through the same set of questions.
`
` Will you please confirm for me that that's
`
`your signature on the last page of the document?
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 9
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` A. Yes, that's mine.
`
` Q. And will you please turn with me to pages 9
`
`through 11 and confirm that you reviewed the
`
`exhibits listed there in preparing your opinion?
`
` A. Can I get a copy of Exhibit 1008?
`
` Q. What document is that? Is that the Hedberg
`
`reference?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Can you clarify for me if you don't mind?
`
` Q. Sure. I don't think we have a copy of
`
`Hedberg. We hadn't planned to discuss that, but
`
`this document you just handed me appears to be --
`
`well, this one appears to be Exhibit 1012.
`
` MR. GILBERTSON: Why don't we go off the
`
`record for a minute and I can clarify.
`
` MR. KEAN: Sure.
`
` (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.)
`
` MR. GILBERTSON: I think we're ready to go
`
`back on the record.
`
`BY MR. KEAN:
`
` Q. Okay. And I think the question that was
`
`pending was: Did you review the exhibits listed on
`
`pages 9 through 11 in the 00476 declaration in
`
`preparing your opinion for that proceeding?
`
` A. I have reviewed all the exhibits except
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 10
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 1008, that I do not believe I have provided
`
`any opinion on Exhibit 1008 in my declaration.
`
` Q. And Exhibit 1008 in the 00476 proceeding is
`
`the Hedberg reference; is that right?
`
` A. Based on the document, yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And so you're saying that you did
`
`not review the Hedberg document in preparing your
`
`opinion for the 00476 proceeding; is that accurate?
`
` A. I might have scanned through it. I did not
`
`provide opinion on the particular reference.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you recall if you provided an
`
`opinion on that particular reference for the 00376
`
`proceeding or the 00533 proceeding?
`
` A. 00396 you mean.
`
` Q. 00396. Thank you.
`
` A. I do not recall that, providing any
`
`opinions on this.
`
` Q. Apart from the Hedberg reference,
`
`Exhibit 1008 in the 00476 proceeding, did you review
`
`the rest of the exhibits listed there?
`
` A. Yes, I did.
`
` Q. Are there any other documents that you
`
`reviewed in preparing your opinion in the 00476
`
`proceeding?
`
` A. Yes, I gone through -- as I say, a little
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 11
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`bit earlier, I did go through some research, and I
`
`have seen some other documents. And I chose those
`
`documents that are most relevant to this case, and I
`
`put it on the exhibits here.
`
` Q. So your background review of other
`
`documents for the 00476 proceeding would have been
`
`similar to your discussion earlier as to the 00396
`
`proceeding; is that right?
`
` A. The research process, yes.
`
` Q. I'm going to hand you your declaration in
`
`the third proceeding we'll be discussing today.
`
`It's the 000533 proceeding. And it's Exhibit --
`
`your declaration is Exhibit 2009 in that proceeding
`
`as well.
`
` I'm sorry. Let me take a step back.
`
` Did you have any changes or additions to
`
`your declaration in the 00476 proceeding?
`
` A. Yes, I do. Thanks for asking.
`
` Can we turn to page 36 on 00476, please?
`
` Q. Okay. Go ahead.
`
` A. On paragraph 82, line No. 3, when he say
`
`"Pallakoff and Ishihara," I would like to take out
`
`"and Ishihara." Again, that was a typo. It's not,
`
`you know, relevant to this particular paragraph. It
`
`says "Ishihara."
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 12
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` Do you see that, "Pallakoff and Ishihara"?
`
` Then the following sentence -- not
`
`following sentence, following line you say
`
`"Pallakoff," open bracket, "or Ishihara," closed
`
`bracket, and then that "or Ishihara" and the whole
`
`bracket, I would like to remove that as well.
`
` Q. Okay. I may have a couple follow-ups for
`
`you on that one.
`
` You state here in paragraph 82 that you do
`
`not believe it would be obvious to one skilled in
`
`the art in 2003 to modify the combination of
`
`Pallakoff and Ishihara in view of Liebenow.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. If we changed the "and" to "or" as you just
`
`described --
`
` A. No. I mean cross that out, remove it.
`
` Q. Okay. Then what combination are you
`
`referring to there?
`
` A. Pallakoff in view of Liebenow.
`
` Q. I'm sorry. So you want to delete
`
`"Ishihara" altogether from that paragraph? Is that
`
`what you're saying?
`
` A. That is correct. There are two instances
`
`that Ishihara show up.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 13
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. And one is "and Ishihara" on the top line.
`
`On the bottom line say "or Ishihara." Both of them
`
`I would like to remove.
`
` Q. Why would you like to remove those?
`
` A. The reason is -- if you don't mind, go to
`
`page 34. On the top of the page 34, it say E,
`
`"Pallakoff and Liebenow should not be combined for
`
`purposes of adding an input controller to
`
`Pallakoff."
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. So I was referring to Pallakoff and
`
`Liebenow, and when I typed paragraph 2, that was my
`
`mistake that I put Ishihara on it.
`
` Q. I see. Okay.
`
` A. Oversight.
`
` Q. Including Ishihara in paragraph 82 was just
`
`a typographical error?
`
` A. It's just a typo. Yeah, it's just a typo.
`
` Q. Okay. Any other changes to the declaration
`
`Exhibit 2009 in the 00476 proceeding?
`
` A. Yes, page 27. Page 27, please. Actually,
`
`on page 27, it's true for 00396 as well. I forgot
`
`to mention that. But let's start with this. Then
`
`if you don't mind, I would like to correct the same
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 14
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`difference exactly the same on 397 as well.
`
` Q. Sure. Go ahead.
`
` A. All right. Paragraph 56, please. Line 6
`
`start with, "In mechanical engineering, biomedical
`
`engineering, or industrial engineering."
`
` You see that?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. I like to change the "biomedical" to
`
`"biomechanical engineering." Again, that was a
`
`typo.
`
` Q. What's the difference between biomedical
`
`engineering and biomechanical engineering?
`
` A. It's a different discipline, I believe, in
`
`engineering, and in this particular case, since we
`
`talk a lot about the mechanical aspect of the device
`
`as well as, you know, the hand interface and all
`
`these thing, and -- actually, when I typed that, I
`
`meant to say "biomedical." And again, there was a
`
`typo on that.
`
` And that actually stayed through throughout
`
`the other proceeding as well, you know, before
`
`'''245, I believe, the one before. And we have this
`
`one. I believe I since corrected on '097, but I
`
`will double-check it.
`
` Q. Okay. Any other changes that you'd like to
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 15
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`make to Exhibit 2009 in the 00476 proceeding?
`
` A. No, except I would like to make the same
`
`change on 00396 as well on page 27. I believe it's
`
`the same page, but let me double-check.
`
` Yes, page 27.
`
` Q. And you're referring to the change from
`
`"biomedical engineering" to "biomechanical
`
`engineering"; is that right?
`
` A. That's correct. And I explained before
`
`this paragraph or this line basically say that, you
`
`know, for the person in -- for a person with the
`
`ordinary skill of the art can have more degree -- or
`
`not more degree. In addition to degrees that listed
`
`here, electrical, computer or computer science, it
`
`could come from other engineering background.
`
` And I listed the three, and I explained to
`
`you before, actually, on 254 it actually could be
`
`more.
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` So when we discussed that a month or so ago
`
`in the first -- in connection with the first two
`
`proceedings, I believe that your testimony was that
`
`you changed this because, in your opinion, various
`
`degrees would be okay for a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art so long as they had a certain level of
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 16
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`capability within computers and things like that
`
`that are included within Dr. Welch's definition; is
`
`that right?
`
` A. That is correct, and it's still true here.
`
`The reason I changed was because that wasn't what I
`
`thought of when type it. I changed my own typo. I
`
`did not mean to change the meaning of the whole
`
`paragraph. Meaning that, as I explained to you
`
`before, it could include other disciplines that may
`
`or may not list on this particular page.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. Any other changes that
`
`you have to Exhibit 2009 in the 00476 proceeding?
`
` A. That's it.
`
` Q. Okay. And I think I handed you
`
`Exhibit 2009 in the 000533 proceeding as well, and
`
`I'd like to ask you the same set of questions.
`
` Please confirm, if you would, that that is
`
`your signature on the last page of the document.
`
` A. Yes, that's mine.
`
` Q. And then please turn with me to pages 9
`
`through 11 in that document and take a look at the
`
`exhibits listed there and confirm that you reviewed
`
`these exhibits in preparing your opinion.
`
` A. Same issue as 00476. Right now it's called
`
`Exhibit 1007, Hedberg. And as I flipped through
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 17
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`earlier, I do not believe I provide any opinion on
`
`this particular exhibit.
`
` Q. Okay. The remaining exhibits listed there,
`
`you reviewed each of these in preparing for your
`
`opinion on the 000533 proceeding; is that right?
`
` A. That is correct. I may put more emphasis
`
`on certain paragraph than the other, but I did go
`
`through all this document.
`
` Q. And is it true, like with the 00396 and the
`
`00476 proceedings, that you may have reviewed other
`
`documents, but the list here illustrates the
`
`documents that you thought were most relevant to
`
`your opinions?
`
` A. That is correct, at the time I wrote this
`
`report.
`
` Q. Do you have any changes or additions to the
`
`declaration in the 000533 proceeding?
`
` A. Yes, I do. Page 27, again, the same page
`
`as what we did earlier. I would like to change
`
`"biomedical" to "biomechanical," just as we did in
`
`00476 and 00396.
`
` Q. Okay. Any other changes?
`
` A. Yes, please.
`
` Page 58. You there?
`
` Q. Go ahead.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 18
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` A. On paragraph 137 -- well, maybe before
`
`that. Can I move up a little bit? Just right above
`
`136 I say that, "Armstrong 802 game function mapped
`
`to upper and backside surfaces rather than front and
`
`back surfaces."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` On the last sentence of paragraph 137 --
`
`I'll write the whole sentence. The sentence say,
`
`"it is clear from the figure below that Armstrong
`
`802 game controller only has buttons on the
`
`top/upper surface." Full stop. I would like to add
`
`"and backside surfaces." That would match
`
`consistency-wise to the top -- the sentence I just
`
`read earlier.
`
` So I would like to add "and backside
`
`surfaces" to the last sentence of paragraph 137.
`
` Q. So your opinion here is that Armstrong 802
`
`teaches game functions that are mapped to the upper
`
`and the backside surfaces; is that right?
`
` A. Yeah, you can say so, but that's not what
`
`the sentence exactly say. But yeah, you can say so.
`
`The sentence say -- the sentence I would like to
`
`change, it's just adding that four words. It wasn't
`
`try to change the meaning of that sentence.
`
` Q. Okay. Would you just recite the sentence
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 19
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`as you'd like it to be?
`
` A. Yeah, we can.
`
` "It is clear from the figure below that
`
`Armstrong 802 game controller only has buttons on
`
`the top/upper surface."
`
` And I would like to add "and backside
`
`surfaces." And that's the meaning of the sentence.
`
`The reason that -- you know, because you rephrase it
`
`with different word, that's why I would like to come
`
`back to this sentence basically.
`
` Q. Sure. Okay.
`
` And what's the reason for that change?
`
` A. Simply because that, as I said before, if
`
`you go up to that point 1, it say "rather than front
`
`and back surfaces." And that's what I meant to say.
`
`And when I typed the last sentence, again, that was
`
`left out at the time that I wrote the report.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you have any other changes or
`
`additions to your declaration in the 000533
`
`proceeding?
`
` A. Yes, I do. Page 47, please.
`
` And this is the -- I'll wait.
`
` Q. Go ahead.
`
` A. This is the format items I believe I
`
`pointed out in '''245 as well. It's just a
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 20
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
`formatting.
`
` Do you see on page 47 there's -- just right
`
`above paragraph 107 it say "2," then followed by
`
`"Opinion of Nonobvious Based on Market Needs." I
`
`would like to remove the 2. That was a format
`
`issue, format problems basically.
`
` And then --
`
` Q. Let me ask you about that.
`
` Are you sure that's a formatting problem?
`
`It seems like there's a 1 on paragraph 45.
`
` A. That is correct. And more than that
`
`change, but that change, basically this is more or
`
`less opinion of the point 1 rather than a brand-new
`
`bullet point 2.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. So because we removed the 2 there, please
`
`flip to page 48. When it say, "A," you see on top
`
`of the page it say, "A, Incorporating game
`
`application into the Liebenow device would not
`
`increase the desirability of the system"? Do you
`
`see that?
`
` That "A" should be a 2. So that should be
`
`a brand-new bullet point 2 right there, and A should
`
`be removed.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 21
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` A. And then, of course, going down, when it
`
`say B, it should be A in that sentence. To make
`
`sure the format is consistent and correct, I would
`
`like to change that. You know, it doesn't change
`
`the meanings of the document itself, but it does
`
`change the format. And, of course, there's a C on
`
`49 that should be a B right now.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Other than that, that's it. Let me check.
`
` Page 27. I think I say that earlier;
`
`right? I believe I say that we would like to change
`
`"biomedical" to "biomechanical" earlier on 000533 as
`
`well. If I did not, I would like to bring that up
`
`now.
`
` Q. Okay. Any other changes or additions to
`
`your declaration in the 000533 proceeding?
`
` A. Not that I can -- not that I see right now.
`
` Q. Before we get started in discussing your
`
`specific opinions today, I'd like to discuss a
`
`couple general topics with you.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you know Dr. Karon Maclean?
`
` A. I do not know her. I heard of her through
`
`this proceeding. I never met her, never talked to
`
`her.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 22
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. One quick just ground rule for
`
`today. Like we talked about last time, I'll do my
`
`best not to interrupt you, and if you'd extend the
`
`same courtesy to me, I think that will make the
`
`court reporter's job much easier.
`
` So I'll do my best to wait until I think
`
`you're finished before I ask a follow-up question,
`
`and if you try not to interrupt me, it will make for
`
`a cleaner record.
`
` Okay?
`
` A. Okay. I will. Thanks for reminding me.
`
` Q. You're welcome.
`
` So have you ever discussed any of your
`
`opinions with Dr. Maclean?
`
` A. I haven't talked to her, so by definition,
`
`I did not.
`
` Q. Okay. Are there any claims in the '313
`
`patent that you think are not patentable?
`
` A. When I went through 313, I do not believe
`
`that that occurred in my mind. If that is the thing
`
`that you would like me to put opinion on, I think I
`
`need, you know, time to go through the patents again
`
`and with a -- you know, with that question in mind.
`
` But I do not believe that when I read all
`
`these documents through '313, I do not believe that
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 23
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`was true. I believe that, you know, the patent
`
`itself was valid.
`
` Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked
`
`Exhibit 1001. It's the '313 patent. It's
`
`Exhibit 1001 in all three proceedings. And that way
`
`you'll have it. We'll probably refer to that from
`
`time to time today, but it looks like you have a
`
`copy as well.
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. Are there any claims in the '313 patent
`
`that you think are obvious?
`
` A. Again, same answer. When I read through
`
`that patent and when I wrote the report, no, I do
`
`not believe that any of those listed there was
`
`obvious. But I did not study every single claim in
`
`great detail. As you know, in this particular
`
`proceeding, that there's another expert that's
`
`involved in this particular proceeding, and some of
`
`the claims were assigned to her. Dr. Maclean,
`
`that's what I mean. So it was assigned to her, and
`
`in that sense, I was not asked to provide any
`
`opinions on those claims.
`
` So with that in mind, I did not go into
`
`great studies of whether those claims are obvious or
`
`not. But the claims that I studied and the one I
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 24
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`provide opinions on, I do not believe those are
`
`obvious.
`
` Q. And what claims did you study?
`
` A. The claims that I provide in my opinion, I
`
`assure you that I studied that.
`
` Q. And in your study of those claims, you did
`
`not think that any of those claims are unpatentable;
`
`is that right?
`
` A. Those that I studied as relevant to mine,
`
`yes.
`
` Q. Did you review the Institution decision
`
`from the Board in the 00396, the 00476 and the
`
`000533 proceedings?
`
` A. I scanned through them, yes. I did not
`
`kind of study word by word in that sense, but I did
`
`scan through them, yes.
`
` Q. Are there any instituted grounds in the
`
`00396 proceeding that you agree with the Board's
`
`analysis on?
`
` A. That is something that I don't recall. As
`
`I said a little bit earlier, that I -- I read it.
`
`If you want me to provide opinion of what the Board
`
`say, again, I do need time to study them again.
`
` I just cannot give you opinion kind of on
`
`the spot without reviewing. I would like to give
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 25
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`you the most thoughtful opinion I could, and I do
`
`not believe I can give you opinions just like that.
`
` Q. Do you recall, during your review of the
`
`00396 proceeding and the Institution decision in
`
`that proceeding, that you agreed with any of the
`
`grounds instituted by the Board?
`
` A. Same answer, I guess. I couldn't tell you
`
`with that specificity, I think. I will be happy to
`
`scan through it, I mean to read it again if you have
`
`a copy that you would like me to do that. I just
`
`need time to do it so I can give you a better
`
`answer.
`
` Q. Do you recall in the 00476 proceeding
`
`whether or not you agreed with any of the grounds
`
`instituted by the Board?
`
` A. Again, I think that's the same answer as
`
`before. If you'd like me to provide opinion, I can.
`
`I need to read that, too.
`
` Q. Is it the same answer for the 000533
`
`proceeding?
`
` A. I believe so, yes.
`
` Q. Do you recall, in performing your analysis,
`
`any claim that you reviewed that you decided
`
`probably was unpatentable?
`
` A. I cannot recall right now.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`SCEA Ex. 1038 Page 26
`
`
`
`PENG LIM 12/1/2015
`
`Page 27
`
`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. Do you recall any combination that you
`
`reviewed in performing your analysis that you
`
`thought rendered claims in the '313 patent obvious?
`
` A. The one that I provide opinions on, again,
`
`like I say, I cannot speak for every single
`
`combination that was listed in this proceeding.
`
`Some of them I studied, some of them I did not. The
`
`one that I studied and I put in my declaration here
`
`that specifically related to the area that I provide
`
`an opinion, I