HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`6O
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`certain, to achieve a certain purpose.
`
`Qo
`
`Something more than contact or
`
`spraying?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form.
`
`Contact could imply pressure.
`
`Would spraying imply pressure also?
`
`Spraying is an impact -- spraying
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`relates to non impact printing, where there is
`
`no pressure created between two surfaces.
`
`Q.
`
`So with the spraying process, you
`
`would not have pressure; correct?
`
`A. You would not have pressure between
`
`two surfaces coming together.
`
`Q. And Claim 7 uses the term pressure
`
`adhering. Is that different in your view than
`
`the bonding by pressure of Claim i?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form.
`
`A.
`
`Pressure adhering refers to
`
`pressure required to bond material on to a
`
`surface, so it sticks.
`
`Q.
`
`So is pressure adhering used in
`
`Claim 7 different than bonding by pressure in
`
`Claim 1 in some way?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A. Well, they could be different.
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 60
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`6O
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`certain, to achieve a certain purpose.
`
`Qo
`
`Something more than contact or
`
`spraying?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form.
`
`Contact could imply pressure.
`
`Would spraying imply pressure also?
`
`Spraying is an impact -- spraying
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`relates to non impact printing, where there is
`
`no pressure created between two surfaces.
`
`Q.
`
`So with the spraying process, you
`
`would not have pressure; correct?
`
`A. You would not have pressure between
`
`two surfaces coming together.
`
`Q. And Claim 7 uses the term pressure
`
`adhering. Is that different in your view than
`
`the bonding by pressure of Claim i?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form.
`
`A.
`
`Pressure adhering refers to
`
`pressure required to bond material on to a
`
`surface, so it sticks.
`
`Q.
`
`So is pressure adhering used in
`
`Claim 7 different than bonding by pressure in
`
`Claim 1 in some way?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A. Well, they could be different.
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 60
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`61
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Bonding represents a permanent state, where an
`
`image or material is securely fastened to a
`
`surface and it’s not going to change from that
`
`point on.
`
`Pressure adhering could refer to
`
`the initial step of actually getting the
`
`material to initially adhere to a surface prior
`
`to perhaps another step that firmly and
`
`permanently bonds it to the surface.
`
`Q.
`
`So bonding implies something more
`
`permanent than adhering?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It could be the case. Could be.
`
`In the context of these claims, is
`
`it the case, or don’t you know?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form.
`
`A.
`
`It’s not a matter of not knowing,
`
`it’s a matter of not being clear what the
`
`difference is.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Not clear to you?
`
`To me it’s not clear in the patent.
`
`Does scraping imply pressure?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A.
`
`If one surface is coming in contact
`
`to another and then, because of a variation in
`
`the surface speed of two surfaces, there could
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 61
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`be pressure.
`
`October 28, 2015
`62
`
`MR. PORTER:
`
`This is a good time
`
`for a break.
`
`(Recess had.)
`
`BY MR. PORTER:
`
`Q. Dr. Levenson, is there anything you
`
`want to change or clarify of what we’ve covered
`
`so far?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`Have you heard the term secondary
`
`considerations of obviousness before?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`What’s your understanding of
`
`secondary considerations of obviousness?
`
`A. Things such as how successful the
`
`product is in the field. This is not something
`
`that I think about every day, but success in
`
`the field would be one. Another would be the
`
`need for a particular product, I believe.
`
`Let’s see.
`
`What else?
`
`There are a
`
`I’ve heard of it
`
`before. There are a few others.
`
`They’re not
`
`all coming to mind at the moment.
`Q.
`A.
`
`Failure of others, perhaps?
`
`Yes, failure of others. Correct.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 62
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q. Did you consider secondary
`
`considerations as part of your analysis of
`
`obviousness in this case?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No, I did not focus on that.
`
`was there a reason that you didn’t
`
`focus on that?
`
`A.
`
`I didn’t think it was necessary at
`
`this stage.
`
`Q. Did anybody tell you not to focus
`
`on secondary considerations at that stage when
`
`you prepared your declaration?
`
`A. Not particularly. I know in my
`
`education of the case, it was pointed out that
`
`these are areas that are sometimes looked at,
`
`but I felt it wasn’t particularly relevant at
`
`this point.
`
`Q. And so did you investigate
`
`secondary considerations at all as part of your
`
`analysis?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No, not at this point.
`
`Are you familiar with any
`
`regulatory requirements for roofing products
`
`such as shingles?
`
`A. No. As I pointed out, that’s not
`
`my field. Printing is my field.
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 63
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`64
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q. As part of your analysis, you
`
`looked at the Lassiter reference. Do you
`
`recall that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`What does the Lassiter reference
`
`generally refer to? Do you have that in front
`
`of you?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I do have it. (Reading.)
`
`So are you looking at exhibit 1003,
`
`Dr. Levenson?
`
`A.
`
`Correct. Well, Lassiter refers to
`
`the application of nail tabs via an impactless
`
`printing system.
`
`Q. And what’s your understanding of
`
`nail tabs as that term is used in the Lassiter
`
`reference?
`
`A. The southernmost strate, substrate,
`
`at which point nails are applied.
`
`Q. Any other requirements for a nail
`
`tab in the context of Lassiter?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevance.
`
`A.
`
`Let me look at the claims.
`
`(Reading.) Looking at Claim 1 of
`
`Lassiter, the requirement is a thermoplastic or
`
`thermo-setting material, spaced intervals, and
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 64
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`65
`
`depositing tabs on to the surface of the
`
`substrate.
`
`Q. Do you see in column 5, line about
`
`47 or so where it says, "The tabs as they are
`
`bonded to the material" I’m sorry.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me just get there.
`
`Yeah.
`
`Column 5?
`
`Column 5, line 47.
`
`Okay.
`
`It says, "The tabs as they are
`
`bonded to the material are tough, but remain
`
`flexible or pliable and not brittle." Do you
`
`see that?
`
`I see that.
`
`A.
`Q.
`as nail tab is used in the context of the ’757
`
`Is that a requirement of a nail tab
`
`patent?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A. This particular sentence that you
`
`refer to is really lacks the detail to
`
`really make the judgment you are asking me to,
`
`because it says, "The tabs as they are bonded
`
`to the material," that’s clear, "are tough."
`
`Well, what does it mean by "tough"?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 65
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`66
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`"Remain flexible." What does it
`
`mean by, "Remain flexible or pliable"? Not
`
`brittle is understandable, okay.
`
`So do the nail tabs in the context
`
`of the ’757 patent, do they have to be tough,
`
`do they have to be flexible, do they have to be
`
`pliable? This, the language is really very
`
`general to make that assertion.
`
`Q. Now, do you know what was used
`
`before Lassiter’s nail tabs, as far as
`
`providing the reinforcement to saturated felt
`
`or coated felt materials?
`
`MR. PEJIC:
`
`Objection. Relevancy,
`
`foundation, form.
`
`A. Again, I don’t and forgive me
`
`for being repetitious on this, but my
`
`experience does not include how shingles or
`
`roofing material is structured, what
`
`reinforcement material is used.
`
`Again, I have to point out that my
`
`entire focus and context in describing and
`
`discussing the patent related to prior art has
`
`to do with printing.
`
`Q.
`
`So you are not sure of, I guess,
`
`the problems that Lassiter was facing as far as
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 66
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`67
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`making a reinforced product for a roofing or
`
`building cover material?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form and
`
`relevancy.
`
`A.
`
`Lassiter provided an alternative
`
`printing method for depositing the tabs on to a
`
`substrate.
`
`Q. Does Lassiter point out that there
`
`is any problems with the printing method that
`
`he uses, specifically, the spraying method?
`
`A.
`
`I would have to go back and read
`
`the description to refresh my recollection.
`
`Q.
`
`io
`
`problems.
`
`Okay.
`
`If there is anything related to
`
`(Reading.) In reading the
`
`background of the invention and the summary of
`
`the invention, unless I’m missing something, I
`
`don’t see reference to what would be specific
`
`problems in the process.
`
`Q. The spraying method that Lassiter
`
`uses was adequate for the intended purpose?
`
`A. The spraying method is an
`
`alternative method for depositing an image on a
`
`substrate.
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 67
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`68
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q. Now, Dr. Lassiter -- Levenson. Let
`
`me start again. Dr. Levenson, what’s your
`
`hourly rate that you are being paid for this
`
`particular matter?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`My rate is $450, plus expenses.
`
`And you have been paid for -- I
`
`think you said you spent 30 to 50 hours so far.
`
`A.
`
`I would have to go back. I’m
`
`guessing at that.
`
`Q.
`
`Coming back to your declaration, I
`
`wanted to ask you about paragraph 16. I see
`
`there where you have well, let me start
`
`over. Did you write this declaration?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`What input, if any, did you get
`
`from the lawyers for the declaration?
`
`A.
`
`I wanted to make sure that I didn’t
`
`miss anything in the way of prior art. I
`
`wanted to make sure I didn’t misstate anything
`
`from a legal standpoint, which is not really my
`
`purview. Lawyers have a better sense of
`
`language that needs to be used from a legal
`
`standpoint. But aside from making sure that I
`
`didn’t miss anything that’s perceived to be
`
`relevant to this case, I wrote this
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 68
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`69
`
`declaration.
`Q.
`bolded and underlined there that independent
`
`Okay. And in paragraph 16, you
`
`Claim 1 requires depositing viscose tab
`
`material.
`
`sorry
`
`MR. PEJIC: Where are you? I’m
`
`MR. PORTER: Oh, am I in the wrong
`
`one.
`
`Let me get the other one.
`
`Q.
`
`I guess I’m referring to the third
`
`sentence there. Do you see where it says,
`
`"Independent Claim 1 describes a method of
`
`treating a roofing or building cover material
`
`that requires depositing viscous tab material
`
`from a lamination roll"? Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And I guess I’m wondering, where in
`
`Claim 1 do you find support that the tab
`
`material has to be a viscose tab material?
`
`A.
`
`(Reading.) In the context of the
`
`patent, going from a lamination roll to the
`
`material bonding to the surface of the roofing
`
`and building material implies that the material
`
`is viscose, because it flows. A material has
`
`to flow. If it flows, then it has a viscosity.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 69
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`7O
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q.
`
`So you couldn’t bond a solid or
`
`semi-solid material with pressure from a
`
`lamination roll?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, form, and
`
`relevancy.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, you can bond from a lamination
`
`roll.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`A tab material that’s a solid?
`
`Yes. Yes. Now, by virtue of the
`
`fact that the solid tab material has to flow,
`
`has to be deposited, means that it has a
`
`viscosity; hence, it’s viscous.
`
`Q.
`
`So the tab material could start out
`
`as a solid, hit a hot saturated or coated felt
`
`material, and that would deposit the tab
`
`material and it would be viscose?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A. The tab material is viscous as it
`
`is flowing to the substrate. And then
`
`certainly should be hot material liquified with
`
`a solid material, then that, too, is viscose.
`
`Q.
`
`So under your interpretation of
`
`Claim i, at what point could the tab material
`
`be a solid material, if it could?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form,
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 70
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`relevancy, and foundation.
`
`October 28, 2015
`71
`
`A. At the point where the tab material
`
`is bonded and cured, at that point the tab
`
`material would be considered solid.
`
`Q. And you -- Claim 2 refers to
`
`substantially a polymer material. What sort of
`
`tab materials do you envision for Claim 1
`
`besides polymer materials that are specific for
`
`Claim 2?
`
`relevancy.
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form. And
`
`A. All of the materials referred to.
`
`The material referred to is polymer material.
`
`Whether it be a dried polymer or liquid
`
`polymer, they’re all polymer materials.
`
`Q.
`
`So that the tab material of Claim 1
`
`has to be a polymer material; is that your
`
`interpretation of Claim i?
`
`A.
`
`Polymer material is not noted in
`
`Claim i, but it is noted in Claim 2.
`
`Q.
`
`So the tab materials of Claim 1
`
`don’t have to be a polymer material; correct?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A.
`
`I can’t think of what the material
`
`would be other than a polymer material.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 71
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`72
`
`Q. Now, in paragraph 19 of your
`
`declaration, you refer to a reference called
`
`Halley, H-A-L-L-E-Y; is that correct?
`
`io
`
`Correct. Halley, I think.
`
`Halley.
`
`Or Halley.
`
`Q.
`opinion?
`
`What was Halley teaching, in your
`
`A.
`
`Halley is teaching the application
`
`of an image directly on to a substrate without
`
`the use of a transfer or lamination roll.
`
`Q. And you say in that paragraph that,
`
`"Examiner noted that it is clear that any means
`
`known in the art for depositing the polymer
`
`that could achieve the same result could be
`
`successfully substituted," right? You say you
`
`agree with that statement?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Now where are you?
`
`I’m at the bottom of paragraph 19.
`
`(Reading.) Yes, I agree.
`
`But the examiner ultimately allowed
`
`the claims over Lassiter and Halley; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`So the examiner changed his view
`
`from suggesting that any means known in the art
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 72
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`73
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`for depositing the polymer that could achieve
`
`the same result could be substituted; correct?
`
`A. That was initially, but that view
`
`was changed once additional prior art was
`
`introduced.
`
`Q. Now, you say Halley doesn’t use a
`
`lamination roll; is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`Q.
`refer to "Broadest reasonable interpretation"
`
`In paragraph 25, Dr. Levenson, you
`
`or BRI. What do you mean by that?
`
`A. By broadest interpretation, I’m
`
`referring to the various ways that a lamination
`
`roll can be used. There is the lamination in
`
`the context of the patents, and then there is
`
`traditional lamination.
`
`Q. And are you saying lamination in
`
`the context of the patents is somehow narrower
`
`than traditional lamination?
`
`A. Lamination in the context of the
`
`patent is narrower than traditional lamination,
`
`right.
`
`Q.
`
`So the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in your view of lamination roll
`
`would not simply be a roll that’s used during
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 73
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`lamination?
`
`October 28, 2015
`74
`
`A.
`Q.
`A.
`
`Would not be a?
`
`Roll that’s used during lamination.
`
`It would, in the context of the
`
`patents, it would include that.
`
`Q. Did you review the provisional
`
`applications that are mentioned in column 1 of
`
`the ’757 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Q
`
`Column i?
`
`Column 1 of the ’757 patent, which
`
`is exhibit i001.
`
`io
`
`Can you point specifically to the
`
`reference?
`Q
`that’s referenced at column i, line 17.
`
`Provisional patent application
`
`A.
`
`(Reading.) Oh, I see. I reviewed
`
`only what is referred to in my report.
`
`Q
`
`Okay. And we went over that.
`
`That
`
`was in paragraphs i0 and ii; right?
`
`A. Right.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. PORTER: Can we take a lunch
`
`break?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Yes, we can.
`
`(Luncheon recess had.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 74
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`75
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`- ESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯ i 0 4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 75
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`76
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS
`
`BY MR. PORTER:
`
`Q. Dr. Levenson, is there anything you
`
`want to clarify about your testimony so far?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I don’t think so.
`
`At any of the breaks have you
`
`consulted or conferred with your lawyers about
`
`the substance of your testimony?
`
`A. No. I wanted to, but they wouldn’t
`
`do it. (Laughter.)
`
`Q.
`
`Can you describe what you did to
`
`prepare for your deposition today?
`
`A.
`
`I reviewed all of the materials
`
`that were sent to me.
`
`Q. Anything that you reviewed besides
`
`what’s sitting in front of you today?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Actually, not that I recall.
`
`How long did you spend preparing
`
`for the deposition today?
`
`A.
`
`I don’t recall. When I was
`
`notified that the deposition was scheduled, I
`
`began looking at materials. Quite frankly, I
`
`don’t even recall when I was notified. I
`
`started looking through materials, and then for
`
`the last couple of days prior to today, I re-
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 76
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`looked at materials.
`
`October 28, 2015
`77
`
`Q. Did you meet with lawyers from
`
`Owens Coming in connection with your
`
`deposition preparation?
`
`Yes.
`
`And when did you meet with the
`
`lawyers for Owens Coming?
`
`A.
`
`It would be
`
`I arrived Sunday
`
`night, so it would have been Monday and Tuesday
`
`of this week.
`
`Did you meet with them all day
`
`Monday?
`
`A.
`Q.
`Monday?
`
`No.
`
`How long did you meet with them on
`
`Approximately four hours.
`
`A.
`Q.
`you meet with on Monday? The names of the
`
`And what Owens Coming lawyers did
`
`lawyers that you met with?
`
`A.
`
`All of the gentlemen in the room
`
`today.
`
`Q.
`
`was anybody else present besides
`
`the three lawyers for Owens Coming?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`And on Tuesday did you meet with
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 77
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`78
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the lawyers for Owens Coming?
`
`i o
`
`Yes.
`
`And approximately how long did you
`
`meet on Tuesday?
`
`A.
`
`Starting at approximately 9:30
`
`a.m., and I think we finished up something
`
`around 4 p.m.
`
`Q.
`
`So approximately, what, six and a
`
`half hours or so?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Approximately.
`
`And are these ten and a half hours
`
`that you spent meeting with lawyers for Owens
`
`Coming in preparation for your deposition, is
`
`that part of the 30 to 50 hours that you spent
`
`on this case?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`That’s in addition to those 30 to
`
`50 hours you mentioned earlier?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`were there any particular
`
`references that you focused on while you were
`
`meeting with the lawyers?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes. References in my report.
`
`Did you focus on anything besides
`
`the references in your report or your report
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 78
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`79
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`when you met with the lawyers?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`Did you make any notes during the
`
`meetings with lawyers?
`
`i o
`
`I made a few aided recall notes,
`
`yes.
`
`Q.
`A.
`
`When you say aid of recall --
`
`Aided recall. So just things that
`
`I kind of wanted to remind me to look at when I
`
`went back to the hotel.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you bring those with you today?
`
`No.
`
`Do you recall what those aid of
`
`recall notes
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Aided recall notes.
`
`Aided recall notes. Do you
`
`remember what those referred to?
`
`A. Basically, they referred to the
`
`documents, the patent prior art, just to
`
`recall, you know, what the key points were
`
`about the case.
`
`Q. And what were certain key points
`
`that you wanted to remember about the case?
`
`A.
`
`I didn’t want to lose sight that
`
`this case is about printing, and I didn’t want
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 79
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`8O
`
`to lose sight that I was retained as a printing
`
`expert, and I didn’t want to get involved in
`
`discussions regarding areas that are not
`
`relevant to printing.
`
`Q. Like roofing and building cover
`
`materials.
`
`A. Exactly. That’s not part of my
`
`business.
`
`Q. Earlier we talked about lamination
`
`rolls, and you were equating, I think,
`
`lamination rolls with transfer rolls; is that
`
`correct?
`
`Correct.
`
`A.
`Q.
`reference that equates transfer rolls with
`
`Are you aware of any authority or
`
`lamination rolls?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`The answer is no.
`
`Did you look?
`
`Yes. My first acquaintance with
`
`terminology that refers to offset or transfer
`
`rolls with lamination rolls was in looking at
`
`the patent.
`
`Q.
`
`So GATF wouldn’t consider a
`
`lamination roll as equivalent to a transfer
`
`roll?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 80
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`81
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`i o
`
`Or an offset roll.
`
`Or an offset roll.
`
`Correct.
`
`I know you have said this a number
`
`of times, that you are not an expert in
`
`roofing, but do you know why the reasons are an
`
`asphalt covering material might come loose or
`
`unfasten from a roof?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to the form.
`
`i o
`
`I would generally say that weather
`
`conditions can cause that, atmospheric
`
`conditions. There are different weather
`
`patterns in different geographic locations.
`
`Q. Do you know of ways to solve that
`
`particular problem with roofing or building
`
`cover materials?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevancy.
`
`A. That’s not part of my area of
`
`expertise.
`
`Q. Now, I think you said earlier that
`
`a nail tab, it’s required to be visible; right?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection.
`
`Q. A nail tab in the context of the
`
`’757 patent claims is required to be visible?
`
`A.
`
`I don’t think I said that.
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 81
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`82
`
`Q. Okay. What are the requirements,
`
`then, of a nail tab in the context of the ’757
`
`patent?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`A. My first response was not in
`
`relation to the patent, when I said I don’t
`
`think I said that. I just, period, don’t think
`
`I said that, regardless of what I’m referring
`
`to, okay.
`Q.
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`Now, in the context of the patent,
`
`it would be an area that identifies where nails
`
`are going to be inserted.
`
`Q. And that’s the only requirement
`
`that a nail tab has to have in the context of
`
`the ’757 patent, that it identifies where the
`
`nails are to be inserted?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection to form.
`
`That’s the goal of the nail tab.
`
`And the opinions that you have
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`expressed in your declaration with respect to
`
`Lassiter, in combination with Hefele, Eaton,
`
`Bayer, rely on that particular definition of a
`
`nail tab; is that correct?
`
`A. A reference to the documents that,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 82
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`83
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the exhibits that you just referred to has to
`
`do with the interchangeability of the different
`
`processes in producing the same final result.
`
`Q. Which is some polymer that’s
`
`applied via lamination to an area so it
`
`identifies where the tabs are to be, or where
`
`the nails are to be inserted?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`I wanted to come back to your
`
`declaration, if you still have that in front of
`
`you. At page 45 I’m sorry. Paragraph 85.
`
`I wanted to ask you a little bit about
`
`paragraph 85.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`And you have Eaton figure 25
`
`immediately before that. Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`The question that I had was, if one
`
`were to try and put the material that’s 1214A
`
`and 1214B on the opposite side of the
`
`substrates 1210 and 1210B and put them through
`
`those rolls, would that work?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevancy.
`
`i o
`
`Would that work to do what?
`
`To form a composite, or would that
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 83
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEY LEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNING vs. FAST FELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`84
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`have
`
`would that have some problems
`
`associated with it?
`
`MR. PEJIC:
`
`Objection, form and
`
`relevancy.
`
`A.
`
`What you see taking place in figure
`
`1240 points to a traditional lamination process
`
`in printing that occurs subsequent to printing.
`
`Q. And what do you mean it’s a
`
`traditional lamination that’s subsequent to
`
`printing?
`
`A. Well, the diagram depicts two
`
`substrates, two surfaces two substrates
`
`coming together and being bonded together via a
`
`lamination process.
`
`Q. And so that material that’s at
`
`1214A and 1214B, is that an adhesive material
`
`of some sort?
`
`A.
`
`I’m going to go to the patent, just
`
`to be sure I get it right.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Please make sure.
`
`All right. (Reading.) Okay.
`
`1214A and 1214B are identified as polymeric
`
`regions. That would be further interpreted as
`
`being nail tabs.
`
`Q. And when you say they’re a nail
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 84
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`85
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`tab, earlier you said that a nail tab has to be
`
`visible. Are these going to be visible once
`
`the laminated composite 1200 is formed.
`
`A.
`
`First let me say, when I said they
`
`need to be visible, that was not necessarily in
`
`the context of this patent of Eaton, it was in
`
`a general sense that somehow one has to know
`
`where to place the nails, okay. Visibility
`
`could be in the form of maybe a lump or a
`
`little hump, a little raised area. One needs
`
`to know exactly where the printed nail heads
`
`are. So in that sense, there has to be some
`
`visibility.
`
`Q.
`
`So would the composite that’s
`
`formed at 1200 have any sort of tab that’s
`
`visible?
`
`A.
`
`It’s not clear on the description.
`
`It’s a clear drawing, but it’s not clear in the
`
`description.
`
`What is clear is that the two
`
`substrates coming together are laminated
`
`together in a very traditional way.
`
`Q.
`
`Coming back to figure 25, if you
`
`put that polymeric region on the opposite side
`
`of 1210A or 1210B, would you be able to make a
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 85
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`OWENS CORNINGvs. FASTFELT
`
`October 28, 2015
`86
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`i0
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`successful composite doing that?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevance.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`The polymer wouldn’t get stuck to
`
`the rolls as you are putting it through, it’s
`
`on the exterior of the 1210A and 1210B?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. There may be some deposits on those
`
`rolls, this is not saying on that that it will
`
`all be transferred to the rolls.
`
`Q. Do you know how much deposits there
`
`would be?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. That’s not possible to determine
`
`from the diagram.
`
`Q.
`
`Is it possible to determine whether
`
`that would even work from the diagram?
`
`MR. PEJIC: Objection, relevance.
`
`And the description of Eaton?
`
`It’s a lamination process. There
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`is no reason why two materials that have no
`
`printed deposit on it cannot be laminated
`
`together.
`
`Q.
`
`I wanted to come back to paragraph
`
`42 of your declaration. Paragraph 42, you are
`
`OESQU!RE
`
`S D h J ¯
`
`i 0 "4 S
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions. com
`
`FAST FELT 2005, pg. 86
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`
`
`HARVEYLEVENSON, PH.D.
`O
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
