UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION, )
` )
`Petitioner, )
` ) Case IPR2015-01039
` vs. )
` ) Patent 7,003,357 B1
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC., )
` )
`Patent Owner. )
`
` ________________________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF CRAIG ROSENBERG, PH.D.
` TAKEN ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER
` MAY 11, 2016
` 9:10 TO 11:28
` Maria L. Taylor, CCR, CSR, RPR, MO Notary Public
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`VALMONT 2019
`Lindsay v. Valmont
`IPR2015-01039
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION, )
` )
`Petitioner, )
` ) Case IPR2015-01039
` vs. )
` ) Patent 7,003,357 B1
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC., )
` )
`Patent Owner. )
`
` ________________________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF CRAIG ROSENBERG, PH.D.
` TAKEN ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER
` MAY 11, 2016
` 9:10 TO 11:28
` Maria L. Taylor, CCR, CSR, RPR, MO Notary Public
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`VALMONT 2019
`Lindsay v. Valmont
`IPR2015-01039
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION, )
` )
`Petitioner, )
` ) Case IPR2015-01039
` vs. )
` ) Patent 7,003,357 B1
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC., )
` )
`Patent Owner. )
`
` DEPOSITION OF CRAIG ROSENBERG, PH.D.,
` produced, sworn, and examined on May 11, 2016, between
` the hours of 9:10 and 11:28 of that day, at Hovey
` Williams, LLP, 10801 Mastin Boulevard, Suite 1000,
` Overland Park, Kansas 66210, before Maria L. Taylor,
` CCR, CSR, RPR, MO Notary Public, in a certain cause
` now pending UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD, wherein
` LINDSAY CORPORATION is the Petitioner and VALMONT
` INDUSTRIES, INC. is the Patent Owner.
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`1 3
`1 4
`1 5
`1 6
`1 7
`1 8
`1 9
`2 0
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`2 5
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` F o r t h e P e t i t i o n e r :
` S c o t t R . B r o w n
` H O V E Y W I L L I A M S , L L P
` 1 0 8 0 1 M a s t i n B o u l e v a r d
` S u i t e 1 0 0 0
` O v e r l a n d P a r k , K a n s a s 6 6 2 1 0
` 9 1 3 - 6 4 7 - 9 0 5 0
` S B r o w n @ H o v e y W i l l i a m s . c o m
`
` F o r t h e P a t e n t O w n e r :
`
` R i c a r d o B o n i l l a
` F I S H & R I C H A R D S O N , P C
` 1 7 1 7 M a i n S t r e e t
` S u i t e 5 0 0 0
` D a l l a s , T e x a s 7 5 2 0 1
` 2 1 4 - 7 4 7 - 5 0 7 0
` R B o n i l l a @ f r . c o m
`
` C o u r t R e p o r t e r :
` M a r i a L . T a y l o r , R P R , C C R K S # 1 6 8 4
` M i d w e s t L i t i g a t i o n S e r v i c e s
` 1 3 0 1 O a k S t r e e t , S u i t e B
` K a n s a s C i t y , M i s s o u r i 6 4 1 0 6
` 8 1 6 - 2 2 1 - 1 1 6 0
` 1 - 8 0 0 - 2 8 0 - 3 3 7 6
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`3
`
`
`
` INDEX
`
` WITNESS: PAGE
`
` CRAIG ROSENBERG, Ph.D.
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. BONILLA 5
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWN 71
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` EXHIBIT
`
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1001 Copy of United States Patent 40
`
` 7,003,357 B1
`
` Exhibit 1009 Declaration of Dr. Craig 10
`
` Rosenberg Under 37 C.F.R.
`
` Section 1,132
`
` Exhibit 1018 Reply declaration 7
`
` NOTE: Exhibits were attached to the original
`
` transcript.
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
`
` counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Patent
`
` Owner that this deposition may be taken in shorthand
`
` by Maria L. Taylor, a Certified Court Reporter and
`
` Registered Professional Reporter, and afterwards
`
` transcribed into typewriting; and the signature of the
`
` witness is expressly reserved.
`
` * * * * *
`
` (Deposition commenced at 9:10 a.m.)
`
` CRAIG ROSENBERG, Ph.D.,
`
` of lawful age, produced, sworn and examined on behalf
`
` of the Patent Owner, deposes and says:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. BONILLA:
`
` Q. Good morning, doctor Rosenberg. My name is
`
` Ricardo Bonilla. I'm representing Valmont. You've
`
` been deposed before?
`
` A. I have, yes.
`
` Q. And you've been deposed in this proceeding
`
` before; right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So you're aware of the ground rules and how
`
` this works?
`
` Would you like me to go over any of those
`
` or are you pretty comfortable with the question and
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
` answer process?
`
` A. I'm comfortable with it.
`
` Q. Great. And if at any point you want to
`
` take a break, please feel free to let me know, we'll
`
` take a break. Only thing I ask is if I have a
`
` question pending, you answer that question before we
`
` take a break.
`
` A. Of course.
`
` Q. Is there any reason you can't give accurate
`
` and complete testimony today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Are you taking any medications that would
`
` affect your memory or ability to answer questions?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And what did you do to prepare for your
`
` deposition today?
`
` A. I read my first declaration, I read my
`
` reply declaration, I spoke with Scott Brown over the
`
` phone, I reviewed my -- the transcript of my first
`
` deposition. I reviewed the 357 patent, I reviewed the
`
` four prior art documents as well.
`
` Q. Did you speak to anyone other than counsel
`
` in preparing for your deposition today?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. So I'm handing you what's marked as
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` Exhibit 1018. And do you recognize this document,
`
` Dr. Rosenberg?
`
` (Exhibit 1018 was previously marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` A. I do, yes.
`
` Q. What is it?
`
` A. This is my reply declaration.
`
` Q. So we'll spend a little time going through
`
` this. If you could, take a look at paragraph 2. And
`
` here it appears you've listed the things -- the items
`
` and materials that you've considered in drafting this
`
` declaration; is that right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So in drafting this declaration, you
`
` reviewed the petition?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The patent owner's preliminary response?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The board's institution decision?
`
` A. That's correct, yes.
`
` Q. There are various references that are
`
` involved in this case. I'm going to refer to them
`
` just by the name that we refer to in the papers. If
`
` any of that -- if you don't understand, then please
`
` ask for a clarification, I'll be happy to do so.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` For example, you reviewed the Scott
`
` reference in preparing this deposition?
`
` A. I did, yes.
`
` Q. The Pyotsia?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The AMES reference?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And the Abts reference?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You reviewed your original declaration in
`
` preparing for this?
`
` A. That's correct, yes.
`
` Q. You reviewed the answer submitted by
`
` Valmont?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you reviewed the deposition of
`
` Dr. Mercer?
`
` A. I did, yes.
`
` Q. Why did you review Dr. Mercer's
`
` depositions?
`
` A. Because I cite various passages from his
`
` deposition in my reply declaration.
`
` Q. And when was the last time you reviewed
`
` that deposition transcript?
`
` A. Probably less than a week ago, four days
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` ago.
`
` Q. Did you work on the petitioner's reply
`
` brief at all?
`
` A. I don't believe so. I mean, no, not
`
` directly. I spoke with counsel about various issues,
`
` but I wasn't involved with editing that document.
`
` Q. Did you review the petitioner's reply brief
`
` in preparing your declaration?
`
` A. I may have had a copy. I really don't
`
` recall. I certainly didn't rely on it. I may have
`
` review it, but I don't want to say a flat no, because
`
` I don't recall reviewing it, but I may have been sent
`
` a copy at some point. I'm not sure.
`
` Q. Okay. And how was this declaration
`
` prepared?
`
` A. Well, I spoke with counsel on -- about the
`
` issue. We decided that it would be -- that we wanted
`
` to file a reply declaration to put forth -- to respond
`
` to the opinions of Dr. Mercer as well as -- as of
`
` Valmont, and I -- I worked with counsel to structure
`
` the document such that reflects my opinion regarding
`
` the matter.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: The what?
`
` THE WITNESS: The matter. The issues in
`
` this IPR.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Okay.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) All right. Will you turn
`
` to paragraph 3? And this paragraph has the heading
`
` before it, "The meaning of 'handheld'".
`
` Now, you did not opine on the definition or
`
` construction of handheld in your original declaration;
`
` right?
`
` A. I disagree with that. I believe that I did
`
` mention or I spoke certainly about handhelds. I think
`
` it's in paragraph 46 of the original declaration.
`
` Q. So in your -- in this declaration about
`
` four lines down, you've got a citation to four
`
` paragraphs of your earlier declaration where you
`
` appear to point to the places where you've discussed
`
` handheld in that document; is that right?
`
` A. Yes. I see that.
`
` Q. I'm handing you what's been marked
`
` Exhibit 1009.
`
` (Exhibit 1009 was previously marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
`
` A. I do, yes.
`
` Q. And what is it?
`
` A. This is my original declaration.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
` Q. So if you can keep those kind of side by
`
` side, we'll go through this. The first paragraph in
`
` your reply declaration that you point to, the original
`
` declaration, is paragraph 23. So we can look at that
`
` in your original declaration.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. In paragraph 23 it goes from page 9 to 10.
`
` At the beginning of page 10, there's one sentence that
`
` states, "One such components could be a personal
`
` digital assistant PDA or similar portable handheld
`
` computer of a compact size."
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. That's the only reference to handheld in
`
` that paragraph; right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. That's not an opinion on what the term
`
` "handheld" means, is it?
`
` A. No. But I mean, I say the word "computer,"
`
` and I don't say what computer means. It's a -- it's a
`
` -- it's a commonly held term that given its plain and
`
` ordinary meaning, and I'm using it as an attribute to
`
` describe the kind of computer. It's a handheld
`
` computer.
`
` I guess what I'm saying is, I don't --
`
` didn't feel it was a requirement to have the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` definition of every term just because I use the term
`
` in a sentence. I didn't feel that it was necessary to
`
` have the definition of that term.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Object. Nonresponsive after
`
` "no."
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) Now, in your reply
`
` declaration, the next paragraph, you point to
`
` paragraph 43 of your original declaration. If you
`
` could turn to that.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And in paragraph 43, you state, "I have
`
` also considered the proposed constructions of the
`
` claimed terms handheld display or handheld RUI,
`
` graphical user interface, GUI, and directly controlled
`
` found on pages 5 through 7 of the petition. I agree
`
` that the proposed construction for those terms
`
` represent their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
` light of the 357 patent specification."
`
` Did I read that correctly?
`
` A. You did read that correctly.
`
` Q. So here you are agreeing with the proposed
`
` -- the constructions proposed by the petitioner for
`
` these particular terms; correct?
`
` A. I do. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. But in this paragraph you're not providing
`
`Page 12
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
` any separate basis for what these terms mean?
`
` A. Well, my understanding is that when the
`
` board adopts the construction, that the expert uses
`
` that construction.
`
` Q. The board hasn't adopted the construction
`
` of the term "handheld" in this case, has it?
`
` A. Oh, well, the -- there was a proposed
`
` construction by the petitioner of handheld, and I
`
` agree with it. And I looked at that. I carefully
`
` considered that, and I agreed that that was consistent
`
` with my definition of handheld as well.
`
` Q. And aside from your consideration of that
`
` proposed construction, you don't cite to any separate
`
` document or support for why you agree with that
`
` construction; is that right? At least not in this
`
` paragraph.
`
` A. No, I don't cite to any document, but as I
`
` said before, I didn't feel it was necessary to define
`
` a term, to give a dictionary definition, if you will,
`
` of a term just because I used it.
`
` I recall the proposed construction was able
`
` to be held in the hand or the hands, and so, if you
`
` will, I'm referencing the proposed construction. I've
`
` considered the proposed construction, and I agree with
`
` those proposed constructions, so -- so I'm referencing
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
` that proposed construction. I guess I didn't feel it
`
` was necessary to go through and to find -- and to have
`
` -- find extrinsic evidence to provide a different
`
` additional evidence of what those terms -- those terms
`
` mean.
`
` Q. So this paragraph does not provide
`
` additional evidence of what these terms you refer to
`
` mean?
`
` A. It doesn't, but I just explained the reason
`
` why I didn't feel it was necessary to provide
`
` additional evidence.
`
` Q. The next paragraph in your reply
`
` declaration you point to is paragraph 45 in the
`
` original declaration. If you could turn to that.
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. Again, there's no definition of the word
`
` handheld or what it means in this paragraph; right?
`
` A. No, but I have to say I'm a little bit
`
` confused as to why I felt at the time of writing this
`
` I would have been expected to define handheld.
`
` I mean, it -- if that were true, why
`
` wouldn't I be expected to define "irrigation
`
` equipment"? I didn't define "irrigation equipment" in
`
` this paper either, but it just seems a little unusual
`
` to me that there would be an expectation that -- that
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
` I would need to define commonly understood, plain, and
`
` ordinary meanings of various words like irrigation
`
` equipment and handheld display.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Object as nonresponsive after
`
` "no."
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) The final paragraph in
`
` your reply declaration that you point to is
`
` paragraph 46.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And in paragraph 46 of your original
`
` declaration --
`
` Let me take a step back. You just
`
` mentioned that handheld is a commonly understood word
`
` or term?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And in 46 you do reference some extrinsic
`
` evidence by pointing to a definition from
`
` Dictionary.com; is that right?
`
` A. That's correct, yes. Small enough to be
`
` used or operated while held -- while being held in the
`
` hand or hands.
`
` Q. Now, this definition from Dictionary.com is
`
` not from the time of the invention of the 357 patent;
`
` right?
`
` A. No. I spoke to this in my first deposition
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` too, where I think I opined -- I stated that I didn't
`
` feel that this definition would have changed certainly
`
` in the last 30 years. I think I used throughout a
`
` much longer time period. So I have no reason to
`
` believe that the definition of handheld would have
`
` changed from before this patent was filed until now.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Objection. Nonresponsive
`
` after "no."
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) Now, if the board were to
`
` disagree with you that the definition of handheld
`
` could include in the hand or hands, then a laptop
`
` wouldn't fit the board's definition, would it?
`
` MR. BROWN: Objection. Vague.
`
` A. Yeah. I was just going to say, if you
`
` could -- if you could clarify your question, I'd
`
` appreciate it.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) Sure.
`
` So your explanation in paragraph 46 --
`
` A. Uh-huh.
`
` Q. -- and one of the things you discuss in
`
` your reply declaration is you have some experience
`
` using laptops whereby you would hold the laptop in one
`
` hand and operate it with the other?
`
` A. That's correct, yes.
`
` Q. That would require the definition of
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` handheld to allow for the use of both hands; right?
`
` A. Yes. In order to effectively operate the
`
` laptop, it was such that one hand needed to be the
`
` support and the other hand needed to operate it in
`
` that case, yes.
`
` Q. So my question is: If the board disagrees
`
` and holds that the definition of handheld requires
`
` that only one hand is used, then a laptop would not
`
` meet -- would not be a handheld display under that
`
` definition; is that right?
`
` A. I would have to give that some more thought
`
` to -- to think about that. As I just said, operating
`
` a laptop about the size of the laptop that you're
`
` using right now would not be feasible to -- if you had
`
` one hand tied behind your back, it wouldn't be
`
` feasible to operate it unless you could set it on a
`
` surface.
`
` Q. And certainly, in neither one of your
`
` declarations do you provide any opinions where the
`
` word handheld is limited to just one hand?
`
` A. No, I certainly don't say that handheld
`
` means that it needs to be one hand. I believe I've
`
` always offered the opinion and agreed with the
`
` proposed construction held in the hand or hands, which
`
` can imply the use of two hands to operate the device
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
` too.
`
` I'd like to point out, too, that there's a
`
` variety of remote user interfaces too that really
`
` aren't feasible to operate with just one hand.
`
` I mean, including my Samsung Note phone,
`
` which is a phone with a 5.9 inch display, holding it
`
` in one hand and operating it, let's say, with the
`
` thumb, is really -- it's infeasible and doesn't even
`
` work for a much, much smaller device. So I would like
`
` to get on the record that even remote user interfaces,
`
` such as PDAs and phones can be incredibly challenging,
`
` if not impossible, to operate with a single hand too.
`
` So I would take -- from a human factors point of view,
`
` which is my training, it -- it would be incredibly
`
` cumbersome, if not impossible to operate even small
`
` devices with a single hand. I think that's worth
`
` noting.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Objection. Nonresponsive
`
` after "operating the device too."
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) All right. We can turn
`
` to your reply declaration and go to paragraph 6.
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. All right. So in paragraph 6, the first
`
` two sentences read, "Valmont also critiques my
`
` testimony because they believe I, quote, failed to
`
`Page 18
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
` consider the hardware implications in combining the
`
` art, end quote. This argument is not valid because
`
` the 357 patent is not focused on the technical
`
` features of hardware or software."
`
` Did I read that correctly?
`
` A. You did.
`
` Q. Now, this discussion is about what a person
`
` of ordinary skill in the art would consider in whether
`
` they'd be motivated to combine certain references or
`
` whether they'd have a reasonable expectation of
`
` success in combining those references; is that right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Wouldn't a person of ordinary skill in the
`
` art have to consider the hardware limitations
`
` disclosed in these multiple references if they were to
`
` determine whether they would combine them or expect
`
` success from combining them?
`
` A. In general, at a high level, I agree with
`
` that statement, but in the 357 patent, it's -- it's
`
` mostly about using remote user interfaces to control
`
` irrigation equipment using GUIs, and there's scant
`
` disclosure about hardware limitations.
`
` Q. Now, you'd agree that a person of ordinary
`
` skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation
`
` of success if they were to implement the invention of
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` these claims if they were combining the prior art
`
` references; right?
`
` A. If you could say the first part of your
`
` question again.
`
` Q. That a person with ordinary skill in the
`
` art would have to have a reasonable expectation of
`
` success if you were to say that they're motivated to
`
` combine prior art references?
`
` A. I would agree with that, yes.
`
` Q. And having a reasonable expectation of
`
` success would require understanding the technology
`
` that's taught in the prior art references and how they
`
` would work if they were combined; right?
`
` A. I would agree with that, yes.
`
` Q. So let's look at your reply declaration at
`
` paragraph 8. Paragraph 8 begins -- the first portion
`
` reads, "A fair reading of my testimony reveals that my
`
` opinion is..."
`
` And then you go on to state what you claim
`
` your opinion is. Why did you feel it was necessary to
`
` include this paragraph if a fair reading of your prior
`
` testimony would reveal your opinion?
`
` A. I believe I was responding to Valmont's
`
` criticism that -- in paragraph 7, it would not have
`
` been possible to execute the Scott system on the
`
`Page 20
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
` Pyotsia hardware, and I was responding to that
`
` criticism saying that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
` would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
` Scott and Pyotsia along with everything that Scott and
`
` Pyotsia discloses to come up with the invention that's
`
` described in the 357 patent.
`
` Q. So it's Pyotsia?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I'm saying it wrong the whole time. Sorry.
`
` A. Well, I can't claim to know the
`
` pronunciation with a hundred percent, but that's how I
`
` pronounce it.
`
` Q. I'm going to go with yours.
`
` So in stating that a fair reading of your
`
` prior testimony would reveal this information, would
`
` you agree that the board needs only your prior
`
` testimony to understand this opinion and would not
`
` need this further explanation because a fair reading
`
` of that prior testimony would lead to what is, in
`
` fact, your opinion?
`
` A. No, that's not exactly what I was saying.
`
` What I was saying is that I believe that Valmont has
`
` misunderstood what I said in my first declaration
`
` regarding this matter, and that -- and that I wanted
`
` to encourage a re-read of my initial declaration to --
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` and to point out that combining the teachings of Scott
`
` and Pyotsia, along with an understanding of the
`
` extremely limited disclosures of hardware limitations
`
` that are mentioned in the 357 patent would allow one
`
` of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the
`
` claimed invention that's described in the 357 patent.
`
` Q. When you say you wanted to encourage a
`
` re-read of your initial declaration, is it because in
`
` your opinion what you had written initially wouldn't
`
` have been sufficient for someone to understand your
`
` opinion as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
` art would be motivated to combine these references;
`
` correct?
`
` A. I do feel that; however, now that I have a
`
` reply declaration on the record, I would not want the
`
` information -- I wouldn't want the answer to that
`
` question to in any way suggest that my reply
`
` declaration shouldn't be fully considered by the
`
` record.
`
` There were questions and criticisms that
`
` were brought up by Valmont, and I used the opportunity
`
` of the reply declaration to clarify my position that I
`
` initially stated in the original declaration and feel
`
` that it was fully appropriate that the board consider
`
` my reply declaration as well.
`
`Page 22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
` Q. So if I understand you correctly, your
`
` reply declaration helps clarify your prior position?
`
` A. Yes, I believe that's the purpose of a
`
` reply declaration as well as to address what -- what I
`
` felt was a misconception by Valmont.
`
` When reading my initial declaration,
`
` Valmont seemed to come away from it with an opinion
`
` that it would not have been possible to execute the
`
` system, the Scott system, on the Pyotsia hardware, but
`
` that was not my position as that's not my opinion.
`
` So --
`
` Q. There were things that were unclear or
`
` missing from your original declaration you felt you
`
` needed to address in this reply declaration?
`
` MR. BROWN: Objection. Mischaracterizes
`
` the previous testimony.
`
` A. I did not file this reply declaration in
`
` isolation to add to what was in my initial
`
` declaration. I filed this reply declaration as a
`
` result of Dr. Mercer's testimony in his deposition as
`
` well as the -- Valmont's -- I'm not sure of the legal
`
` name or the technical name, but when Valmont filed
`
` their objections, I guess, or their position after
`
` reading my initial declaration and had -- had their
`
` own expert file a report, Dr. Mercer, I was given the
`
`Page 23
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
` opportunity appropriately to reply. That's why it's
`
` called a reply declaration, to reply to the points in
`
` the -- it wasn't filed in isolation.
`
` It's responsive to Dr. Mercer's declaration
`
` and Dr. Mercer's deposition testimony.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) In paragraph 8 of your
`
` reply declaration, you state that your opinion is that
`
` one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
` invention of the 357 patent would have been motivated
`
` to combine the teachings, in italics, with Scott and
`
` Pyotsia and AMES and additionally Abts.
`
` Did I read that correctly?
`
` A. You did.
`
` Q. At the end of that sentence you refer to
`
` four paragraphs in your original declaration; correct?
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. Can we take a look at those paragraphs in
`
` the original declaration. The first one is 56.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Now, if we take a look at what's written in
`
` paragraph 56 of your original declaration, the word
`
` "teaching" is not included in this paragraph; correct?
`
` A. No. I wouldn't expect if we did a word
`
` search in my original declaration, the word
`
` "teachings" may be nowhere in the whole -- but the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
` teachings, you could substitute what was disclosed in
`
` Scott and Pyotsia and AMES and Abts.
`
` I think it would be silly to say that one
`
` needs to find a word match for the word "teachings."
`
` All I'm describing is that Scott and Pyotsia and AMES
`
` and Abts have prior art, and they're patents
`
` themselves. The patents represent their teachings,
`
` they represent their intentions, they represent their
`
` disclosures. These are all synonyms, so I think if
`
` the line of questioning is going to go to looking at
`
` these four referenced paragraphs and trying to find
`
` the word teachings, I think that's -- I don't see the
`
` relevance.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Objection. Nonresponsive
`
` after "no."
`
` A. I don't think I said no. Did I?
`
` Okay. I think that would mischaracterize
`
` my previous -- okay. Correct. Teachings is not in
`
` this, but, again, it's silly to look for the word
`
` teachings.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Bonilla) Well, let's take a look
`
` at paragraph 61.
`
` A. Sixty-one? I'm there.
`
` Q. I think you should turn to the top of page
`
` 40.
`
`Page 25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. In the first full sentence it starts with
`
` "it would have been."
`
` "It would have been obvious to a person
`
` skilled in the art at the time to combine the system
`
` described in Scott with a mobile phone or mobile
`
` terminal of Pyotsia."
`
` Did I read that correctly?
`
` A. You did, yes.
`
` Q. Now, this is a system that's disclosed in
`
` Scott with the system that's disclosed in Pyotsia,
`
` isn't it?
`
` A. Yes, it is.
`
` Q. And we've established it doesn't say
`
` combining the teachings of Scott with the teachings of
`
` Pyotsia; right?
`
` A. It doesn't say the word "teaching," but I'm
`
` talking about combining what was disclosed in these
`
` two prior art references.
`
` Q. If we can look at paragraph 71 of your
`
` original declaration.
`
` A. Okay. I'm there.
`
` Q. And we're going to look at the last
`
` sentence of 71. It's on page 53.
`
` A. Okay.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
` Q. It says, "The motivation to combine was
`
` present as both of these references relate to the
`
` monitoring and controlling of irrigation equipment."
`
` Did I read that correctly?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And that's one of the basis for your
`
` opinion that it would have been -- that a person of
`
` ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
` combine these references that they both relate to the
`
` monitoring and irrigation of the equipment?
`
` A. That was one of the reasons, yes.
`
` Q. All right. Let's go back to your reply
`
` declaration at paragraph 11.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. In paragraph 11, the second sentence, your
`
` reply declaration state
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
