VWGoA - Ex. 1002
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. - Petitioner
`
`1
`
`

`

`Col. 1, 11. 10-12, col. 1, 11. 52—55. According to the ’007 patent, because airbags are
`
`designed for adult passengers, “it is preferred to disable the passenger side airbag
`
`when a small person occupies the seat or when the seat is empty.” Col. 1, 11. 22-30.
`
`In purporting to discriminate between large and small seat occupants, the ”007
`
`patent describes that a number of sensors, located in the passenger seat of the
`
`vehicle, are coupled with a microprocessor that interprets the data and determines
`
`whether to allow or inhibit deployment of an airbag based on the detected occupant
`
`size. Col. 1,]. 66-001. 2, l. 10.
`
`4.
`
`In discussing then—existing systems relating to using seat sensors to
`
`determine seat occupancy for control of the deployment of vehicle airbags the ’007
`
`states that Cashler and Schousek “form a foundation for the present invention,” but
`
`that the ’007 patent is also intended to have the ability to discriminate between
`
`heavy and light occupants and to operate under dynamic conditions such as
`
`occupant shifting or bouncing due to rough roads. Specifically, the ’007 states:
`
`It has been proposed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327 to Schousek,
`
`entitled “VEHICLE OCCUPANT RESTRAINT WITH SEAT
`
`PRESSURE SENSOR”, and in U.S. Pat. No. 5,732,375, issued
`
`Mar. 24, 1998 and assigned to the assignee of this invention, to
`
`incorporate pressure sensors in the passenger seat and monitor
`
`the response of the sensors by a microprocessor to evaluate the
`
`weight and weight distribution, and for inhibiting deployment
`
`in certain cases. These disclosures teach the use of sensors on
`
`-2-
`
`2
`
`

`

`the top surface of the seat, just under the seat cover, and
`
`algorithms especially for detecting the presence and orientation
`
`of infant seats. Both of these disclosures form a foundation for
`
`the present invention and are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`It
`
`is desirable, however
`
`to provide a
`
`system which is
`
`particularly suited for discriminating between heavy and light
`
`occupants and for robust Operation under dynamic conditions
`
`such as occupant shifiing or bouncing due to rough roads.
`
`Col. 1,11. 31-49.
`
`5.
`
`The ’007 patent describes that
`
`it
`
`is desirable to operate “under
`
`dynamic conditions such as occupant shifting or bouncing due to rough roads.”
`
`Col. 1, 11. 44-48. Specifically, the ’007 patent describes the use of an “Adult Lock
`
`Flag.” The ’007 patent describes that “When the Adult Lock Flag is set, the output
`
`decision will always be to allow deployment.” Col. 4, 11. 40-41. In the setting of the
`
`Adult Lock Flag, a lock threshold is used which is above a “total force” threshold
`
`range (i.e., exceeding which also allows airbag deployment). Col. 4, ll. 41—44. An
`
`unlock threshold “represents an empty seat.” If a decision filter is at its maximum
`
`(indicating a decision to allow deployment), the total force is greater than the lock
`
`threshold, and the lock timer (which measures the time since the vehicle ignition is
`
`turned on) is larger than the lock delay, a flag value is increased toward a
`
`maximum value and the Adult Lock Flag is set. Col. 4, 11. 46—50. Otherwise, the
`
`system determines whether the total force is above the unlock threshold, and if not,
`
`3
`
`

`

`whether the total force is below the unlock threshold and the flag value is greater
`
`than zero. Col. 4, 11. 50-54. If so, the flag value is decremented toward zero, and in
`
`either case, the flag value is tested; if the value is above zero, the Adult Lock Flag
`
`is set, and if the value is zero, the Adult Lock Flag is cleared. Col. 4, 11. 50-57.
`
`6.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’007 patent, the applicants argued in an
`
`amendment dated July 6, 1999, in distinguishing Cashler from the ”007 patent:
`
`While the Cashler patent admittedly is foundational to the present
`
`invention, the rejected claims recite non-obvious enhancements in the
`
`form of apparatus and method steps which are particularly useful for
`
`discriminating between heavy and light occupants under dynamic
`
`conditions due, for example, to occupant shifting or bouncing. Such
`
`enhancements
`
`are neither
`
`shown nor
`
`suggested in Cashler.
`
`Independent method Claims 1 and 16 both recite the steps of (1)
`
`establishing a lock threshold above the normal allow threshold, (2)
`
`setting a lock flag when the total force or relative weight parameter is
`
`above the lock threshold AND deployment has been allowed for a
`
`given time, (3) clearing the lock flag when the total force or relative
`
`weight parameter is below an empty seat threshold for a time, and (4)
`
`allowing deployment while the lock flag is set. Independent apparatus
`
`Claim 17 includes nearly identical recitations, but in the context of
`
`functions performed by a programmed microprocessor. These
`
`steps/fiJnctions are not found in Cashler, rather, they enhance Cashler
`
`by addressing dynamic operating conditions not even recognized in
`
`the Cashler patent.
`
`
`Cashler
`
`4
`
`

`

`7.
`
`Cashier describes a method of inhibiting or allowing vehicle airbag
`
`deployment using an array of pressure sensors arranged on a vehicle passenger seat
`
`and coupled to a microprocessor. The microprocessor analyzes the sensor load
`
`forces and then determines whether to allow or
`
`inhibit airbag deployment.
`
`Abstract.
`
`8.
`
`Cashier describes that it may not be beneficial to deploy a vehicle
`
`airbag in certain instances, such as when a forward facing infant seat is on the
`
`passenger seat. Col. 1, 11. 12-29, col. 1, 11. 51-58. Cashier describes that “a dozen
`
`sensors,
`
`judicially located in the seat, can garner sufficient pressure and
`
`distribution information to allow determination of the occupant type and infant seat
`
`position,” and that “this information, in turn, can be used as desired to inhibit SIR
`
`deployment.” Col. 1, 11. 59-63.
`
`9.
`
`Cashier describes that sensors are mounted on a bottom bucket seat
`
`cushion. Figure 2; col. 3, 11. 21-23. At the time Cashier was filed in 1995, it was
`
`well-known to include, in a vehicle seat cushion, a resilient pad with a tOp surface
`
`for bearing an occupant, a bottom surface supported by a panel, and sensors
`
`mounted between the bottom surface and the panel. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,232,243, which issued in 1993, describes a seat with a “top cover plate” and a
`
`“bottom cover plate,” in which the bottom plate supports an array of seat weight
`
`5
`
`

`

`sensors. Figure 3; Figure 11, col. 3, 1. 66-col. 4, l. 2; col. 4, ll. 56-58; col. 10, ll. 30-
`
`67.
`
`10.
`
`Cashier describes that the output of each sensor correlates to the
`
`amount of force applied to the vehicle seat. Col. 3, 11. 14-18. Casher fiirther
`
`describes that “a microprocessor is programmed to sample each sensor,
`
`[and]
`
`determine a total weight parameter by summing the pressures.” Col. 1, l. 67-col. 2,
`
`l. 2; col. 3, 11. 49-51. Cashler describes low and high thresholds of total weight,
`
`allows deployment if the total weight is above the high threshold, and inhibits
`
`deployment if the total weight is below the low threshold. including the case of an
`
`empty seat. Figure 8; col. 3, 11. 51-67; col. 5,11. 12-15.
`
`11.
`
`Cashler provides an algorithm, shown in Figure 8, by which a
`
`decision is made whether to allow deployment of a vehicle airbag for the passenger
`
`seat. Figure 8 is reproduced below:
`
`6
`
`

`

`OCALlZED FORCE
`
`AND FLAG
`
`FIG-8
`
`12.
`
`In discussing this algorithm, Cashier describes that the microprocessor
`
`determines the total force present on the vehicle passenger seat, and that “the total
`
`force is compared to high and low thresholds <68>. If it is above the high threshold
`
`deployment is allowed and if below the low threshold the deployment is inhibited.”
`
`Col. 5, 11. 12-15. Deployment is also permitted if the force is determined to be
`
`above the low threshold but below the high threshold under certain conditions. Col.
`
`5,
`
`11. 15-30. Thus, Cashler describes two conditions in which deployment is
`
`allowed when the weight is determined to be above the low threshold.
`
`7
`
`

`

`13.
`
`There are additional thresholds in Cashler which result in inhibiting
`
`deployment when a relative weight parameter is below a second threshold as
`
`claimed in claim 20 of the ’007 patent. As illustrated in Figure 8 of Cashier, an
`
`inhibit decision is reached when the total force <68> is below a low threshold. Col.
`
`5,
`
`11. 12-15. Additionally, as also illustrated in Figure 8 of Cashler, an inhibit
`
`decision is reached when total load rating <72> is below a low threshold. Col. 5, 11.
`
`19-21.
`
`Schousek
`
`l4.
`
`Schousek describes a vehicle system that determines whether to allow
`
`the vehicle’s passenger seat airbag to deploy based on whether the passenger seat
`
`is occupied, and based on the occupant’s type (e.g., adult or child) and position.
`
`Abstract, col. 1, 11. 53-59.
`
`15.
`
`Schousek describes weight thresholds for determining the type of
`
`occupant that occupies the seat. According to Schousek, the thresholds may be,
`
`e.g., 50 pounds for an adult and, e.g., 10 pounds as a minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat. Col. 4, 11. 62-66. The system includes sensors in a vehicle
`
`passenger seat and a microprocessor to interpret the signals received from the
`
`sensors and to use that information to determine whether to allow a vehicle airbag
`
`to deploy. Col. 5, 11. 17-21.
`
`8
`
`

`

`16.
`
`Schousek describes that “a large array of many hundreds of pressure
`
`sensors in or on a vehicle seat cushion .
`
`.
`
`. can also measure the weight of the
`
`occupant,” and describes that “[e]ach sensor is a very thin resistive device, having
`
`lower resistance as pressure increases.” C01. 2, 11. 1-4; col. 2, 11. 22-24.
`
`17.
`
`Referring to the algorithm shown in Figure 5A, Schousek describes
`
`that the microprocessor receives signals fi'om the seat sensors and sums the forces
`
`to determine the total force or weight parameter for a passenger seat. Col. 4, ll. 41-
`
`48 ; col. 5, 11. 28-31. If the total weight is greater than the threshold for a maximum
`
`infant seat weight, e.g., if the total weight is greater than 50 pounds, this indicates
`
`the presence of an adult and a decision is made to allow airbag deployment. Col. 5,
`
`11. 32—35. If the total weight is less than the minimum weight threshold for an
`
`occupied infant seat, e.g., if the total weight is less than 10 pounds, it is determined
`
`that the seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit deployment. Col. 2, 11. 31~
`
`32; col. 5, 11. 36-39. However, if the total weight is above the threshold of an empty
`
`seat (e.g., 10 pounds), but below the threshold for a maximum infant seat weight
`
`(3.32, 50 pounds), a decision is made to allow deployment when certain other
`
`conditions are true. Col. 5, 11. 42-49. Thus, Schousek describes two conditions in
`
`which deployment is allowed when the weight is determined to be above the
`
`threshold representative of an empty seat tie,
`
`the unlock threshold of the ‘007
`
`Claims.
`
`9
`
`

`

`18.
`
`Figure 5A of Schousek is reproduced below:
`
`‘ DEPLOY DECISION
`
`WANT SEAT DETECTED
`' NOT DEPLDY DECSEON
`
`WTSEAT DETECTED
`
`19.
`
`Schousek describes that the algorithm shown in Figure 5A is executed
`
`periodically, such as once per second. Col. 2, 11. 47-48. Schousek describes that the
`
`periodic decisions allow for monitoring the consistency of the decisions. Col. 2, 11.
`
`47—48. As a result, Schousek describes that “an occasional spurious decision,
`
`-10-
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`which may be due to occupant movement or other instability, is filtered out.” Col.
`
`6, 11. 2-5.
`
`20.
`
`Schousek describes that the process of monitoring the consistency of
`
`the decisions includes keeping a previous decision until at least five consecutive
`
`contrary decisions are made. Col. 2, 11. 50-53. For example, Schousek describes
`
`that the microprocessor stores the decision made in each loop execution and that a
`
`decision counter counts the number of consistent decisions. Only after the counter
`
`counts five consecutive consistent decisions is a decision to allow or inhibit
`
`deployment of the vehicle airbag transmitted to the SIR module. Col. 5, 11. 51-64.
`
`Thus, no decision to allow or not allow deployment is implemented “for a time” up
`
`to 5 cycles of the algorithm in Figure 5B (five seconds), which is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`-11-
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

` 9°
`
`STORE DECISION INARRAY
`
`FIG - SB
`
`
`
` IS
`FACULTY
`
`YES
`DEOlSDN COUNTER
`) MAX ALLOWED UNSTABLE
`
`READINGS,
`
`
` CLEAR FAULTY DEGSION
`
`
`PEWTER
`
`21.
`
`Schousek describes establishing a lock threshold above the normal
`
`allow threshold. For example, Schousek describes a “maximum infant seat weight”
`
`threshold that is above the “minimum weight threshold.” Col. 2, 11. 31-37, col. 4, l.
`
`58-col. 5, l. 3. In particular, Schousek describes that the minimum weight threshold
`
`may be 10 pounds and that the maximum weight of an infant seat may be 50
`
`pounds. Id. The minimum weight threshold of 10 pounds constitutes a “first
`
`threshold,” as claimed in the ‘007 Patent and the threshold for the maximum
`
`-12-
`
`12
`
`

`

`weight of an infant seat of 50 pounds constitutes a “lock threshold” above the first
`
`threshold, as also claimed in the ‘007 Patent.
`
`22.
`
`Schousek describes setting a lock flag when the total force or relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time. As discussed above, Schousek describes that each decision made is
`
`stored in an array, and if less than five decisions have been stored, a decision
`
`counter is incremented. Col. 5:51-64. Once the counter reaches five, indicating that
`
`five decisions have been made, the decisions are compared to determine if they are
`
`the same. If all five stored decisions are the same, then the current decision is
`
`transmitted to the SIR module and remains in effect until a new decision is
`
`transmitted to the SIR module. Because the algorithm to allow or inhibit airbag
`
`deployment
`
`is made periodically, e.g., once per second, once a decision is
`
`transmitted to the SIR module, that decision remains locked for at least five
`
`seconds. For example, when the system detects a total weight greater than the
`
`maximum infant seat weight (deploy decision 74 in Figure 5A) five consecutive
`
`times, the deploy decision is locked (transmitting the deploy decision to the SIR
`
`module; Figure 5B, 100).
`
`23.
`
`The use of flags in vehicle microprocessors and the setting of flags
`
`based on comparisons to thresholds were well known since at least as early as
`
`1990. An example is US. Patent No. 4,926,332 (“Komuro”), which issued in 1990.
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`24.
`
`Schousek describes clearing the lock flag,
`
`i.e., ceasing to permit
`
`deployment, when the total force or relative weight parameter is below an empty
`
`seat threshold for a time. As discussed above, once a decision to deploy has been
`
`transmitted to the SIR module, the lock flag is set and deployment is subsequently
`
`allowed. Thereafter, if the measured weight is indicative of an empty seat for a
`
`period of time,
`
`five consecutive decisions will be made to inhibit airbag
`
`deployment, and the decision to inhibit deployment will be transmitted to the SIR
`
`module, thus clearing the previously locked decision to allow deployment. Col.
`
`5:51-64.
`
`25.
`
`Schousek describes allowing deployment while the lock flag is set. As
`
`discussed above, Schousek describes that once a decision is made to allow
`
`deployment and that decision is transmitted to the SIR module, that decision
`
`remains locked at least for the next five seconds. Figure 5B, col. 5, 11. 51-64.
`
`During this period of time the lock flag is set, and deployment is allowed.
`
`The Combination of Cashler and Schousek
`
`26.
`
`In view of the above,
`
`the combination of Cashier and Schousek
`
`discloses the “enhancements” that the applicants argued distinguished the ’007
`
`patent from Cashier, e. g. (1) establishing a lock threshold above the normal allow
`
`threshold, (2) setting a lock flag when the total force or relative weight parameter
`
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time, (3)
`
`-14-
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`clearing the lock flag when the total force or relative weight parameter is below an
`
`empty seat threshold for a time, and (4) allowing deployment while the lock flag is
`
`set.
`
`27.
`
`For example, Schousek describes a system which is particularly suited
`
`for discriminating between heavy and light occupants and for robust operation
`
`under dynamic conditions such as occupant shifting or bouncing due to rough
`
`roads.
`
`28.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine the “foundational” technique
`
`of Cashler, which, for example, includes a method of inhibiting or allowing vehicle
`
`airbag deployment using an array of pressure sensors arranged on a vehicle
`
`passenger seat coupled to a microprocessor which analyzes the sensor load forces
`
`and then determines whether to allow or inhibit airbag deployment (see, Abstract),
`
`with the system described by Schousek, which, for example, describes a system
`
`that determines whether to allow the passenger seat airbag to deploy based on
`
`whether the passenger seat is occupied, and based on the occupant’s type (116.,
`
`adult or child) and position (see, Abstract, col. 1, 11. 53-59), and which filters out
`
`“an occasional spurious decision, which may be due to occupant movement or
`
`other instability,” (col. 6, 11. 2-5).
`
`29.
`
`In particular, Cashler and Schousek are directed to addressing the
`
`same problems that the ’007 patent purports to address:
`
`-15-
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`It is therefore an object of the invention to discriminate in a SIR
`
`system between large
`
`and small
`
`seat occupants
`
`for
`
`a
`
`determination of whether an airbag deployment should be
`
`permitted. Another object
`
`in such a system is to maintain
`
`reliable operation in spite of dynamic variations in sensed
`
`pres SUI'CS .
`
`’007 patent, col. 1,11. 52-57.
`
`30.
`
`It would have been obvious to utilize the technique described by
`
`Schousek to filter out deployment decisions that could be caused by occupant
`
`movement or other instability in the system described by Cashler to, for example,
`
`prevent false decisions related to airbag deployment caused by occupant movement
`
`or instability. According to Schousek, “an occasional spurious decision, which may
`
`be due to occupant movement or other instability, is filtered out.” Col. 6, 11. 2-5.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under §1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated:
`
`April 41, 2015
`
`W D
`
`r. A. Bruce Buckman
`
`-16-
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`A. Bruce Buckman - Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`home
`
`Title: Professor (Retired)
`Electrical and Computer Engineering — The University of Texas at Austin
`
`Current Business Address: 1800 Brookhaven Drive, Austin TX 78704-2149
`
`Phone: 512—496—6816
`
`Date of Birth: December 7, 1941
`
`Citizenship: United States
`
`Education:
`
`I Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BS, Electrical Engineering, 1964
`I University of Nebraska at Lincoln, MS, Electrical Engineering, 1966
`I University of Nebraska at Lincoln, PhD, Electrical Engineering, 1968
`
`Previous Academic Positions:
`
`I University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering, 1968—1973
`I University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Associate Professor, Electrical Engineering, 1973-1974
`I University of Texas at Austin, Associate Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1974-1995
`I University of Texas at Austin, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1995—2009
`
`Other Professional Experience:
`
`I Chief Scientist, Research Applications Inc., Austin TX. May— Sept. 1990. Principal Investigator for a
`Small Business Innovation & Research (SBIR) contract between RAI and the U.S. Navy to conduct
`proof—of—concept experiments with fiberoptic sensors based on novel interferometer technology. (See
`U .3. Patent 4,989 .979 below).
`I Scientist, Metamaterials LLC, Austin TX, June — Sept. 2009, R&D of composite electromagnetic
`materials .
`
`I Expert witness: Patent, trade secret and other intellectual property litigation 2000 — present.
`
`Consulting:
`
`I MESA instruments, Austin, TX: Semiconductor waveguide phase—shifter , 1974.
`I Eagle Signal, Austin, TX: Traffic signal optical collimator, 1976.
`I Texas Research Institute, Austin, TX: Fiber-optics life testing methods; ellipsometric measurement of
`relative humidity, 1979-80.
`I BEI, Inc., Little Rock, AR and Havatek, Inc., Austin, TX: Fiber—optic read-head for angular encoder,
`1980.
`
`I Western Electric, Inc., New York, NY: Expert witness (preliminary investigation) in patent litigation
`involving fiber-optic communications system, 1980.
`I Technology Assessment Group, Inc., Schenectady, NY: Evaluation of VLSI capabilities of acquired
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`

`company, 1981.
`Thermon Mfg. Co., San Marcos, TX: Distributed Solid State devices for heat trace monitoring and
`control, 1981—1986.
`Technology Assessment Group, Inc., Schenectady, NY: Fiber optics technology assessment for
`General Telephone and Electronics, 1982.
`- Tracer Inc., Austin, TX: Fiber optic sensors for ocean applications, 1982
`0 Technology Assessment Group Inc., Schenectady, NY: Evaluation of fiberoptic gyroscope design for
`venture capitalist, 1983
`Trane, Inc. Los Angeles CA,: Fiber optic gyroscope evaluation, 1984
`Prime Software Innovations, Inc., Austin, TX: Educational software development, 1983-85
`US. Autotech Accessories, Inc. Los Angeles, CA: Optical tests of high-mounted automotive taillight
`for compliance with DOT standards, 1985
`Tracor, Inc. Austin, TX: Technological assessment of laser ranging apparatus for height determination
`of a parachute-dropped object, 1985
`Schlumberger Well Services, Inc., Austin ,TX. Evaluation of fiber optic system for down-hole data
`transmission, 1986
`
`0 High End Systems, Austin, TX, Dichroic optical coatings, 1986
`0 Scientific Measurement Systems, Inc., Austin, TX,. Lightpipes, 1986—1987
`0 Thomas-Conrad Corporation, Austin TX. Fiberoptic Local Area Network hardware development,
`1988-89
`
`Microelectronics and Computer Corporation (MCC), Austin TX. Guided—wave optical interconnect
`technology, 1990.
`Kent Hance, atty., Austin, TX. Evaluation of fiber optic component company for possible acquisition,
`1991.
`
`NPR, Inc., Houston, TX, Business plan preparation and technical competition analysis for fiber optic
`sensor company, 1991.
`0 Research Applications Inc. Austin TX. Fiber optic chemical sensor development, 1992.
`o Microelectronics and Computer Corporation (MCC), Austin TX. Parallel high speed optical data link,
`1993—4.
`
`Texas Research Institute, Austin, TX: Fiber-optic interferometric sensor, 1998.
`Xidex Corporation, Austin TX. Position—sensitive detectors for Atomic Force Microscopy applications,
`1998-9
`
`Vinson and Elkins LLP, Austin TX. Expert witness, patent litigation, fiber-optic components, 3M vs.
`Seiko, etai. 2000-2001.
`Vinson and Elkins LLP, Austin TX. Expert witness with Markrnan hearing testimony, patent litigation,
`biomedical apparatus, Urologix vs. ProstaLand, etal. 2002.
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP, Irvine CA. Expert witness, patent litigation, light-emitting diode
`systems, JamStrait Inc. vs. American Products Co. Inc. 2003
`McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert and Berghoff LLP, Chicago, 111. Expert witness with trial and deposition
`testimony, patent litigation, optical bio-sensing apparatus. Coming, Inc. and Artificial Sensing
`Instruments AG vs. SR U Biosystems, LLC, SRU Biosystems Inc., and SRU Holdings LLC, 2004.
`Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb & Soffen, New York : Expert witness, patent litigation, electromagnetic radio-
`frequency identification tag reader instrumentation. Avid Identification Systems, Inc. vs. Datamars SA,
`etal. 2005
`
`McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert and Berghoff LLP, Chicago, 111.: Expert witness, inventorship lawsuit,
`optical
`instrumentation for biological and chemical sensor. SRU Biosystems Inc. vs. Hobbs 2005
`Greenberg Traurig LLP, Dallas TX: Expert witness, patent litigation, motion detector cameras. 1P
`Holdings, anal. vs. Testa Associates, eta]. 2006
`Baker Bolts LLP, Houston TX. Expert witness with deposition testimony, patent litigation, feedback
`control of power supply circuits. 02 Micro vs. Samsnng Electronics Co. et.al. 2006—2007.
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`Arnold LLP and Berg & Androphy LLP, Houston TX. 30—b-6 witness with deposition testimony,
`patent litigation, optical communications devices. Cheetah vs. Infinerra 2006-2007.
`Jones Day LLP, Dallas TX. Expert witness, patent, trade secret and inventorship litigation, optical
`systems for wafer and disc inspection. KLA—Tencor vs. Arun Atyer and Verity, Inc. 2007.
`Locke, Liddell & Sapp LLP, Houston TX. Expert witness, patent litigation, feedback control for
`MEMS accelerometers. I/O Inc. vs. Sercel 2007
`
`Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, Dallas TX. Expert witness, International Trade Commission
`Investigation, Investigation. No. 337-TA-625, 2008: automated animal-activated components
`Please see Expert Witness page for expert witness engagements after 2008, as well as a more detailed
`description of the cases and work performed.
`
`Honors and Awards:
`
`Sigma Xi, 1967
`NASA Traineeship, 1966—68
`Eta Kappa Nu, 1974
`Biographical Listings:
`
`American Men and Women of Science, 1969
`
`Who‘s Who in the Midwest, 1970
`
`Who‘s Who in the South Sc Southwest, 1975
`
`Outstanding Young Men of America, 1978
`Who‘s Who in Technology Today, 1979
`
`Best Paper Award: Vladimir Mancevski, Chellapan Narayanan, J. Kumar Pavuluri, Wanjun Wang, A.
`Bruce Buckman, and Ilene J. Busch-Vishniac, A High Precision, Six-Degree of Freedom, Single—Sided,
`Noncontact, Optical Sensor Suitable for Automated Assembly and InSpection, First World Automation
`Congress, Wailea, HI, August 1994
`
`University Committee Assignments:
`
`0 Administrative:
`
`0 EE Dept. Graduate Advisor, June l977-Sept. 1981
`o ECE Co—op Advisor, 1984 - 2009
`
`0 Committee assignments:
`
`0 University Parking and Traffic Panel, 1976—78
`0 College of Engineering Safety Committee, 1977—78
`0 College of Engineering Athletic Award Committee, 1985—86
`0 College of Engineering Cooperative Education Committee, 1984-2009
`
`Professional Society and Major Governmental Committees:
`
`Optical Society of America, Technical Advisory Committee for the Far Infrared 1976-78
`Program Chairman and Digest Editor, 1976 Region V [EEE Conference
`
`Publications:
`
`A. Refereed Archival Journal Publications
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`AB. Buckman and NM. Bashara, Secondary Emission from Thin Polymer Films Via Surface States,
`Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 577, (1966).
`AB. Buckman and N.M. Bashara, Ellipsometry for Modulated—Reflection Studies of Surfaces, J. Opt.
`Soc. Am. 58, 700, (1968).
`A. B. Buckman and NM. Bashara, Electroreflectancc Changes in Dielectric Constants of Au and Ag
`by Modulated Ellipsometry, Phys. Rev. 174, 719, (1968).
`. A. B. Buckman and W.D. Bomberger, Optical Properties of Perylene Films in the Visible and Near
`UV, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 63, 1432, (1973).
`. A. B. Buckman, NH. Hong and D.W. Wilson, Large Refractive Index Change in Pb12 Films by
`
`Photolysis at 150-180 C, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 65, 914, (1975).
`A. B. Buckman, Effective Electroopic Coefficient of Multilayer Dielectric Waveguides: Modulation
`Enhancement, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 30, (1976).
`. A. B. Buckman, Theory of an Efficient Electronic Phase Shifter Employing a Multilayer Dielectric
`Waveguide Structure, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. MTT-25, 480, (1977).
`. A. B. Buckman, On the Origin of the Large Refractive Index Change in Photolyzed PbI2 Films, J. Opt.
`
`Soc.Am.67,1123,(1977).
`. A. B. Buckman, Nonlinearity of Effective Index versus Bulk Index in Multilayer Dielectric
`Waveguides: Large Incremental Index Sensitivity, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 1187, (1977).
`A. B. Buckman and C. Kuo, Fizeau Interferometry for Measuring Refractive Index and Thickness of
`Nearly Transparent Films, Appl. Opt. 17, 3636-3640, (1978).
`A. B. Buckman and C. Kuo, Excitation of Coupled-Surface-Plasmons in Structures Containing Very
`Thin Negative Permitivity Regions, J. Opt. Soc. Am- 69, 343, (1979).
`A. B. Buckman and S. Chao, Ellipsometric Characterization of the Glassy Layer at Co/Si Interface,
`Surface Science 96, 346, (1980).
`A. B. Buckman and R. Montgelas, A Waveguiding Surface Damage Layer in LizTaO3, Applied Optics
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`20, 6, (1981).
`A. B. Buckman and S. Chao, Optical Evidence for an Electronic Phase Transition at the Co-Si
`Interface, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 71, 928, (1981).
`A. B. Buckman, Polarization—selective Lateral Waveguiding in Layered Dielectric Structures, J. Opt.
`Soc. Am. 72, 688, (1982).
`A. B. Buckman, Mode Selection with a Three-Layer Dielectric Waveguide, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 73, 33,
`
`(1983).
`A. B. Buckman, Three-layer Dielectric Stripline Filter for Guided-Wave Applications, SPIE
`Proceedings 464 , 29, (1984).
`A. B. Buckman, Analysis of a Novel Optical Fiber Interferometer with Common-mode Compensation,
`IEEE J. Lightwave Tech. 7,151 (1989)
`A. B. Buckman and K. Park Common-mode Noise Reduction in Interferometric Fiberoptic Sensors
`using Electrooptic Feedback, SPIE Proceedings. 1169, 64, (1989).
`A. B. Buckman , D.G. Pritchett and K. Park, Sensitivity—Enhanced, Common-mode Compensated
`Mach-Zehnder Fiberoptic Sensor Circuit with Electrooptic Feedback, Optics Lett. 14, 886, (1989).
`A. B. Buckman, General Sensitivity Enhancement and Common—mode Compensation Principle for
`Interferometric Fiberoptic Sensors, IEEE J. Lightwave Tech. 8, 1456 , (1990).
`A. B. Buckman, B.H. Tyrone, Jr. and A.J. Seltzer, Enhancing Fiber Optic Interferometer Precision
`Using Electro—optic Feedback and Common Mode Compensation, Proceedings American Society for
`Precision Engineering (ASPE) Topical Meeting on Precision Interferometric Metrology, pp. 18-21
`(1992).
`A. B. Buckman and Lisa Giullianelli, Direct Optical—to—Electrical Phase Conversion in a Fiber Optic
`Interferometer, Proceedings American Society for Precision Engineering (ASPE) Topical Meeting on
`Precision Interferometric Metrology, pp. 22-26 (1992).
`C. Narayanan, A. B. Buckman, I. Busch-Vishniac, M-F. Becker, R.W. Bene, and RM. Walser)
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`Frequency—Multiplexed Multiple Beam Optical Position Detector using Phase Detection, Proc. SPIE
`1918, 205-214 (1993) .
`25. R.M. Walser, Alaka Valanju, W. Win, M.F. Becker, A.B. Buckman and R.W. Bene, New Smart
`Materials for adaptive Microwave Signature Control, Proc. SPIE 1916,128-139 (1993).
`26. RM. Walser, Alaka Valanju, W. Win, M.F. Becker, A.B. Buckman and R.W. Bene, "New Smart
`Materials for adaptive Microwave Signature Control", Proc. SPIE. 1916,128-139 (1993).
`27. Michael F. Becker, A. Bruce Buckman, Rodger M. Walser, Thierry Lapine, Patrick Georges and Alain
`Brun, "Femtosecond Switching of the Solid—State Transition in the Smart System Material V02", Proc.
`SPIE. 2189,400—408 (1994)
`28. Dahong Qian, Wanjun Wang, Ilene Busch-Vishniac and A. B. Buckman, A Novel Method To Measure
`Multiple Light Spots Positions on One Position-Sensitive Detector, IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas. 4, 14
`(1993).
`29. Chellapan Narayannan, A. B. Buckman, Ilene Busch—Vishniac, and Wanjun Wang, Position
`Dependence of the Transient Response of a Position-Sensitive Detector under Periodic Pulsed Light
`Modulation, IEEE Trans. Elect. Dev.. 40, 1688—1694 (1993).
`30. Lisa Giullianelli and A. B. Buckman, Fiber Optic Circuit for Direct Phase Conversion with two
`Outputs in Quadrature, IEEE Journal of Lightwave Technology,. 11, 1263-1265 (1993).
`31. Michael F. Becker, Rodger M. Walser, Thierry Lapine, Patrick Georges Alain Brun, and A. B.
`Buckman, Femtosecond Switching of the Solid-State Transition in the Smart System Material V02,
`Proc. SPIE 2189,400-408 (1994)
`32. Lisa C. Giullianelli, A. Bruce Buckman, Rodger M. Walser, and Michael F. Becker, Digital
`Demodulation Scheme for Wide Dynamic Range Measurements with a Fiber Optic Interferometer,
`Proc. SPIE. 2191, 314-323 (1994) .
`33. Michael F. Becker, RM. Walser, A.B. Buckman, T. Lapine, P. Georges and A. Brun, Femtosecond
`laser excitation of the semiconductor—metal phase transition in V02, Applied Physics Letters, 63, 1507-
`1509 (1994).
`34. Chellapan Narayanan, A. Bruce Buckman and Ilene Busch-Vishniac, Position Detection of Multiple
`Light Beams Using Phase Detection" , IEEE Transactions on. Instrumentation and Measurement. 43,
`830-836 (1994).
`35. Michael F. Becker, Rodger M. Walser, A. Bruce Buckman, Thierry Lapine, Patrick Georges and Alain
`Brun, Femtosecond Switching of the Solid-State Transition in V02, Ultrafast Phenomena 94, Barbara,
`Knox, Mourou and Zewail, eds., Springer-Verlag, New York (1994).
`36. M.F. Becker, A.B. Buckman, R.M. Walser, T. Lepine, P. Georges, and A. Brun,