2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 1 of 636 Pg ID 5936
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 2 of 636 Pg ID 5937
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-10578-PDB-MAR
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF WILLIAM R. MICHALSON, PH.D.
`REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,544,060 (“THE ‘060
`PATENT”), 5,654,892 (“THE ‘892 PATENT”), 5,832,408 (“THE ‘408 PATENT”), and
`5,987,375 (“THE ‘375 PATENT”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VISTEON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`and VISTEON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 3 of 636 Pg ID 5938
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION*.............................................................................................................................*5!
`I.!
`II.! BACKGROUND*AND*QUALIFICATIONS*............................................................................................*5!
`III.! OPINIONS*AND*BASES*THEREFORE*.................................................................................................*8!
`A.! SUMMARY!OF!OPINIONS!.......................................................................................................................!8!
`B.! PERSON!OF!ORDINARY!SKILL!IN!THE!ART!..................................................................................................!9!
`C.! BASES!FOR!OPINIONS!AND!MATERIALS!REVIEWED!.....................................................................................!9!
`D.!
`LEGAL!STANDARDS!.............................................................................................................................!10!
`1.! Understanding-of-Anticipation-...................................................................................................-10!
`2.! Understanding-of-Obviousness-..................................................................................................-11!
`3.! Understanding-of-Inherency-.......................................................................................................-14!
`4.! Understanding-of-Written-Description,-Enablement-and-Best-Mode-.........................................-14!
`E.! CLAIM!CONSTRUCTION!........................................................................................................................!16!
`1.! Claim-Construction-of-the-‘060-Patent-Claims-...........................................................................-16!
`2.! Claim-Construction-of-the-‘892-Patent-Claims-...........................................................................-18!
`3.! Claim-Construction-of-the-‘408-Patent-Claims-...........................................................................-20!
`4.! Claim-Construction-of-the-‘375-Patent-Claims-...........................................................................-21!
`IV.! TECHNOLOGY*BACKGROUND*.......................................................................................................*22!
`A.! VEHICLE!NAVIGATION!SYSTEMS!IN!GENERAL!...........................................................................................!23!
`B.! PROVISION!OF!ELECTRONIC!MAPS!..........................................................................................................!30!
`C.! DISPLAY!OF!VEHICLE!POSITION!ON!AN!ELECTRONIC!MAP!.............................................................................!33!
`D.! CALCULATING!AN!OPTIMUM!ROUTE!......................................................................................................!34!
`E.! DISPLAYING!THE!MULTIPLE!LINKS!OF!A!ROUTE!TO!THE!USER!......................................................................!37!
`F.! PROVIDING!ROUTE!GUIDANCE!INSTRUCTIONS!FOR!A!USER!.........................................................................!38!
`G.! PROVIDING!ROUTE!GUIDANCE!INSTRUCTIONS!SEQUENTIALLY!TO!THE!USER!..................................................!39!
`H.! PROVIDING!ADVANCE!WARNING!FOR!UPCOMING!MANEUVERS!ON!THE!ROUTE!............................................!40!
`I.!
`!VISIBLY!DISPLAYING!UPCOMING!MANEUVERS!TO!THE!USER!.......................................................................!41!
`J.!
`!CALCULATING!ALTERNATIVE!ROUTES!(FOR!EXAMPLE,!TO!AVOID!CONGESTION)!.............................................!43!
`K.!
`STORING!AND!RECALLING!POINTS!OF!INTEREST!........................................................................................!45!
`L.!
`SORTING!DESTINATIONS!BY!CATEGORY!AND!SEARCHING!WITHIN!AND!ACROSS!CATEGORIES!............................!48!
`V.! EXAMPLE*COMMERCIAL*EMBODIMENTS*.....................................................................................*49!
`A.! THE!TRAVELPILOT!SYSTEM!...................................................................................................................!49!
`B.! THE!TRAVTEK!!SYSTEM!........................................................................................................................!50!
`C.! THE!ETAK!NAVIGATOR!SYSTEM!............................................................................................................!52!
`D.! AUTOROUTE!/!AUTOMAP!...................................................................................................................!54!
`E.! MOTOROLA!.......................................................................................................................................!56!
`VI.! U.S.*PATENT*NO.*5,544,060*..........................................................................................................*57!
`A.! OVERVIEW!........................................................................................................................................!57!
`1.! Overview-of-the-‘060-Patent-......................................................................................................-57!
`2.! Claims-........................................................................................................................................-59!
`3.! Prosecution-History-Discussion-..................................................................................................-60!
`B.! OVERVIEW!OF!‘060!PRIOR!ART!INVALIDITY!OPINIONS!..............................................................................!69!
`
`
`
`1
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 4 of 636 Pg ID 5939
`
`C.! THE!PRIOR!ART!ANTICIPATES!THE!‘060!PATENT!......................................................................................!69!
`1.! Wootton-Anticipates-Claims-3-and-4-..........................................................................................-69!
`2.! Kirson-Anticipates-Claims-3-and-4-..............................................................................................-88!
`3.! Takasaki-Anticipates-Claims-3-and-4-........................................................................................-109!
`D.! THE!PRIOR!ART!RENDERS!THE!‘060!PATENT!OBVIOUS!...........................................................................!123!
`1.! The-AutoRoute-Manual-and-Kirson-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-.................................-123!
`2.! The-AutoRoute-System-and-Kirson-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-..................................-154!
`3.! The-AutoMap-System-and-Kirson-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-....................................-209!
`4.! The-AutoRoute-Manual-and-Smith-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-..................................-264!
`5.! The-AutoRoute-System-and-Smith-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-...................................-272!
`6.! The-AutoMap-System-and-Smith-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-.....................................-277!
`7.! The-AutoRoute-Manual,-Kirson,-and-Smith-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-.....................-282!
`8.! The-AutoRoute-System,-Kirson,-and-Smith-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-......................-285!
`9.! The-AutoMap-System,-Kirson,-and-Smith-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-........................-288!
`10.! The-AutoRoute-Manual-and-Lefebvre-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-...........................-291!
`11.! The-AutoRoute-System-and-Lefebvre-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-............................-297!
`12.! The-AutoMap-System-and-Lefebvre-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-..............................-302!
`13.! Wootton-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-6-Obvious-.......................................................................-307!
`14.! Wootton-and-Takasaki-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-..................................................-311!
`15.! Wootton,-Takasaki,-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-6-Obvious-......................................................-319!
`16.! Kirson-and-Martin-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-.........................................................-321!
`17.! Kirson,-Martin,-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-6-Obvious-..............................................................-328!
`18.! Kirson-and-Takasaki-Renders-Claims-3,-4,-and-6-Obvious-......................................................-331!
`19.! Kirson,-Takasaki,-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-6-Obvious-..........................................................-335!
`E.! THE!‘060!PATENT!IS!INVALID!UNDER!35!U.S.C.!§!112!...........................................................................!338!
`1.! Enablement/Written-Description-Regarding-Alternate-Optimal-Route-Calculation-.................-338!
`VII.!U.S.*PATENT*NO.*5,654,892*........................................................................................................*342!
`A.! OVERVIEW!......................................................................................................................................!342!
`1.! Overview-of-the-‘892-Patent-....................................................................................................-342!
`2.! Claims-......................................................................................................................................-345!
`3.! Prosecution-History-Discussion-................................................................................................-346!
`B.! OVERVIEW!OF!‘892!PRIOR!ART!INVALIDITY!OPINIONS!............................................................................!354!
`C.! THE!PRIOR!ART!ANTICIPATES!THE!‘892!PATENT!.....................................................................................!354!
`1.! Yamada-Anticipates-Claim-8-....................................................................................................-354!
`D.! THE!PRIOR!ART!RENDERS!THE!‘892!PATENT!OBVIOUS!...........................................................................!362!
`1.!
`Itoh-and-Yamada-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.............................................................................-362!
`2.!
`Itoh-and-Ikeda-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-..................................................................................-373!
`3.!
`Itoh,-Yamada,-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.................................................................-384!
`4.!
`Itoh,-Yamada,-and-Futoshi-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-..............................................................-396!
`5.!
`Itoh,-Ikeda,-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.....................................................................-409!
`6.!
`Itoh,-Ikeda,-and-Futoshi-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-...................................................................-421!
`7.!
`Itoh-and-Common-Sense-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-..................................................................-434!
`8.! Yamada-and-Itoh-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.............................................................................-436!
`9.! Yamada-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-..........................................................................-446!
`10.! Yamada-and-Futoshi-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-......................................................................-457!
`11.! Yamada,-Itoh,-and-Smith-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-...............................................................-468!
`12.! Yamada,-Itoh,-and-Futoshi-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-............................................................-479!
`
`
`
`2
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 5 of 636 Pg ID 5940
`
`13.! Yamada-and-Common-Sense-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.........................................................-491!
`14.!
`Ikeda-and-Itoh-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-...............................................................................-493!
`15.!
`Ikeda-and-Yamada-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.........................................................................-504!
`16.!
`Ikeda,-Itoh,-and-Ordinary-Skill/Common-Sense-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.............................-516!
`17.!
`Ikeda,-Yamada,-and-Ordinary-Skill/Common-Sense-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-......................-518!
`18.! Smith-and-Ikeda-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-.............................................................................-520!
`19.! Smith,-Ikeda,-and-Ordinary-Skill/Common-Sense-Renders-Claim-8-Obvious-..........................-531!
`E.! THE!‘892!PATENT!IS!INVALID!UNDER!35!U.S.C.!§!112!..........................................................................!533!
`1.! Enablement-..............................................................................................................................-533!
`2.! Written-Description-..................................................................................................................-536!
`VIII.!U.S.*PATENT*NO.*5,832,408*........................................................................................................*538!
`A.! OVERVIEW!......................................................................................................................................!538!
`1.! Overview-of-the-‘408-Patent-....................................................................................................-538!
`2.! Claims-......................................................................................................................................-540!
`3.! Prosecution-History-Discussion-................................................................................................-541!
`B.! OVERVIEW!OF!‘408!PRIOR!ART!INVALIDITY!OPINIONS!............................................................................!543!
`C.! THE!PRIOR!ART!ANTICIPATES!THE!‘408!PATENT!....................................................................................!543!
`1.! Norman-Anticipates-Claims-1Z6-...............................................................................................-543!
`2.! Global-Explorer-Anticipates-Claims-1Z6-....................................................................................-562!
`D.! THE!PRIOR!ART!RENDERS!THE!‘408!PATENT!OBVIOUS!...........................................................................!580!
`1.! Norman-Renders-Claim-3-Obvious-...........................................................................................-580!
`2.! Norman-and-Morimoto-Renders-Claim-3-Obvious-...................................................................-584!
`3.! Nimura-and-Morimoto-Renders-Claims-1Z6-Obvious-................................................................-588!
`4.! Nimura,-Morimoto,-and-Norman-Renders-Claims-4-and-5-Obvious-.........................................-608!
`5.! Global-Explorer-Renders-Claims-1Z6-Obvious-...........................................................................-613!
`6.! Global-Explorer-and-Norman-Renders-Claims-1Z6-Obvious-......................................................-618!
`7.! Global-Explorer-and-Keeler-Renders-Claims-1Z6-Obvious-.........................................................-622!
`IX.! U.S.*PATENT*NO.*5,987,375*........................................................................................................*623!
`A.! OVERVIEW!......................................................................................................................................!623!
`1.! Overview-of-the-‘375-Patent-....................................................................................................-623!
`2.! Claims-......................................................................................................................................-624!
`3.! Prosecution-History-Discussion-................................................................................................-625!
`B.! THE!‘375!PATENT!IS!INVALID!UNDER!35!U.S.C.!§!112!..........................................................................!627!
`1.! Enablement-..............................................................................................................................-627!
`2.! Written-Description-..................................................................................................................-630!
`X.! DISCUSSION*REGARDING*POTENTIAL*SECONDARY*CONSIDERATIONS*OF*NONDOBVIOUSNESS*...*631!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 24 of 636 Pg ID 5959
`
`IV.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`The patents-in-suit are generally focused on vehicle navigation systems. Since the
`
`patents-in-suit must be analyzed with respect to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the inventions disclosed, it is important to understand the background that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have at the time of those inventions as well as the general state of
`
`the art at the time. Further, the state of the art and background of a person of ordinary skill at the
`
`time informs the “scope and content of the prior art” aspect of the analysis of obviousness. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to bring the below technological background to
`
`bear on the solution of engineering problems within the scope of the background. Further, this
`
`state of the art and background of a person of ordinary skill in the art forms a basis for
`
`identifying common sense solutions to routine engineering problems within the scope of the
`
`background.
`
`At the time of earliest filing of the patents-in-suit, i.e., by 1991, the navigation space had
`
`already undergone significant development and was quite robust. At this point in time, the
`
`foundational technology for a navigation device was already well-known. Artisans of the time
`
`were, at best, contemplating incremental modifications to existing ideas. Many artisans were
`
`working on the same modifications at or near the same time, resulting in a very crowded space
`
`with little room for true innovation. As I have detailed herein, the specific modifications
`
`proposed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit were already known before the filing of the
`
`patents-in-suit. However, before moving to the specific invalidity analysis, it is important to
`
`note that the background technology that forms the foundation for the patents-in-suit was just
`
`that, foundational and extremely well known. The foundational technology features that are
`
`discussed in the asserted patents include:
`
`
`
`22
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 25 of 636 Pg ID 5960
`
`• Provision of electronic maps in vehicles
`• Display of vehicle position on an electronic map
`• Calculating an optimum route between a starting point and an ending point
`• Displaying the multiple links of a route to the user
`• Providing route guidance instructions for a user
`• Providing route guidance instructions sequentially to the user
`• Providing advance warning for upcoming maneuvers on the route
`• Visibly displaying upcoming maneuvers to the user
`• Calculating alternative routes (for example, to avoid congestion)
`• Storing and recalling points of interest
`• Sorting destinations by category and searching within and across categories
`
`The following sections describe the state of technology in these areas as it existed by 1991 and
`
`demonstrates that persons of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered any of these
`
`foundational technologies to be innovative. Instead, they were part of the building blocks that
`
`anyone in this space was familiar with and could build upon.
`
`A.
`
`Vehicle Navigation Systems in General
`
`Providing navigation systems in vehicles was not a new idea by 1991. Indeed, many
`
`practitioners had developed map-based navigation systems before that date. These systems
`
`generally determined position based on inertial navigation sensors using a technique called dead-
`
`reckoning, used radio navigation sensors such as the Long-Range Navigation (LORAN) system
`
`deployed by the US Coast Guard (or radio systems like the then-new Global Positioning System,
`
`or GPS), or used some combination of these technologies.
`
`For example, US Patent 4,502,123 was issued to Minami et.al. (“Minami”) on February
`
`26, 1985. In this patent “a navigation system arranged to display a road map in accordance with
`
`road map information from a cassette tape, and the present location of a motor vehicle equipped
`
`with the navigation system” is described. Minami at abstract. This early system contained
`
`inertial and odometry sensors, a map database on cassette tape, a cathode ray tube monitor for
`
`displaying maps, a keyboard for entering information, and a computer system with CPU, RAM,
`
`
`
`23
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 26 of 636 Pg ID 5961
`
`ROM and the necessary programming needed to realize the navigation system. Id. See generally
`
`id. at Figs. 1-11 and supporting text. As is still common today, when using this system “the user
`
`who may be the motor vehicle driver or an occupant, will be informed with the present location
`
`and the travelling locus both shown on the map displayed on the CRT screen.” Id. 11:10-12.
`
`By 1987 there was enough activity in the area of automobile navigation systems, that R.
`
`L. French wrote the seminal paper “Automobile navigation: Where is it going?” See R.L.
`
`French, “Automobile navigation: Where is it going?,” Aerospace and Electronic Systems
`
`Magazine, pp. 6-12, May 1987 (“French”). He begins by stating that “Automobile navigation
`
`systems based on dead reckoning, map matching, satellite positioning and other navigation
`
`technologies are under active development.” Id. at 6. In this 1987 paper, French describes an
`
`architecture for such a system that remains essentially the same to this day. Id. at Figure 2:
`
`
`Regarding user interface, French explains that “[m]ost systems proposed or developed to
`
`date use detailed map displays or some combination of symbolic graphics, alphanumeric
`
`messages, and audio signals.” Id. at 8. In early systems, the displays “projected simple
`
`combinations of arrows and words on the windshield.” Id. at 9. Other systems “used a plasma
`
`display panel to give route guidance in the form of shaped arrows along with street names, etc.”
`
`Id. at 9. By 1984, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors demonstrated systems “which displayed
`
`
`
`24
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 27 of 636 Pg ID 5962
`
`detailed map images.” Id. at 9. By 1986, the EVA system by Bosch-Blaupunkt recognized some
`
`of the additional complexities associated with providing driver guidance. In the EVA system,
`
`“[t]urns at complicated intersections, lane changes, etc., are specified to the driver in the form of
`
`simplified diagrams which show lane boundaries and use arrows to indicate the path to be
`
`taken.” Id. at 9. Some of this complexity was also addressed by 1986 in the ALI-SCOUT
`
`system which incorporated a feature known as the “Wolfsburg wave” which “is essentially a bar
`
`graph that, in this application, gives a "count down" to the exact point where the vehicle is to
`
`turn, thus clearly delineating among closely spaced turns.” Id. at 9.
`
`According to Boyce, systems “for finding the required best routes by applying minimum
`
`path algorithms to network representations of the highway system” had been specified as early as
`
`1970, meaning that this problem was known, understood and had proposed solutions by that
`
`time. See D.E. Boyce, “Route Guidance Systems for Improving Urban Travel and Location
`
`Choices,” Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 22A, No. 4, pp.275-281, Pergamon
`
`Press, 1988 (“Boyce”) at p. 276. This was done in systems such as the ETAK Navigator. Boyce
`
`describes the 1986 ETAK Navigator as a system similar to that described above, noting that
`
`“[d]igital map data stored on tape cassettes are input to an on-board computer similar to an IBM
`
`PC in capacity and displayed on a CRT.” Id. at 277. In the ETAK system, “[a]s the vehicle is
`
`driven, the map scrolls across the CRT and the vehicles location remains stationary in the center.
`
`An input destination can also be displayed.” Id. at 277.
`
`Regarding routing algorithms and the need for calculating alternative paths, Boyce
`
`describes some of the features of the Comprehensive Automobile Traffic Control Project in
`
`Japan from 1973 to 1979. Specifically, he states that “[a] system for computing routing
`
`alternatives from each intersection to a specified destination was devised and implemented.” Id.
`
`
`
`25
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 28 of 636 Pg ID 5963
`
`at 277. The need for drivers to be able to make decisions about possible alternative routes was
`
`clearly known, and being addressed by practitioners, by the time Boyce wrote his overview in
`
`1987. Indeed, given information about road conditions and/or delays, it was known that
`
`estimated travel times for different alternate routes between an origin and destination could be
`
`determined. As Boyce points out, “These estimates could be used by drivers to decide their best
`
`departure times, or to avoid unusual conditions caused by accidents or other traffic flow
`
`interruptions.” Id. at 278.
`
`The above references (and the works they cite) point out a number of systems that were
`
`focused at automobile navigation. Thus, there were a number of prior art systems that had been
`
`widely used since the 1980s. These systems generally contained a searchable database
`
`containing map and point of interest information and computer hardware and software for
`
`receiving user input, executing instructions, performing searches and computations, and
`
`displaying information on a map. These systems were also capable of receiving and displaying
`
`information relating to points of interest from an external source.
`
`Systems that used databases containing map information were commonly known as
`
`Geographic Information Systems, or GIS. “Computer-based GIS have been used since at least
`
`the late 1960s.” See, B. Coppock et. al., History of GIS, Geographical Information Systems:
`
`Principles and Applications, Vol. 1, Longman Group, pp. 21-34, 1991 (“Coppock”) at p. 21.
`
`By the mid-1980s, it was known that there were many ways that GIS data could be stored
`
`and that the manner in which data are stored impacts the time and computer resources required to
`
`effectively use the data. See generally, Peuquet, A Conceptual Framework And Comparison Of
`
`Spatial Data Models, Cartographica, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 66–113, 1984 (“Peuquet”). For
`
`
`
`26
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`

`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc # 157-2 Filed 11/30/12 Pg 636 of 636 Pg ID 6571
`
`My investigation and analysis in this matter is continuing. Therefore, as necessary, I may make
`additions, supplementations, deletions, or other revisions to this report in the future that would be
`reflected in my trial testimony or otherwise. In addition, I may submit supplemental reports if
`.
`.
`necessary to supplement or amend my opinions or the bases for my opinions, such as if
`additional information comes to light and especially as I continue to learn of the positions and
`opinions of Visteon's experts in this matter as well as any new positions that Visteon is allowed
`to advance. For trial or other purposes, I may use diagrams, charts, animations, or other
`demenstratives to illustrate my opinions and the bases for my opinions. I also understand that I
`may be/asked to provide rebuttal testimony at trial or otherwise on matters not covered in this
`report.
`
`Date:
`
`09/28/12
`
`William R. Michalson, Ph.D.
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`Exhibit 2004