throbber
Page 1
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ________________________________________________
` VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
` Petitioner
`
` Patent No. 7,397,363
` Case No. IPR2015-01612
`
` Patent No. 5,917,405
` Case No. IPR2015-01613
`
` Patent No. 6,549,076
` Case No. IPR2015-01610
`
` Patent No. 6,549,130
` Case No. IPR2015-01611
` ________________________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
` Palo Alto, California
` Wednesday, April 20, 2016
` VOLUME I (Pages 1 - 91)
`
`Reported by: JANIS JENNINGS, CSR, CLR, CCRR
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 1
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
` DEPOSITION OF SCOTT ANDREWS, taken on
`behalf of the Patent Owner, at Kenyon & Kenyon LLP,
`1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 210, Palo Alto, California,
`beginning at 10:55 a.m. on Wednesday, April 20, 2016,
`before Janis Jennings, Certified Shorthand Reporter No.
`3942, CLR, CCRR.
`
`12345678
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
` 2
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Petitioner:
` KENYON & KENYON LLP
` BY: CLIFFORD A. ULRICH, ESQ.
` One Broadway
` New York, New York 10004-1007
` 212.425.7200
` culrich@kenyon.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
` JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC.
` BY: RAYMOND A. JOAO, ESQ.
` 122 Bellevue Place
` Yonkers, New York 10703
` 914.969.2992
` rayjoao@optonline.net
`
` SINERGIA LAW GROUP
` BY: RENE VAZQUEZ, ESQ. (Telephonic appearance)
` 18296 St. Georges Court
` Leesburg, Virginia 20176
` 703.989.2244
` rvazquez@singergialaw.com
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 3
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
` I N D E X
`
`Page 4
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`SCOTT ANDREWS
`
` BY MR. JOAO 6
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5678
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
` 4
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1 Notice of Deposition of Scott Andrews 6
` IPR2015-01612
`
`Exhibit 2 Declaration of Scott Andrews 13
`
`Exhibit 3 United States Patent 7,397,363 14
`
`Exhibit 4 United States Patent 5,732,074 15
`
`Exhibit 5 Notice of Deposition of Scott Andrews 50
` IPR2015-01613
`
`Exhibit 6 Declaration of Scott Andrews 50
`
`Exhibit 7 United States Patent 5,917,405 50
`
`Exhibit 8 United States Patent 6,072,402 50
`
`Exhibit 9 United States Patent 4,897,642 50
`
`Exhibit 10 United States Patent 5,113,427 50
`
`Exhibit 11 United States Patent 5,223,844 50
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 6
` PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016;
` 10:56 a.m.
`
` SCOTT ANDREWS,
` The witness herein, was sworn and testified
` as follows:
`
` CROSS EXAMINATION
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Andrews.
` A. Good morning.
` MR. JOAO: My name is Raymond Joao. I'm a
`patent attorney, and I am representing Joao Control &
`Monitoring Systems in this IPR involving U.S. Patent
`No. 7,397,363, case IPR2015-01612.
` This is Exhibit 1.
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification
` and attached hereto.)
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. Mr. Andrews, you were handed Exhibit 1, a copy
`of the Notice of Deposition of Scott Andrews.
` Have you seen this document before?
` A. I haven't, but I was told about it.
` Q. Do you want to take your time to look through
`it?
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
` 6
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 7
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. Mr. Andrews, have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. So you understand the process?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If it -- I'm going to be asking questions, I
`want to make sure that you understand. So if at any
`time during my questioning you have a problem or a
`question, just please let me know so this way, you know,
`we get all that taken care of without a problem.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Okay. Mr. Andrews, you are -- you have been
`retained by Volkswagen; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And you are the -- you have offered
`declarations in the four IPRs involving U.S. Patent
`numbers 7,397,363, U.S. Patent No. 5,917,405,
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130, and U.S. Patent
`No. 6,542,076; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Mr. Andrews, what was your first contact with
`Volkswagen?
` A. Let's see. I think I was contacted by
`Volkswagen -- I can't recall whether it was 2008 or '9
`on a case for -- a case against Affinity Labs.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
` 7
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 8
` Q. When did you first read the JCMS patents? And
`by "JCMS patents," I mean the four patents, at the
`least, the four patents that you have opined on and
`provided declarations in these IPRs?
` A. Gosh. Well, for Volkswagen, it probably would
`have been six to nine months ago, something like that.
`I was also associated with a case, I believe, with other
`patents. I'm not sure if they were JCMS patents, but
`other patents by Joao. Is that how you pronounce it?
` Q. Joao, yes.
` A. Joao.
` Against Toyota, back in 2011, I believe.
` Q. Did you render any opinions in your
`representation of Toyota or when you were working with
`Toyota?
` A. I don't believe so. I just consulted with
`them.
` Q. Do you understand the JCMS patents at issue,
`the four IPR patents that I just named or listed, are
`you sufficient -- do you understand to sufficiently
`support your expert opinions today?
` A. Yes, of course.
` Q. With regard to each of the four JCMS patents,
`and when I say "JCMS," I'm using shorthand for Joao
`Control & Monitoring Systems.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
` 8
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 9
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. Did you read all four of the patents?
` A. I did.
` Q. Did you read all of the file histories for all
`of the patents and any related applications?
` A. I read -- I can't say I read every word of the
`file histories, but I am certainly familiar with the
`file histories.
` Q. And you understand that the four JCMS patents
`are also or were involved -- well, one was and three
`still are involved in a re-examination at the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you offer opinions in those as well?
` A. I don't know if I -- I don't think I've
`offered any written opinions. I believe I consulted
`with Kenyon on those.
` Q. In reviewing the -- have you offered expert
`testimony for patent invalidity issues before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you understand claim construction?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what do you understand that to be?
` A. Claim construction is a legal process.
`Typically the -- seen in -- well, I don't want to say
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
` 9
`
` of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 10
`what it is from a legal perspective. Claim construction
`from a layperson's perspective is the Court determining
`the meaning of any disputed terms that are in the
`claims.
` Q. In the course of reviewing the file histories
`for the four JCMS patents, 7,397,363, 5,917,405,
`6,542,076, and 6,549,130, did you come across any
`definitions in the file histories?
` A. Let's see. I believe that in the '363 file
`history, I believe that the patent applicant either
`provided or otherwise sought to define some of the claim
`terms for that patent.
` Q. Did you use those definitions provided in the
`file history when you rendered your opinions?
` A. I used the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`and having seen those definitions, I didn't feel that
`those definitions were -- offered any particular
`difference between the broadest interpretation and those
`definitions. They basically were reiterating what I
`would consider to be the broadest reasonable
`interpretations.
` Q. Are you familiar with the term "person having
`ordinary skill in the art" or a "person of ordinary
`skill in the art" or a "POSITA"?
` A. Yes, I am.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`10 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 11
`
` Q. And what do you understand that to be?
` A. It's a person at the -- who at the time of the
`patent application would have had the -- I'm sure
`there's a particularly legal definition of this, but
`would have had the knowledge and experience to read and
`understand the patent and reduce that patent to practice
`or reduce the claimed invention to practice.
` Q. In what fields are you an expert?
` A. Do you mean that from the perspective of what
`fields am I a technical --
` Q. Technical expert?
` A. -- expert outside the legal domain, or are you
`asking that from the perspective of what fields I
`testify in as an expert?
` Q. Are you an expert in the legal domain?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. I guess what fields do you consider
`yourself to be a technical expert?
` A. Ah, let's see. I'm certainly a technical
`expert in communication systems, communications
`electronics and communications theory. I'm an expert in
`automotive systems, including what are often known as
`intelligent transportation systems or ITS. That
`includes applications of communications and computing
`technology to mobile devices, including cars and trucks,
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`11 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 12
`and it also generally includes various aspects dealing
`with navigation, with position finding.
` Q. Going back to POSITA. In your opinion, what
`would a person have to have in terms of experience
`and/or education to qualify as a POSITA?
` A. For these particular patents?
` Q. Yes.
` A. I haven't actually opined on that, I don't
`believe, in my declarations, but I would think that it
`would be a person with a bachelor's degree in computer
`science or engineering, possibly some other technical
`field like physics, but probably two to three years
`experience in developing communications in
`computing-oriented systems. And that, you know, if they
`had less experience, they might have -- might compensate
`for that by having a higher level degree.
` Q. Thank you. Mr. Andrews, what have you done to
`prepare to testify today?
` A. Let's see. I read the patents. I read my
`declarations. I read the IPR petitions. I read the
`patent owner responses to those petitions, and I went
`through some of the re-exam histories. I may have
`looked at a few other things, obviously the prior art
`patents and things.
` Q. You reviewed the prior art patents?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`12 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 13
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you begin preparing?
` A. Two weeks ago, maybe.
` Q. And approximately how much time did you spend?
` A. I've probably spent, up until this week, maybe
`20 hours or so. And then this week, you know, 40 hours,
`thereabouts.
` MR. JOAO: This is No. 2.
` (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification
` and attached hereto.)
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. Mr. Andrews, you've been handed a copy of the
`declaration of Scott Andrews. Do you recognize that
`document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Do you need time to look at it?
` A. No.
` Q. On the last five pages, that is your CV;
`correct?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Is your CV full and complete?
` A. Let's see. It's reasonably complete as of
`whenever this was put together. I may have worked on
`a -- or may have acquired a handful of other cases since
`this. In fact, I know I have.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`13 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
` MR. JOAO: Okay. This is Exhibit 3.
` (Exhibit 3 was marked for identification
` and attached hereto.)
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. Mr. Andrews, I handed you a copy of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,397,363.
` Do you recognize the document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Mr. Andrews, did you offer opinion regarding
`independent claim 68 of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363?
` A. I'd have to -- I've only looked at this on my
`computer and I have them highlighted, and so I'm going
`to look through my --
` Q. Please take your time.
` A. I don't have the claim numbers memorized.
` Q. Just to help you out. I think you're going to
`jump to page --
` A. 16?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes. Yes, I offered opinions on that, yes.
` Q. And what was your opinion?
` A. That Spaur discloses the limitations of 68.
` Q. Okay. Can you tell me how the Spaur system
`works with regards to how it discloses all of the
`elements of claim 68, please.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`14 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 15
`
` A. Do you have a copy of Spaur?
` MR. JOAO: It just so happens I have a copy
`right here.
` DEPOSITION REPORTER: This is No. 4.
` (Exhibit 4 was marked for identification
` and attached hereto.)
` THE WITNESS: So you want me to go through
`each of the limitations of 68?
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. Well, if you can tell me generally how it
`works and then we'll go through the limitations.
` A. How Spaur works?
` Q. How Spaur works with regards to how it
`anticipates claim 68 generally and then we'll go through
`the -- because I have some questions regarding some of
`the actual wording of the claim, unless you want to just
`do that first.
` A. No, I can kind of point out the primary
`elements of Spaur that meet the primary elements of the
`claim.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So the claim, claim 68 has, as most of the
`claims in this patent family have, it has three, in this
`case, they're called processing devices. There's a
`first processing device which is located at the vehicle,
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`15 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 16
`and it is responsible for certain things. And the
`processing device generates a signal and transmits that
`signal to a second processing device where that signal
`contains information regarding an event from the
`vehicle.
` The second processing device is remote from
`the vehicle and receives the signal from the first
`processing device. And the second processing device
`generates a signal and transmits that second signal on
`or over the Internet I believe to a communication
`device, which is in some cases called a third device,
`but in this case, it's called a communication device
`which receives it and that provides information
`regarding the event.
` And that the second device -- the
`communication between the second device and the third
`device takes place over the Internet or the World Wide
`Web.
` Q. Okay. So you indicated there were at least
`two processing devices in claim 68; correct?
` A. There is the first processing device at the
`vehicle, the second processing device which is remote
`from the vehicle, and a communication device, which is I
`guess in this case it doesn't need to be remote from the
`two, but oftentimes they are.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`16 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 17
` Now, in Spaur, we have a device which is in
`the vehicle that would be the controller/network
`protocol converter which has an interface to various
`vehicle systems, you know, various vehicle devices
`through a CAN, which is a controller area network bus
`interface. And so that's how the first processing
`device would interact with the list of possible things
`that the vehicle, or that the first processing in the
`claim needs to interact with in the vehicle; so vehicle
`equipment system, vehicle component, et cetera.
` Q. Okay. You used the term "processing device."
`It's in the claim. Did you use a definition for
`processing device when you studied Spaur and arrived at
`your opinion?
` A. I used essentially plain conventional meaning,
`which would specifically be something that I think that
`you provided a definition of it that I don't necessarily
`disagree with. It's something that performs processing
`functions.
` Q. Okay. The first processing device of Spaur,
`can you -- again, I know you may have done it, but can
`you please identify that to me in Figure 2, I believe,
`and Figure 2 is where I saw that you had said something
`about 30, and so I just wanted to kind of help you
`there.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`17 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 18
` A. Well, the specific processor would be the
`processor 94 with the RTOS, real-time operating system,
`that's all generally contained within the controller
`network protocol converter 30.
` Q. So you're saying item 94 is the first
`processing device of claim 68?
` A. I would actually consider the controller 30 to
`be the more complete, although it contains a --
`specifically contains a processing device, which would
`be the processor 94.
` Q. Okay. So the first processing device -- so
`I'm clear, the first processing device would be
`represented by controller 30? Controller network
`protocol converter?
` A. I believe that item 30 in Figure 2 would be
`representative of a first processing device.
` Q. According to claim 68, "...the first
`processing device at least one of monitors and detects
`an event regarding at least one of a vehicle system, a
`vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle
`device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of
`a vehicle..."
` Do you see that --
` DEPOSITION REPORTER: I'm sorry, "vehicle
`equipment," what's after that?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`18 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 19
`
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. "...vehicle equipment and a vehicle appliance,
`of a vehicle."
` Do you see that in the claim 68?
` A. Where were you reading?
` Q. I'm reading from claim 68 in the first
`paragraph.
` A. "...monitors and detects an event regarding at
`least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment
`system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of a vehicle..."
` Yes.
` Q. Okay. Where in Spaur does it disclose that
`the -- I'm going to refer to for shorthand just so I'm
`not playing games here, controller/network protocol
`converter, I'm going to just call that controller 30.
`Is that okay with you?
` A. That's fine.
` Q. Okay. Where in Spaur does it show that
`controller 30 actually monitors or detects an event?
` A. Well, first of all, Spaur Figure 2 shows the
`controller 30 connected through -- I'm just going to
`call it a CAN bus, which is the Controller Area Network
`control unit. And CAN bus items 122 and 126 interacts
`with a variety of vehicle devices, 50A, B, and C -- and
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`19 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 20
`A, B through N, and you asked me where specifically
`Spaur talked about responding to, I think it was
`monitoring?
` Q. No. I think the question was -- well, can you
`read back the question, please.
` Okay. Okay.
` Where in Spaur does it show that controller 30
`actually monitored or it detects an event?
` A. Well, at -- let's start through my declaration
`here, at column 3, lines 30 to 39, we have -- well,
`Spaur talks about a variety of reporting and monitoring
`functions, which include running programs on the
`controller to obtain data from the vehicles. And
`examples from that are 30 and 39, where the executable
`programs can be utilized in obtaining or providing data
`or other information associated with the vehicle
`devices, so that would be monitoring or controlling.
` Column 4 at lines 24 to 29, we have in a
`variation of this operation, it's said for "requests
`starting from the remote station, the sending of
`information including data, might be initiated at the
`vehicle. By way of example, it may be necessary or
`desirable to have certain data parameters be
`periodically transmitted to a remote station for
`analysis for other considerations."
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`20 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 21
` And then we continue at column 8, line 49.
`"Such data may be data obtained from monitoring a
`physical device associated with the vehicle and/or may
`include data useful in running executable software that
`is intended to provide further information or data
`useful to a requestor."
` Those are the particular sections that I
`cited. If you'd like me to identify that --
` Q. Well --
` A. -- where in here the controller itself is
`connected to those, we could probably go through that as
`well.
` Q. Okay. The controller, the controller 30 in
`Spaur is located at the vehicle; correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. Now, claim 68 is pretty specific as to
`what the event is that's being monitored and detected.
`Do you see the language, "...and further wherein the
`event is a detection of a state of disrepair of the at
`least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment
`system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`equipment, and a vehicle appliance..."?
` A. I see that.
` Q. Okay. Where in Spaur or in any of those
`sections that you just listed does -- where does Spaur
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`21 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 22
`show the controller 30 detecting a state of disrepair?
` A. For example, column 9, line 10, "Vehicle
`parameter monitoring for maintaining the vehicle such as
`checking engine conditions including possibility of
`overheating," for example, which would be a state of
`disrepair.
` There's also at line 25 of column, 9
`"Providing an indication of key or alarm related events,
`such as when roadside assistance is required," which in
`many cases roadside assistance for someone skilled in
`the art would be required because the vehicle is -- it
`has some form of state of disrepair.
` Q. Well, I guess I'm not sure where it describes
`that the controller 30 is actually doing this.
` A. Well, first of all, in Figure 2, you see that
`the interface between this system as described by Spaur
`and the vehicle is through controller area network
`control unit 122 and CAN bus 126. So the only way that
`Spaur's system, and if you'd like I can spend some time
`and find a specific reference that the controller 30
`gets this information.
` But from Figure 2 alone, you can see that
`controller 30 is connected to a variety of vehicle
`devices, which would be the devices that it would
`receive information, for example, about a need for
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`22 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 23
`roadside assistance or overheating, would receive that
`information or interpret that information through the
`vehicle devices that it's connected to.
` Q. Can you please show me some supporting spec
`for that, for the controller 30?
` A. Well, you have -- at the beginning, you have
`Figure 4 which shows a flow chart and it starts with
`block 300, which is the vehicle devices which are
`transmitting data. So it's the vehicle device's data
`transmission. Those go to the CAN bus input, which then
`goes to the CAN control unit handling, which then goes
`to the vehicle controller handling. And vehicle
`controller is unit 30. So this flow chart alone shows
`the sequence of the flow of information, beginning with
`vehicle devices and pausing at the vehicle controller
`handling.
` Q. How do you know from Figure 4 that the vehicle
`controller is that control unit 30, that controller 30?
`Because I...
` A. Just give me a second here.
` Well, here's an example. I'm sure that there
`are others, but on column 13, line 37, "With regard to
`operation variations, with respect to one or more alarm
`conditions, when a particular vehicle device 50 detects
`or is involved with an alarm event, this is reported by
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`23 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 24
`
`the CAN 124 to the processor 90."
` As you recall, processor 90 is the processor
`that is in the controller 30.
` Q. Well, if this is correct, then shouldn't the
`vehicle device 50, that's described as detecting the
`event; correct?
` A. Say it again?
` Q. What you just read, column 13, lines 37 to 41,
`I'm reading from line 37, "With regard to operation
`variations, with respect to one or more alarm
`conditions, when a particular vehicle device 50 detects
`or is involved with an alarm event, this is reported
`by the CAN 124 to the processor 90 using the device
`drivers 128."
` Do you see that?
` A. I see that.
` Q. Isn't it vehicle device 50 that's actually
`monitoring or detecting an event?
` A. Well, it certainly is monitoring a parameter.
` Q. But it says it detects. The event, according
`to the claim, is a detection of a state of disrepair.
` A. Okay. Give me a moment. I'll find another
`example.
` I think personally in my opinion that the
`detection of the event as reported by a sensor or
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`24 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 25
`another device in the car, from the perspective of
`Spaur, the processor has also detected that event. I
`mean, we could go all the way down to which atoms are in
`which part of the car that are actually involved in the
`event. But the fact is that you could have a device in
`the vehicle that detects temperature and it can report
`the temperature over the CAN bus, and the detection of
`overheating might be actually made, and presumably would
`be made by the RTOS processor.
` DEPOSITION REPORTER: By the?
` THE WITNESS: RTOS, R-T-O-S.
` I don't -- you know, anyone with any knowledge
`of how cars work wouldn't say that I have an overheating
`sensor in the car. I would have a temperature sensor in
`the car, and I would sense the temperature of the car
`over the CAN bus and decide that that event represented
`overheating. So the example that I chose here or I
`found here happened to be related to an alarm event, but
`I'm sure that there's another one in here for
`overheating.
` So here's another place, at column 13, line
`10, "Additionally, or alternatively, it may be necessary
`to obtain current or other data that is available from a
`particular device itself. In that context, the
`processor 90/RTOS 94 obtains such information through
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`25 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 26
`the CAN controller unit 122 via the CAN bus 126 at block
`232. The CAN protocol" -- and it goes on to describe.
` "The data obtained by the CAN is utilized by
`the processor in connection with the execution of the
`selected program that is being executed..."
` I don't need to read more.
` So your initial question was could I identify
`that the data from the vehicle device is 50 was getting
`to the controller 30, and I think I've shown that.
`BY MR. JOAO:
` Q. The controller 30 cannot by itself detect or
`monitor, or it cannot detect a state of disrepair, can
`it?
` A. Sure.
` Q. How?
` A. If it's, for example, using the overheating
`event. If it's receiving temperature from a temperature
`sensor through the CAN bus, it can compare the
`temperature that it's receiving to some threshold and
`make a decision that there has -- that the temperature
`has exceeded the threshold and therefore we have a state
`of disrepair.
` Q. Mr. Andrews, have you answered your question
`to the best of -- my question to the best of your
`ability?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`
`26 of 108
`
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. JCMS
`
`

`
`Page 27
`
` A. I could go on all day if you'd like.
` Q. Please. I'd like to see if you can show me an
`indication where something not initiating from the
`vehicle sensor, the vehicle device 50, is actually
`detecting a state of disrepair.
` A. Not originating with the vehicle device 50?
` Q. Yes.
` A. The only way that the controller has any
`knowledge of what's happening in the car is through the
`vehicle devices. So it would measure parameters, which
`is described in several places in this patent, from
`those vehicle devices and report them, monitor them,
`perform processes through programs on them, and those
`would easily be detecting that one of them was outside a
`nominal value.
` Q. Correct.
` But the detection or the detection of the
`state of disrepair is done by vehicle device 50?
` A. No. I've already stated that. The
`temperature is not the state of disrepair.
` Q. Well --
` A. That --
` Q. Yeah, but you used te

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket