IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` ALLSTEEL INC.
` Petitioner,
` v.
` DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2015-01691
` Patent No. 8,024,901
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF:
`
` ROLAND C. DIX, PH.D.
`
` June 14, 2016 - 9:15 a.m.
`
` Location: Workman Nydegger
` 60 E. South Temple, Suite 1000
` Salt Lake City, Utah
`
` Reporter: VICKY McDANIEL, CSR, RMR
`
` Job No: 108218
`
`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
`
`ALLSTEEL EXHIBIT 1030
`Allsteel v. DIRTT Environmental IPR2015-001691
`
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` ALLSTEEL INC.
` Petitioner,
` v.
` DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2015-01691
` Patent No. 8,024,901
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF:
`
` ROLAND C. DIX, PH.D.
`
` June 14, 2016 - 9:15 a.m.
`
` Location: Workman Nydegger
` 60 E. South Temple, Suite 1000
` Salt Lake City, Utah
`
` Reporter: VICKY McDANIEL, CSR, RMR
`
` Job No: 108218
`
`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
`
`ALLSTEEL EXHIBIT 1030
`Allsteel v. DIRTT Environmental IPR2015-001691
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` TIMOTHY SULLIVAN, ESQ.
` TREVOR CARTER, ESQ.
` FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
` 2200 Wells Fargo Center
` 90 S. Seventh Street
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` CHAD NYDEGGER, ESQ.
` WORKMAN NYDEGGER
` 60 E. South Temple
` Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`
`VIDEOGRAPHER: Chad Potts, CLVS
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D. PAGE
` Examination by Mr. Sullivan 5
` Examination by Mr. Nydegger 155
`
` E X H I B I T S
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901 109
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent No. 4,438,614 167
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Utility Patent 88
` Application No. 6688056
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,161,347 137
`
`Exhibit 1027 Fig. 29 with markings by 97
` Dr. Dix
`Exhibit 2009-1 Declaration of Rollin C. 16
` Dix, Ph.D.
`
` * * *
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This is
`the start of the tape labeled No. 1 of the videotaped
`deposition in Allsteel, Inc., Petitioner, vs. DIRTT
`Environmental Solutions, LTD, the patent owner, in
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
` This deposition is being held at Workman
`Nydegger in Salt Lake City -- Nydegger, in Salt Lake
`City, Utah, on June 14th, 2016, at approximately
`9:15 a.m.
` My name is Chad Potts. I'm the legal
`video specialist from TSG Reporting, Inc.
`headquartered at 747 Third Avenue, New York, New
`York; and the court reporter is Vicky McDaniel, in
`association with TSG Reporting. And the deposition
`is of Rollin C. Dix, Ph.D.
` If everyone within the room could please
`identify themselves for the record, and we will swear
`in the witness and begin the deposition.
` MR. SULLIVAN: Tim Sullivan from Faegre
`Baker Daniels on behalf of the petitioner. And with
`me is my colleague Trevor Carter, also of Faegre
`Baker Daniels, on behalf of the petitioner.
` MR. NYDEGGER: This is Chad Nydegger from
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`Workman Nydegger on behalf of the patent owner.
` THE WITNESS: And I'm Rollin Dix, the
`deponent, mechanical engineer.
` ROLLIN C. DIX,
` called as a witness, being first duly sworn, was
` examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SULLIVAN:
` Q. Good morning, Professor Dix.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Could you please state your full -- state
`and spell your full name for the record, and also
`your address.
` A. It's Rollin Cumming Dix. R-o-l-l-i-n,
`C-u-m-m-i-n-g, D-i-x. And my address is 10154 South
`Seeley -- that's S as in Sam, e-e-l-e-y -- Avenue in
`Chicago 60643.
` Q. Professor Dix, I understand you're here
`this morning in connection with an expert declaration
`that you submitted on behalf of DIRTT Environmental
`Solutions related to Inter Partes review in the
`Patent and Trademark Office numbered IPR2015-01691.
`Is that your understanding as well?
` A. Yes.
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` Q. Okay. And I understand that you've served
`as an expert witness in litigation matters before.
`Is that true?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So I'm not going to retread the ground
`rules too heavily. I understand you've been deposed
`in connection with those matters.
` A. I think about 15 times.
` Q. Okay. So just so you kind of know what
`I'll be thinking of in terms of breaks for the day, I
`tend to just want to take a break about every hour.
`So I will probably affirmatively just stop after
`about an hour and take a break. If you'd like more
`frequent breaks, that's fine. Also, if you'd rather
`break less frequently, please let me know. And
`just anytime you want to take a break, that's fine.
` A. Once an hour is excellent.
` Q. Sounds good.
` Have you ever given testimony in an IPR
`proceeding before?
` A. No.
` Q. This is the first time? And when is the
`last time that you served as an expert witness in a
`patent case?
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` A. As listed in my report, I believe it's the
`case involving TCC Design. It was a motorcycle stand
`which was involved in some litigation. I don't know
`how that case came out, but I was deposed in that
`case.
` Q. Did you provide trial testimony?
` A. There was no trial.
` Q. Did you -- were you an expert on behalf of
`the patent owner or accused infringer in that case?
` A. TCC Design was the patent owner, I think.
`It's been four years ago. Not sure.
` Q. To your recollection, what other patent
`cases have you worked on in the last five years aside
`from the one that you just mentioned?
` A. I don't know exactly what that five-year
`limitation includes. In the last several years I've
`worked on, in addition to that one, one -- sorry. My
`memory is just not pulling them up, but I'm sure
`they're listed in my CV. I can tell you what perhaps
`the most interesting case I ever worked on was
`quickly.
` Q. Go for it.
` A. It was Black & Decker's lawsuit against
`Pan -- not Pandora -- Sunbeam for infringement of
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`their snake light. And that was in Rocket Docket in
`Virginia, and I prepared a report and didn't testify
`in trial because the Black & Decker attorneys decided
`to use instead the Black & Decker engineers who had
`in fact created the invention.
` Q. Okay.
` A. But we won the case and everybody else
`settled, so that was the end of my involvement.
` Q. So in that case, Black & Decker was the
`patent owner?
` A. Exactly.
` Q. And you were working for the patent owner
`in that case?
` A. I was.
` Q. Do you recall any patent cases where you
`had worked for the accused infringer as an expert
`witness?
` A. Oh, yes.
` Q. And in any of those cases, did they result
`in a determination that the patents at issue were
`invalid?
` A. You know, almost all of my cases have been
`settled, and I did not find out what the resolution
`was.
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` I remember one case about five years ago
`where SRAM was suing a company in Italy -- Italy? --
`involving a hydraulic handbrake for a bicycle. And I
`was definitely on the side of the Italian firm, wrote
`a report for them. But it was settled outside of any
`further trial.
` Q. Can you think of a case that you've
`testified -- let me start that over. I don't want to
`limit it to testified, so strike that. A case where
`you have offered an opinion that a patent at issue
`was invalid for obviousness as opposed to some other
`reason why it may be invalid?
` A. Sorry. Off the top of my head, I can't
`remember.
` Q. In the patent cases that you've worked on
`that you can recall, have any of them involved
`modular wall systems?
` A. No.
` Q. Have any of them involved technology that
`you would consider to be closely analogous to modular
`wall systems?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: Don't think so.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) I'd like to just talk
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`about your own experience as a professor. I guess
`we'll start with that. So you have a background in
`mechanical engineering; is that right?
` A. Right.
` Q. And you have a Ph.D. in mechanical
`engineering?
` A. Right.
` Q. I've got your report here, but is your
`Ph.D. from Purdue?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then you spent most of your career
`teaching at the Illinois Institute of Technology?
` A. Well, I spent 40 years there.
` Q. Okay.
` A. However, I worked in industry for a couple
`of years before. And summers and during the school
`year while I was at IIT, I not only served as an
`expert witness in legal matters, but I did a fair
`amount of industrial consulting of a wide variety.
`And in my legal work, I would guess at least a third
`of it was product failure cases rather than
`intellectual property.
` Q. Okay.
` A. A couple of the intellectual property
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`cases were trade secret cases rather than patent
`matters.
` Q. So just to follow up on that: most of --
`would it be fair to say that most of your expert work
`in litigation has been in non-patent cases?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: No. I think I said a third
`of it was not intellectual property.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) Okay.
` A. And then there was those two big trade
`secret cases. It was about half and half.
` Q. Okay. So just thinking more about your
`academic career, in your time as a professor did you
`teach courses to mechanical engineering students?
` A. Yes, primarily.
` Q. And did any of those courses specifically
`involve the design of movable wall systems?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever taught a course at any time
`in your career that specifically involved movable
`wall systems?
` A. No.
` Q. You have the expectation that your senior
`students would have the basic skills necessary to
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`design and approve movable wall systems, would you
`not?
` A. The technology of movable wall systems is
`covered by mechanical engineering courses, yes.
` Q. Senior level mechanical engineering
`courses generally exceed the difficulty of the
`technology reflected in the movable wall system
`space. Would you agree with that?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, they cover a wide
`variety of topics, so certainly the breadth of the
`educational program far exceeds the movable wall
`system space. As far as the complexity or difficulty
`level, I don't know. It's in the eyes of the
`observer.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) Sure. I notice in your
`report that you've got a couple of issued U.S.
`patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And maybe I think you were sharing some
`development work that you're still working on. Maybe
`you've got some other patents in the works,
`potentially, so we'll talk about that in a little
`bit.
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` But there's two patents listed in your
`report. One is the 3,811,147 patent. Could you give
`me a general summary of what that patent relates to?
` A. Is that the earlier one?
` Q. It's the earlier one.
` A. That patent describes a movable bridgelike
`device to put on an expressway to allow traffic to
`continue to flow while repair work is going on
`underneath for patching and other repair operations
`on an expressway surface.
` Q. So the traffic -- go ahead. Sorry.
` A. I had the idea and engaged a lot of
`students in different projects related to completing
`a development of such a device, but was never able to
`get funding to proceed further.
` Q. Sorry for the aside, but I think we could
`use some of that technology in Minnesota this time of
`year.
` A. Everybody could use it.
` Q. But that doesn't relate, then, to the
`movable wall system, that particular patent, the
`3,811,147 patent?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And then the 4,106,496 patent, that's the
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`later patent listed here in your report. Could you
`just describe for me generally what that patent
`relates to.
` A. I was working with Dr. Leonard Proctor at
`the University of Chicago's medical school on the
`vestibular systems diagnosis. Patients come in with
`a variety of symptoms, and one of the conventional
`examination procedures is called the
`Fitzgerald-Hallpike caloric test. And in that test
`the patient is put in a horizontal position and warm
`and cold water is squirted into the ear, and this
`causes a movement of the eyes called nystagmus, which
`is related to the vestibulo-ocular reflex.
` The unfortunate thing is that while the
`doctor watching this nystagmus can often detect which
`side of the patient's head is affected, the patients
`often become nauseated because it's as if you're
`being spun around in a chair.
` My contribution was to write a program
`which evaluated the heat transfer from the ear canal
`to the semicircular canal, relating thereby the
`stimulus to the excitation of the fluid. And I
`determined that by putting first a cold and then a
`warm fluid, you could drive the stimulus to the
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`required value and then drive it back to zero, or you
`could actually reverse it and drive it to the other
`direction by the same amount, and then quickly cancel
`it.
` And this project was relatively
`successful. In fact, NIH paid for the patent.
`Dr. Proctor and NIH obtained a grant of a quarter
`million dollars that NIH put into development of a
`commercial device. The commercial device was
`completely developed, but it was in the late '70s and
`insurance premiums went through the roof, and the
`device was never put on the market.
` Q. So that's fascinating and useful work but
`not related to movable walls, safe to say. Correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Other than these two patents, do you have
`any current development work that relates to movable
`wall systems?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you in the past ever done any
`development work yourself that relates to movable
`wall systems?
` A. No.
` Q. Other than your work on this case, do you
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`have any experience with movable wall systems?
` A. I cannot think of any experience in that
`area.
` MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So we'll go ahead
`and mark Exhibit 2009-1. So hand that to the
`witness.
` (Exhibit 2009-1 was marked.)
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) Professor Dix, that's a
`copy of your report. Now that I'm starting to talk
`about particular passages, I thought we would just
`get the official copy in the record. Of course,
`you're free, as we discussed, to use your neatly
`bound copy as you wish.
` I noticed in paragraph 5 of your report
`you describe the compensation you're receiving for
`your work on this case, and it states there that
`you're receiving $200 per hour. Is that number
`accurate?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How much time would you say -- would you
`estimate that you've spent working on this case?
` A. Well, I would say 80 hours.
` Q. When were you -- sorry. Go ahead.
` A. I've been paid about 16,000 total. Divide
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`it by 200, and I think you get 80.
` Q. Does that include the time -- any time you
`may have spent within the last week preparing for
`today's deposition?
` A. I only spent a few hours in final
`preparation.
` Q. When did you -- so the few hours that you
`spent preparing for your deposition, when did that
`take place?
` A. A couple of hours at home and five hours
`yesterday.
` Q. Was anybody there with you while you were
`preparing?
` A. Yes. the attorneys.
` Q. Okay. So that's Mr. Nydegger?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Anybody else?
` A. Yes. David Todd.
` Q. Did you review any documents in preparing
`for your deposition today?
` A. Sure. This report.
` Q. Any other documents?
` A. Probably we looked at the patents.
`Possibly I also reviewed some of the material
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`relating to the Manning Innovation Award.
` Actually, I looked at the website for
`Healthcare Design magazine. It's not mentioned in
`there because I just discovered it yesterday.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Healthcare Design magazine named DIRTT as
`one of the ten innovative products on the market in
`2010.
` Q. I'll move to strike that as nonresponsive
`to the prior question, the last comment about the
`magazine article.
` So if we -- let's focus on paragraph 6 of
`your report, Dr. Beaman [sic]. It's on pages 3
`through 5 of your report. And there at the beginning
`of paragraph 6 you state that in forming your
`opinions in this case you've considered the following
`materials.
` A. Right.
` Q. And then there's a list that goes --
`begins with the 8,024,901 patent as letter "a" and
`then goes up through letter h on page 5. It lists
`the information about the Manning Innovation Award.
`Is that right?
` A. Yes.
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` Q. And these are all the documents that you
`considered in forming the opinions that you put in
`your report; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the opinions that appear in your
`report don't reflect information that you received or
`came across from any other documents or sources,
`right?
` A. Right.
` Q. If we could look at item b on page 4 in
`paragraph 6. One of the items that it says here that
`you reviewed is the petition for Inter Partes review
`under 35 U.S.C. 311 to 319, et cetera. It says
`including Exhibits 1001 to 1025, and then it says
`"and particularly," then it lists some documents.
` So Exhibits 1001 to 1025, do you
`understand those to be the exhibits that the
`petitioner in this case submitted with his petition
`for Inter Partes review?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then you state that you particularly
`reviewed five exhibits that are listed below here,
`and those include Exhibit 1003, which is the '614
`patent to Raith, correct?
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` A. Right.
` Q. And the Exhibit 1004, which is the EVH
`file history, correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. And then Exhibit 1006, which is the patent
`publication number ending in 673 to MacGregor,
`correct?
` A. You skipped the -- the Yu.
` Q. Oh, thank you. So the MacGregor 1006,
`that's one of the exhibits that you particularly
`reviewed, right?
` A. Right.
` Q. And then 1005 -- Exhibit 1005, the '347
`patent to you, is one of the exhibits that you
`particularly reviewed, right?
` A. Right.
` Q. And then also the expert declaration of
`Joseph Beaman, Exhibit 18 -- 1018, is one of the
`exhibits that you particularly reviewed?
` A. Right.
` Q. So just looking at those first four listed
`there as Romanettes i through iv. The first one
`there, as we go along today, I'm going to refer to
`that as the Raith reference, and you'll understand
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`that I mean Exhibit 1003?
` A. Right.
` Q. And then I'll refer to 1004 as the EVH
`reference, and you'll understand that?
` A. Right.
` Q. And then the Yu reference, that's
`Exhibit 1005. Okay?
` A. Sure.
` Q. And MacGregor we'll call -- Exhibit 1006,
`we'll call that MacGregor or the MacGregor reference.
`Okay?
` A. Fine.
` Q. So Raith, EVH, Yu, and MacGregor, those
`references all relate to movable wall systems,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the Gosling patent also relates to
`movable wall systems, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you read each of these references in
`their entirety?
` A. No.
` Q. Why not?
` A. Well, that EVH file history is so
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`extensive that to read it all would take much, much
`more time than seemed reasonable to me. However, we,
`in our discussions here in this office, certainly
`pursued that file to determine what was relevant, and
`I think we successfully found what was relevant.
` Q. Okay. Did you read Raith in its entirety?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How about Yu?
` A. Almost all of Yu, uh-huh.
` Q. And how about MacGregor?
` A. The same, almost all.
` Q. Have you read those references -- strike
`that.
` Did you read any of these four
`references -- Raith, EVH, Yu, or MacGregor -- a
`second time in preparation for your deposition today?
` A. No.
` MR. SULLIVAN: Go off the record just
`briefly.
` I broke my -- I think it's okay now. We
`can go back on the record whenever.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I haven't gone off the
`record.
` MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, you haven't gone off?
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`Okay.
` Still on the record.
` THE WITNESS: Right.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) In reviewing Exhibits
`1001 to 1025, that's the full scope of the
`petitioner's exhibits here, you came across several
`pieces of prior art that involved movable wall
`systems, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I understand you haven't had a lot of
`personal experience with movable wall systems, but I
`would imagine that in reading these references you
`learned quite a bit about movable wall systems.
`Would you agree with that?
` A. I did learn quite a bit.
` Q. So pulling back from the references
`themselves, let's just think about the features of
`movable wall systems that existed before the relevant
`date here, which is either August 2004 or August
`2005. For purposes of today's deposition, we'll just
`say August 2004. Okay?
` A. Good.
` Q. So what are some of the features of
`movable wall systems that you can recall seeing in
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`the references that you -- that you read and reviewed
`in preparation for your expert report?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Features include easy
`installation, manufacturability of the components,
`appearance, flexibility of use, easy to repair, block
`the sound, provide mounting for furniture or
`electronics of various kinds. I'm sure there are
`others, but those are primary.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) So let's talk about
`some of the physical features in the pre-August 2004
`references that you read that actually allow for some
`of this functionality.
` So in terms of easy installation, you saw
`prior art references that used, for example,
`connecting strips to join adjacent wall modules in
`the prior art, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you saw examples of various leveling
`systems to make sure that if you're installing a wall
`on an uneven floor that you end up with a nice level
`wall, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you saw in the prior art base trims
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`that would improve the appearance of the base of a
`wall system for aesthetic purposes, right?
` A. Yes.
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) And you saw the use of
`horizontal structural components in the prior art
`systems, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you saw the use of various types of
`aesthetic tiles that could be placed on the wall
`module to suit the user's preferred aesthetic look,
`right?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I saw mention of tiles for
`aesthetic purposes. I'm sure also for blocking sound
`and for I suppose other purposes, yes.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) And you saw horizontal
`structural components that were configured to allow a
`user to hang furniture, right, in the prior art?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) And you also saw
`horizontal structural components that would allow a
`user to mount electronics such as monitors, correct?
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So we've got a list, and I don't
`think it's exhaustive, of all the different
`function -- physical structures that we would see in
`the prior art, but it's a working list. It's kind of
`the next part of what I want to ask you about.
` And what I have -- just to say the list
`I've built here, we have in the prior art that you
`reviewed, you saw connecting strips, leveling
`systems, base trim, horizontal structural components,
`tiles for aesthetic purposes and blocking sound,
`horizontal structural components for hanging
`furniture, and horizontal structural components for
`hanging monitors. Do you have any other physical
`features of prior art systems that you would want to
`add to this list at this point?
` A. No.
` Q. So I want to talk a little about when you
`were -- so it looked from your report that you
`actually went back to teaching for a period recently.
`Maybe --
` A. I did.
` Q. -- over the last two or three years. Were
`you working with undergrads at that point?
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So I just kind of want to propose a
`hypothetical to work through with you. I'm thinking
`about your work really as a teacher of mechanical
`engineering students. Did you -- did you have
`occasion to work with senior level mechanical
`engineering students during your teaching career?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So I'm imagining a project that you would
`give to groups of senior design students to design a
`movable wall system within certain parameters. Does
`that make sense?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Don't know what you mean by
`"within certain parameters." Well, typically when I
`assign projects, I try to leave as open as possible
`the alternatives.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) Okay. Good. So -- but
`you would provide some parameters just so that
`everybody was at least working somewhat on the same
`project so you could compare one project to another.
`Right?
` A. In a general way, I suppose, yes.
`Although usually I assigned a variety of projects and
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`didn't intend students to be competing with each
`other on a particular topic.
` Q. Well, I want you to imagine that you are
`giving a project in a -- a project in a circumstance
`where you're assigning various teams of students or
`various students the project of designing a movable
`wall system. And you're going to give them two
`parameters, and the parameters are that the movable
`wall system needs to have horizontal structural
`components, and it needs to have a connecting strip
`method for joining adjacent wall modules. Those are
`the two parameters that you're assigning to your
`students.
` And then you further tell them, here is a
`stack of patent and other technical documents that
`will give you ideas for how you might go about
`designing such a project.
` Do you understand the hypothetical so far?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. So the basics are, again, the students
`have a stack of technical and prior art documents.
`And in particular, the technical and prior art
`documents we've been talking about so far, they come
`from Exhibits 1001 to 1025 of Petitioner's evidence
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`here. They have all of that in front of them.
`They've read it. They understand it. They know
`everything that's in there.
` They're now starting from scratch, and
`they're going to suggest how one would build a
`movable wall system that has both a connecting strip
`method and system for joining adjacent wall modules
`and also horizontal structural components.
` So I'd just like to brainstorm with you.
`First of all, what are the different ways -- well,
`what are the connecting strip systems that you recall
`from the prior art you reviewed in this case that
`your students might have available to them?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form. Objection
`to the hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: In the hypothetical you said
`they're starting from scratch, but you had previously
`listed a whole lot of restrictions on what they could
`do. I'm not sure what you mean.
` Q. (By Mr. Sullivan) Well, they're not
`starting with an existing wall module. What they're
`starting with is a stack of patent documents,
`primarily, that have a lot of ideas about how you
`might build a wall module. And they're going to look
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
`at that stack of materials for ideas, and they're
`going to come up with a way to build a system that
`has both a connecting strip system and a horizontal
`structural component -- horizontal structural
`components. That's the assignment. Do you
`understand?
` A. Not very well.
` Q. Well, let's just think about, if you can,
`just -- you understand what a connecting strip system
`is, correct?
` A. I do.
` Q. What prior art references do you recall
`reviewing for this case that have a connecting strip
`mechanism?
` A. Primary reference was Raith.
` Q. Okay. Were there any others that had a
`connecting strip method?
` A. Yeah, I believe there were.
` Q. Do any come to mind?
` A. Well, I get them mixed up. But between Yu
`and MacGregor and EVH, at least one and maybe two had
`connecting strips.
` Q. So Raith had a connecting strip system for
`joining adjacent wall modules, right?
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` ROLLIN C. DIX, PH.D.
` A. Right.
` Q. Okay. So if your students are going
`through the stack of documents and you've asked them
`to put together a system that has both a connection
`strip system and horizontal structural components,
`you'd expect that at least some of them would start
`with -- would use the Raith connecting strip system,
`right?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I expect so, yes.
` Q.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
