throbber
Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ----------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ----------------------------
` COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
` v.
`
` ROBERT BOSCH, LLC
` Patent Owner.
` -----------------------------
` CASE IPR2016-00034
` CASE IPR2016-00036
` CASE IPR2016-00038
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
` ----------------------------
` November 30, 2016
` 10:13 a.m.
` New York, New York
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DR. GREGORY
`W. DAVIS, held at the above-mentioned time and
`place, before Randi Friedman, a Registered
`Professional Reporter, within and for the State
`of New York.
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 1
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`APPEARANCES:
`
` HUGHES HUBBARD & REED, LLP
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` One Battery Park Plaza
` New York, New York 10004
`
` BY: JAMES R. KLAIBER, ESQ.
` MICHAEL POLKA, ESQ.
`
` SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
` 599 Lexington Avenue
` New York, New York 10022
` BY: JOSEPH PURCELL, ESQ.
` PATRICK R. COLSHER, ESQ.
`
` * * *
`
`Also Present:
` Bob Rudis - Videographer
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`89
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 2
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` STIPULATIONS
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between
`the attorneys for the respective parties hereto,
`that:
` All rights provided by the C.P.L.R.,
`and Part 221 of the Uniform Rules for the Conduct
`of Depositions, including the right to object to
`any question, except as to the form, or to move
`to strike any testimony at this examination is
`reserved; and in addition, the failure to object
`to any question or to move to strike any
`testimony at this examination shall not be a bar
`or a waiver to make such motion at, and is
`reserved to, the time of this action.
` This deposition may be sworn to by the
`witness being examined before a Notary Public
`other than the Notary Public before whom this
`examination was begun, but the failure to do so
`or to return the original of this deposition to
`counsel, shall not be deemed a waiver or the
`rights provided by Rule 3116, C.P.L.R., and shall
`be controlled thereby.
` The filing of the original of this
`deposition is waived.
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 3
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` MR. RUDIS: We are now on the
` record. Please note that microphones are
` sensitive and may pick up whispering and
` private conversations. Please turn off all
` cellphones or place them away from the
` microphones, as they can interfere with the
` deposition audio. Recording will continue
` until all parties agree to go off the
` record.
` My name is Robert Rudis,
` representing Veritext Legal Solutions. The
` date today is November 19th, 2016, and the
` time is approximately 10:13 a.m.
` MR. KLAIBER: Today's the 30th.
` MR. RUDIS: Thank you, the 30th.
` Today is the 30th. This deposition is being
` held at Hughes Hubbard located at One
` Battery Park Plaza, New York, New York, and
` is being taken by counsel for the patent
` owner. The caption of this case is Costco
` Wholesale Corporation, petitioner, versus
` Robert Bosch, LLC, patent owner. This case
` is being -- is before the Patent Trial and
` Appeal Board, Case No. IPR 2016-0034, 0036
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 4
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` and 0038. The name of the witness is
` Dr. Gregory W. Davis.
` At this time, the attorneys
` present in the room and anybody attending
` remotely will please identify themselves and
` the parties they represent. Our court
` reporter, Randi Friedman, also representing
` Veritext, will swear in the witness and we
` can proceed.
` MR. PURCELL: This is Joseph
` Purcell of Sherman & Sterling, LLP,
` representing the patent owner, Robert Bosch,
` LLC.
` MR. COLSHER: Patrick Colsher,
` also of Sherman & Sterling, representing
` Robert Bosch.
` MR. KLAIBER: James R. Klaiber,
` Hughes Hubbard & Reed, representing Costco,
` the petitioner in all three proceedings.
` And with me is Mr. Michael Polka, also of
` Hughes Hubbard & Reed.
` * * *
` DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS, the witness
` herein, after first having been duly sworn,
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 5
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` was examined and testified as follows:
` * * *
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q Could you please state your name for
`the record?
` A Sure. It's Dr. Gregory W. Davis.
` Q Good morning, Dr. Davis.
` A Good morning.
` Q Have you been deposed before?
` A Yes, I have.
` Q In fact, you've been deposed in this
`case before; is that right?
` A I have, yeah.
` Q So do you need me to go over any of
`the ground rules?
` A I don't believe so. I think I'm set.
` Q Okay. I'll just remind you, then,
`that if you don't understand any of the questions
`that I ask, just be sure to tell me that you
`don't understand them, and perhaps I can rephrase
`or clarify. If you don't say anything, I will
`assume that you understood the question; do you
`understand?
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 6
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` A That's okay.
` Q Is there any reason you can't testify
`truthfully today?
` A No.
` Q Is there anything that might impair
`your ability to answer any questions accurately?
` A No.
` Q Okay. You understand that you are
`here to testify in three inter partes review
`proceedings?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q I'm going to hand you a document
`marked as Costco Exhibit 1103.
` MR. KLAIBER: Thanks.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q Do you recognize this document?
` A Yes, it appears to be my second
`declaration regarding the '698 patent.
` Q And as it is your second declaration,
`it is not the first declaration you signed in
`connection with this proceeding?
` A I believe that's correct.
` Q And at your deposition, do you recall
`being asked questions about how you prepared your
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 7
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`first declaration?
` A Yeah, I do vaguely. I forget when I
`was deposed, but I remember a little bit about
`that.
` Q I believe it was July 2016?
` A I'll take your word for it.
` Q When you prepared the declaration you
`have in front of you now, did you follow the same
`procedure you did for the first declaration?
` MR. KLAIBER: I'm going to object
` as to form. Go ahead.
` THE WITNESS: I guess I'm not sure
` I understand. You know, I don't remember
` all the details of exactly the questioning
` that was happening back last summer, but
` basically the counsel for Costco asked me to
` review -- in particular to review some of
` Dr. Dubowsky's -- I don't know if you say
` objections, but maybe conflicting views, and
` we talked about some of the things that I
` might address in the second declaration, and
` then went to work on it.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q Do you recall when you began thinking
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 8
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`about the issues in this declaration?
` A No, not exactly, no.
` Q Do you remember whether it was before
`or after you first reviewed Dr. Dubowsky's
`declaration?
` A Well, certainly it would have been
`after. I don't know that I would be sitting down
`to try to do a reply before somebody actually
`wrote anything for me to reply to.
` Q Just to be clear, you did review
`Dr. Dubowsky's declaration before preparing this
`declaration?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. Did you write the declaration
`yourself?
` A Well, we worked on it together. If
`you mean actual typing of all the words,
`certainly not. My typing ability is not the
`best, but definitely I worked on this declaration
`and directed some of the efforts of others to
`type in some of the details, like specific
`reference callouts, things like that, but this is
`my declaration.
` Q Whose efforts did you direct?
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 9
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` A Some of the counsel. I'm not sure
`exactly who was assisting me on this. On this
`particular one, I'm not really sure exactly who
`all was assisting me.
` Q What was counsel's involvement in
`preparing this declaration?
` A Like I said, typing up some of the
`basic formats. We sat down after I reviewed
`Dr. Dubowsky's declaration in particular. And I
`think I looked somewhat at the -- it's one of the
`paper numbers. Well, I looked -- I think it's
`Paper 16, I think, is the opinion of the board.
`And then I reviewed paper -- I know I've got it
`here in my report. Paper No. 26 a bit. But I
`focused most of my efforts looking at
`Dr. Dubowsky's declaration.
` Q So with regard to this declaration in
`particular, are there any opinions expressed in
`that declaration that you could not have
`expressed in the first declaration you signed in
`October of 2015?
` A I'm not sure I understand what you
`mean.
` Q Well, you did sign the declaration in
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 10
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`October of 2015; is that correct?
` A This is the declaration I believe I
`did in October. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, October of
`2016. Yes.
` Q Right. So this is your second
`declaration; correct?
` A Correct.
` Q Are there any opinions in your second
`declaration that you could not have expressed in
`your first declaration?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Honestly, I don't
` understand what you mean.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q Why don't we turn to Paragraph 12, for
`example, of the declaration you have in front of
`you. And as you'll see here, you have expressed
`opinions regarding a combination of the Arai
`reference and the Appel '770 reference; is that
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Is there any reason that these
`opinions could not have been in your first
`declaration?
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 11
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` A I'm not sure that these opinions were
`not in my first declaration. I think here I was
`responding to the opinions expressed by
`Dr. Dubowsky.
` Q Do you recall whether they were, in
`fact, in your first declaration?
` A I'd have to go back and review. I
`haven't studied all those details. What I was
`actually trying to do was maybe help provide some
`clarification in the event that there was some
`disagreement.
` Q Moving on to Section C of the same
`declaration, do you recall whether these opinions
`were, in fact, in your first declaration?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: You know, I
` haven't -- maybe I don't understand your
` question directly, but I haven't changed my
` opinions since my first declaration, but
` what I was trying to do is respond to
` questions that were raised by Dr. Dubowsky
` in his declaration. So, you know, in the
` event I tried to provide a little bit more
` clarification in response to some of his
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 12
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` concerns.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q In Section C of this declaration,
`you're expressing opinions about the Swanepoel
`reference; is that correct?
` A Swanepoel, yes.
` Q Swanepoel. You were aware of this
`reference in October of 2015 when you signed your
`first declaration; correct?
` A This is the Swanepoel '770 or the
`Swanepoel '551? I mean, you know, 'cause he
`literally referenced -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
`This is the Swanepoel '564. I was thinking
`Appel. Yes, I know Adriaan Swanepoel.
` Q And was it your opinion in October of
`2015, that Swanepoel anticipated the claims of
`the '698 patent?
` A Yes.
` Q And are you also here in this
`declaration expressing the opinion that Swanepoel
`anticipates the claims of the '698 patent?
` A Yes, I am.
` Q And are these opinions necessary to
`establish that Swanepoel '564 anticipates the
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 13
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`'698 patent?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection as to
` form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not sure
` I understand what you mean in your question.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q What I'm trying to get at, is these
`opinions are all supporting your opinion. These
`paragraphs -- strike that.
` The paragraphs in Section C of Exhibit
`1103 are supporting your opinion that Swanepoel
`anticipates the claims of the '698 patent;
`correct?
` A Correct.
` Q And yet you've already opined in
`October of 2015 that Swanepoel '564 anticipates
`the claims of the '698 patent; correct?
` A Correct.
` Q So why weren't these paragraphs in
`your October 2015 declaration?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form,
` but go ahead.
` THE WITNESS: Because Dr. Dubowsky
` hadn't written his report at that point in
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 14
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` time, so how could I know in advance how to
` respond to questions he may raise when he
` hasn't presented his report? So these are
` in response, really, I think, to questions
` that I think in particular he raised in his
` declaration.
` Sorry. Dropped the lid. Went off
` camera for a second there.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q So in October of 2015, when you
`expressed an opinion in your first declaration
`that Swanepoel '564 anticipates the claims of the
`'698 patent, were you expressing your complete
`opinions as to whether Swanepoel '564 anticipates
`the claim of the '698 patent?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection as to
` form.
` THE WITNESS: You know, I always
` try to do to the best of my ability, express
` my opinion. But then Dr. Dubowsky raised
` some questions, so I tried to address his
` questions and provide some clarification.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q Could you take a look at Paragraph 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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 15
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` A Yes.
` Q In Paragraph 15, you express the
`opinion that, "A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood this description in
`Swanepoel that teach a force distribution over
`the entire length of the wiper"; is that correct?
` A Yes, that is correct. It's Swanepoel,
`though, I believe.
` Q I apologize for the repeat in
`mispronunciation.
` A No problem. Everybody messes up his
`name.
` Q Did you consider in connection with
`your first declaration whether this description
`in Swanepoel teaches a force distribution over
`the entire length of the wiper?
` A Well, yes. I mean, it's clearly shown
`in Figure 4 that it was going -- they're talking
`about a wiper that works over its entire length.
` Q So why didn't you express this opinion
`in October 2015?
` A Actually I -- I thought I did.
`Perhaps it wasn't clear to you or clear to
`Dr. Dubowsky. And so basically he did --
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 16
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`Swanepoel talked about the fact that Figure 14
`showed one force distribution over the entire
`length of the wiper. But he also talked about
`that there could be an alternative that was not
`shown in Figure 4, and that's the portion of the
`text I have highlighted before the modified
`Figure 4. "At tip regions, the backbone may be
`such that the force per unit length decreases
`from the constant value to 0 at the extremities
`of the backbone." So, again, he's clearly saying
`that there is a continuous force distribution
`over the entire length of the wiper.
` Q Do the claims of the '698 patent
`require that the force be distributed over the
`entire length of the wiper?
` A Could I see a copy of the patent?
` Q I'm going to hand you a copy of a
`document called Exhibit 1001.
` And can you identify the document for
`the record, please?
` A It appears to be the Kotlarski '698
`patent.
` Q Are you looking at Claim 1?
` 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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 17
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` Q So having looked at Claim 1, does it
`require the force be distributed over the entire
`length of the wiper?
` A It says -- "Said spring-elastic
`carrying element extending parallel to an axis of
`elongation of said wiper strip to distribute a
`contact force against the window over an entire
`length of said wiper strip." So, yes.
` Q And you are aware that in order for a
`prior art reference to anticipate Claim 1, it
`must meet that claim limitation; correct?
` A Correct. And I believe I probably
`opined to that in my first declaration as well,
`but Dr. Dubowsky raised some concerns, so I tried
`to address his concerns.
` Q So is Paragraph 15 just duplicative of
`what was in your first declaration?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` You can answer.
` THE WITNESS: I would say it's
` more of a way to try and clear up any
` confusion. So maybe it's perhaps --
` hopefully it's clearer.
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 18
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q While we're talking about Paragraph
`15, can you describe the figure in Paragraph 15
`of your declaration?
` A You know, that's Figure 4 taken out of
`the -- I'm sorry. I need -- yeah. Can I have
`Adriaan's '564?
` Q I am handing you Costco Exhibit 1009.
` Would you just identify that for the
`record, please?
` A Yes, it's the Swanepoel '564 patent.
` Q Okay. So with that in hand, could you
`describe for me the figure in Paragraph 15 of
`your declaration, Exhibit 1103?
` A Yes. It's taken from Figure 4 of the
`'564 patent, which the Swanepoel describes Figure
`4 is a force distribution. This is in Column 3
`beginning at Lines, oh, about 67 or 68, extending
`into Column 4, looks like maybe Line 2. "Figure
`4 is a force distribution diagram illustrating
`the lengthwise distribution of the force per unit
`length on the windscreen wiper of Figures 1, 2, 3
`when it is pressed against a flat surface in an
`operational manner."
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 19
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` Q Are there any differences between the
`figure in your declaration and Figure 4 in
`Swanepoel?
` A Yes. I've added some red lines to
`illustrate what Swanepoel talked about in the
`text. Yeah, so in particular, in Column 5 of his
`patent, within the paragraph it looks like it
`starts about Line 14. "As indicated in the broad
`description above, the distribution at the end of
`the backbone is a constant (B). Further, as
`indicated above the loading may decrease right at
`the tips, although this is not shown in Figure
`4."
` And then he went on to talk about in
`Column 2, Line 14, "Further, the backbone may be
`such that in the small portions, the force per
`unit length and the second differential are
`constant right to the tips of the backbone; or at
`tip regions, the backbone may be such that the
`force per unit length and the second differential
`decrease from the constant value to 0 at the
`extremities of the backbone."
` And so what he was talking about is
`that as shown in Figure 4, the force per unit
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 20
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`length at the extremities, the tip regions beyond
`the regions indicated by minus XLMAX and positive
`XLMAX to the left and right of those two
`respectively in Figure 4, he shows that the force
`distribution is a constant value until, of
`course, you know, once it hits the end of the
`wiper, then it drops to 0. But he clearly says
`here in that section that I highlighted here in
`Column 2, that, you know, at the tip regions, as
`I have in my report, "The backbone may be such
`that the force per unit length decreases from the
`constant value to 0 at the ex tease of the
`backbone." So he's talking about an alternative
`in which you wouldn't stay at the constant value
`all the way to the end of the backbone, but an
`alternative in which the force would decrease
`from that constant value to 0 at the end of the
`backbone. So at each end.
` Q Did you add these red lines to Figure
`4 yourself?
` A No. Somebody else did.
` Q Did you direct somebody else to add
`these red lines?
` A Yes, I said, you know, I think maybe
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 21
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`what's not clear is the fact that in Figure 4,
`they show one embodiment, but then they clearly,
`in my view, clearly talk about an alternative.
`But it wasn't actually shown in the figure.
` As he said, it's not shown in Figure
`4; right. It probably would have made my job
`easier if he had another figure that actually
`showed this, but he clearly talked about it in
`the text.
` Q Did you decide where the red lines
`would be put in the figure?
` A It was just -- he didn't give you, you
`know, any particular guidance on that. So I just
`said, let's just pick a value. Somewhere in that
`region, close to the middle of that tip region,
`and then just have it go down to 0.
` Further, he didn't describe the actual
`shape. He just said it decreases from that
`constant value to 0 at the extremity.
` Q Just to clarify your previous answer,
`when you say he doesn't describe the actual
`shape, do you mean that he doesn't describe that
`there are straight lines in this figure?
` A Right. He just says that it decreases
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 22
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`from the constant value to 0 at the extremities
`of the backbone. So, you know, one way to do it
`could be a straight line. There could be some
`curving, you know, a little bit of curving on the
`lines. You know, and, for example in Figure 4,
`you would expect that at those regions where the
`curve changes shape, like, for example, at minus
`XLMAX and positive XLMAX, that you wouldn't
`actually have a really sharp-edged transition in
`force. It would be a little bit more rounded.
` Q You also mentioned that you decided to
`pick a value close to the middle of the tip
`region?
` A There was no particular significance
`to that, because he just said it would decrease
`from the constant value to 0 at the extremities
`of the backbone. So it could start decreasing
`closer to those dashed lines indicated by minus
`XLMAX or plus XLMAX. But, you know, this was
`just an illustration of what was actually
`presented in the text.
` Q How did you select the placement of
`the upper endpoint of the red line?
` A Because he said it decreases from the
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 23
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`constant value to 0 at the extremities of the
`backbone. And that 0 is at the extremities of
`the backbone. So they're 0 at the ends, so to
`speak.
` Q Could it be 0 a little bit before the
`end?
` A That's not what he said. He said it
`decreases from the constant value to 0 at the
`extremities of the backbone. So he was picking
`the value that it would hit 0 at the ends; not
`before.
` Q Is there any text in Swanepoel -- I
`apologize for the mispronunciation again.
` Is there any disclosure in
`Swanepoel --
` A There you go.
` Q -- that requires that the distributed
`force reach 0 at exactly the endpoint of the
`blade?
` A Yeah, it says right here. I mean, he
`tells you, "at tip regions." And this is from
`my -- the highlighted portion in red of Paragraph
`15 of my second declaration. "At tip regions,
`the backbone may be such that the force per unit
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 24
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
` Dr. G. Davis
`length decreases from the constant value to 0 at
`the extremities of the backbone." So he's
`clearly telling you that it goes to 0 at the
`ends.
` Q If the force per unit length is at the
`constant value at minus XLMAX, and it is at 0 at
`minus X, does this text require anything more
`than that?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I
` understand your question, but if you read
` his patent, he clearly says that again in
` Column 5, starting again at Line 14 it's
` indicated in the broad description above,
` "The distribution at the ends of the
` backbone is constant (B). Further as
` indicated above, the loading may decrease
` right at the tips, although this is not
` shown in Figure 4." So in Figure 4 what
` he's showing is the value -- let's look at
` the left half at minus XLMAX, it reaches
` that constant value of (B) in that region,
` that tip region. And it stays at the
` constant value all the way to the -- what he
`
`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
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2030 - Page 25
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
` Dr. G. Davis
` calls the extremities of the backbone or the
` end of the backbone. Of course, at the end
` of the backbone, there's nothing there. So
` then the force, as he indicates, goes
` straight up vertically to 0. The 0
` condition. But then he says that's what I
` show in Figure 4. But what's not shown in
` Figure 4 is that, again, in what I've got
` highlighted in red, is that "The tip
` regions, the backbone may be such that the
` force per unit length decreases from the
` constant value to 0 at the extremities of
` the backbone." So he's clearly showing two
` different conditions. Figure 4 unmodified
` shows the -- that it's a constant value of
` (B) all the way to the ends. Of course, at
` the end, there's nothing else there to
` provide force, so then it jumps up
` vertically to 0. But the alternative he
` describes is that it also could decrease
` from the constant value to 0. And this is a
`

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