`
` 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
` different alternative.