(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUDIOVISUAL
`COMPONENTS AND PRODUCTS
`CONTAINING THE SAME
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-837
`
`REBUTTAL WITNESS STATEMENT OF SCOTT T. ACTON, PH.D.
`SUBMITTED MARCH 18, 2013
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 1 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`Table of Contents
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND ........................................... 1
`I.
`SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND FOR OPINIONS ........................................................................... 4
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ..................................................................................... 4
`V. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................... 5
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES ................................................................... 6
`A. Relevant Legal Standard for Claim Construction ................................................ 6
`B. “Single Memory”/ “Memory” .............................................................................. 9
`C. “Single Memory”/ “First Unified Memory” ...................................................... 14
`D. “Wherein the Memory Code and Data Useable by the System Controller
` which Enables the System Controller to Perform Control Functions within
`
`the MPEG (claim 1) / Video (claim 16 Decoder System” ................................. 14
`E. “Controlling Operations Accesses Code and Data From Said First Unified
` Memory” ............................................................................................................ 17
`F. “Operable to Access Memory” and “Operates Using a First Unified Memory”
`
` / “Operates Using Said First Unified Memory” ................................................ 19
`VII. NONE OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ‘087 PATENT ARE
`
`ANTICIPATED BY THE CITED REFERENCES ................................................. 20
`A. United States Patent No. 5,557,538 (“Retter” or “the ‘538 Patent”) ................. 22
`1.
`Overview of Retter ................................................................................. 22
`2.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 23
`3.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 29
`4.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 29
`5.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 31
`6.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 32
`7.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 32
`8.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 37
`9.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................. 39
`B. Zoran ZR36100 MPEG-1 System and Video Decoder (“Zoran Reference”) .... 39
`1.
`Overview of Zoran Reference ................................................................ 39
`2.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 41
`3.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 47
`4.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 47
`5.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 49
`6.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 50
`7.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 50
`8.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 54
`9.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................. 57
`C. United States Patent No. 5,898,695 (“Fujii” or “the ‘695 Patent”) ................... 57
`1.
`Overview of Fujii ................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 58
`3.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 60
`4.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 61
`5.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 62
`
`i
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 2 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 63
`6.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 63
`7.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 65
`8.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................. 67
`9.
`D. C-Cube MPEG Video Decoder Manual (“C-Cube Manual”) ............................ 67
`1.
`Overview of C-Cube Manual ................................................................. 69
`2.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 70
`3.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 74
`4.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 74
`5.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 75
`6.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 76
`7.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 77
`8.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 80
`9.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................. 81
`E. United States Patent No. 5,812,789 (“Diaz” or “the ‘789 Patent”) ................... 81
`1.
`Overview of Diaz ................................................................................... 82
`2.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 82
`3.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 86
`4.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 86
`5.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 87
`6.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 89
`7.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 89
`8.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 92
`9.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................. 94
`VIII. ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ‘087 PATENT WERE NOT OBVIOUS ...................... 95
`A. Scope and Content of the Prior Art / Differences Between the Prior Art and
` Asserted Claims – Dr. Schonfeld’s Individual References ................................ 97
`1.
`United States Patent No. 5,557,538 (“Retter” or “the ‘538 Patent”) ..... 97
`2.
`Zoran ZR36100 MPEG-1 System and Video Decoder (“Zoran
`
`Reference”) ........................................................................................... 101
`3.
`United States Patent No. 5,898,695 (“Fujii” or “the ‘695 Patent”) ...... 106
`4.
`C-Cube MPEG Video Decoder Manual (“C-Cube Manual”) .............. 111
`5.
`United States Patent No. 5,812,789 (“Diaz” or “the ‘789 Patent”) ...... 116
`B. Scope and Content of the Prior Art / Differences Between the Prior Art and ......
` Asserted Claims – Dr. Schonfeld’s Combination of References ..................... 121
`1.
`The Zoran Reference with Fujii ........................................................... 121
`2.
`Retter with the Zoran Reference .......................................................... 123
`3.
`Retter with Fujii ................................................................................... 124
`4.
`Retter with C-Cube Manual ................................................................. 126
`5.
`Retter with ‘789 Patent ......................................................................... 127
`6.
`The Zoran Reference with the C-Cube Manual ................................... 129
`7.
`The Zoran Reference with the ‘789 Patent ........................................... 130
`8.
`Fujii with the C-Cube Manual .............................................................. 132
`9.
`Fujii with the ‘789 Patent ..................................................................... 134
`10.
`The C-Cube Manual with the ‘789 Patent ............................................ 135
`11.
`Retter, the Zoran Reference, Fuji, the C-Cube Manual, or the ‘789
`
`ii
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 3 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`Patent in view Naimpally ..................................................................... 137
`
`Retter, the Zoran Reference, Fuji, the C-Cube Manual, or the ‘789
`12.
`Patent in view of the ‘949 Patent ......................................................... 142
`
`Retter, the Zoran Reference, Fuji, the C-Cube Manual, or the ‘789
`13.
`Patent in view of the ‘765 Patent ......................................................... 149
`
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS FAVOR NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............. 158
`A. Commercial Success ........................................................................................ 160
`B. Long Felt Need and Failure of Others ............................................................. 160
`C. Copying and Praise by Others.......................................................................... 161
`X. CLAIMS 7-9 OF THE ‘087 PATENT ARE NOT INDEFINITE ......................... 162
`XI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 164
`
`iii
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 4 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`Q:
`
`Can you please state your name for the record?
`
`A:(cid:3) My name is Scott Acton.
`
`Q:
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`Are you currently employed?
`
`Yes I am.
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`Q: Where are you employed?
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`Q:
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`Q:
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`I am employed by the University of Virginia.
`
`And what do you do for the University of Virginia?
`
`I am a Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department.
`
`How long have you been on the faculty at Virginia?
`
`I have been on the faculty since 2000.
`
`6.(cid:3)
`
`Q: What classes have you taught at Virginia?
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`Q:
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`7.(cid:3)
`
`I have taught image and video processing at the graduate level for eighteen years.
`I have also taught digital signal processing, computer architecture, digital design,
`an introductory electrical and computer engineering course, signals and systems,
`among others.
`
`Do you have responsibilities in addition to teaching?
`
`Yes. I am currently Director of the Virginia Image and Video Analysis (VIVA)
`laboratory.
`
`8.(cid:3)
`
`Q:
`
`How long have you been conducting research in the image and video
`processing field?
`
`A:(cid:3) My experience in in the image and video processing research area dates back to
`1988, when I joined the Laboratory for Vision Systems, now called the
`Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering, at the University of Texas at Austin
`
`9.(cid:3)
`
`Q:
`
`A:(cid:3)
`
`Is your research exclusively theoretical?
`
`No. I have been involved with the design and development of several video
`processing systems working at the Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering,
`
`1
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 5 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`and directing the Virginia Image and Video Analysis laboratory. My software
`systems have also been deployed in industry and in government.
`
`10.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Has your research been published?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I have over 220 publications in the area of image and video processing.
`
`11.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Do you have experience in academia other than your current work at the
`University of Virginia?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I also have academic experience as a research assistant at the University of
`Texas at Austin and as a professor with Oklahoma State University. Three years
`ago, I spent an academic sabbatical at the University of New Mexico.
`
`12.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Have you worked outside academia?
`
`A:
`
`
`Yes. I have industry experience with AT&T, the Mitre Corporation and
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`13.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Do you participate in any professional associations?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I am a Fellow of the IEEE.
`
`14.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Can you briefly describe your educational background?
`
`A:
`
`Sure. I hold M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Texas at Austin in
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I hold a B.S. degree from Virginia Tech in
`Electrical Engineering. I spent a year of postdoctoral study with the Center for
`Space Research in Austin, Texas.
`
`15.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Did your graduate work focus on a particular area?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. The concentration area of my graduate work was image and video
`processing.
`
`16.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Have you ever provided expert testimony in other patent cases?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I have been qualified in the past to testify as an expert on matters in the field
`of imaging and video processing.
`
`17.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Can you provide some recent examples cases?
`
`A:
`
`Sure. During the past 4 years, I have provided expert testimony or reports in the
`cases of Volumetrics Imaging, LLC v. GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. (on behalf of
`defendant Toshiba America Medical Systems), Mediostream v. Microsoft Corp. et
`al. (on behalf of defendant Microsoft), Alcatel U.S. Sourcing Inc. v. Microsoft
`
`2
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 6 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`Corp. (on behalf of defendant Microsoft), KBA Giori, North America, Inc. v.
`Muhlbauer, Inc. et al. (on behalf of defendant Muhlbauer), Flashpoint v. RIM,
`Nokia, LG, and HTC (on behalf of respondents Nokia, LG, and HTC), and
`Flashpoint v. HTC et al. (on behalf of respondents HTC and Pantech).
`
`18.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Is there anything else that would further qualify you as an expert in this
`Investigation?
`
`A:
`
`There is, but instead of trying to list everything for you, I refer you to the detailed
`record of my additional qualifications found in my curriculum vitae at CX-0506C
`(Acton Report Ex B).
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
`
`19.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Have you been retained to perform work by any of the parties to this
`Investigation?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I have been retained by Complainants LSI Corporation (“LSI”) and Agere
`Systems, Inc. (“Agere”) to serve as an expert in this case.
`
`20.(cid:3) Q: What work have you been retained to perform?
`
`A:
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087 (the
`“‘087 Patent”). As one aspect of that work, I have been asked to consider and
`respond to certain opinions set forth in the portions of the Direct Witness
`Statement of Dan Schonfeld that relate to the ’087 Patent.
`
`21.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Did you formulate any opinions when considering and responding to the
`portions of Dr. Schonfeld’s Witness Statement directed to the ‘087 Patent?
`
`A:
`
`I did.
`
`22.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Are you being paid for your time?
`
`A:
`
`
`Yes. I am being paid at my standard consulting rate of $350 per hour plus
`reimbursement for business expenses.
`
`23.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Does your compensation in any way depend on the outcome of this
`Investigation?
`
`A:
`
`No, it does not.
`
`3
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:26)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 7 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`III.(cid:3) BACKGROUND FOR OPINIONS
`
`24.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, what materials, if any, did you consider when formulating your
`opinions in response to the opinions set forth in the portion of Dr.
`Schonfeld’s witness statement relating to the ‘087 Patent?
`
`A:
`
`I considered the ‘087 Patent, its file history and the references and other materials
`that are identified or discussed in Dr. Schonfeld’s Witness Statement. Of course,
`I also reviewed the portions Dr. Schonfeld’s Witness Statement directed to the
`‘087 Patent. Instead of attempting to recall everything from memory, I refer you
`to CX-1611C (Acton Rebuttal Report Ex A) for a complete list.
`
`25.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Did you rely on anything else in formulating your opinions?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I relied on my experience and expertise in the fields of image and video
`processing.
`
`26.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Anything else?
`
`A:
`
`No.
`
`27.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Based on the materials that you considered, as well as your experience and
`expertise in the fields of image and video processing, do you have an opinion
`as to whether Dr. Schonfeld has presented clear and convincing evidence
`that any of the asserted claims of the ‘087 Patent is invalid?
`
`A:
`
`Yes I do.
`
`28.(cid:3) Q:
`
`And what is your opinion?
`
`A:
`
`In my opinion, Dr. Schonfeld has failed to present clear and convincing evidence
`that any of the asserted claims of the ‘087 Patent is invalid. Additional details
`concerning my opinion can be found in my expert report in this matter, marked as
`CX-1610C (Acton Rebuttal Report).
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`29.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, I would like to flesh out your last answer a little bit. Does that
`sound good?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. That sounds fine.
`
`30.(cid:3) Q:
`
`In your opinion, has Dr. Schonfeld demonstrated by clear and convincing
`evidence that any asserted claim of the ‘087 Patent is invalid based on
`anticipation?
`
`A:
`
`No, he has not.
`
`4
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 8 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`31.(cid:3) Q:
`
`In your opinion, has Dr. Schonfeld demonstrated by clear and convincing
`evidence that any asserted claim of the ‘087 Patent is invalid based on
`obviousness?
`
`A:
`
`No, he has not.
`
`32.(cid:3) Q:
`
`In your opinion, has Dr. Schonfeld demonstrated by clear and convincing
`evidence that any asserted claim of the ‘087 Patent is invalid for
`indefiniteness?
`
`A:
`
`No, he has not.
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`33.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, shifting gears here; do you have an understanding of what a
`“person of ordinary skill in the art” means with respect to patent law?
`
`A:
`
`Yes.
`
`34.(cid:3) Q: What is your understanding?
`
`A:
`
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person
`who assesses the prior art without the benefit of hindsight.
`
`35.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Have you formulated any opinion in this case as to what is the level of one of
`ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ‘087 Patent?
`
`A:
`
`Yes I have.
`
`36.(cid:3) Q:
`
`And what is your opinion?
`
`A:
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the
`invention of the ’087 Patent would be someone with a bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent and
`at least 2-3 years of industry experience or graduate studies in developing
`image/video processing software/hardware systems.
`
`37.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Are you testifying solely in your capacity as an expert?
`
`A:
`
`Well, in addition to my testimony as an expert, I am also prepared to testify as
`someone who actually possessed at least the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in at the time the original parent application that led to the ’087
`Patent was filed.
`
`38.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Do you agree with Dr. Schonfeld’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in
`the art?
`
`5
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 9 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`A:
`
`Essentially, yes. I have reviewed Dr. Schonfeld’s proposal for the level of
`ordinary skill in the art and do not believe it differs materially from my opinion of
`the level of skill a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at the time of
`the invention of the ’087 Patent. In fact, my use of “image/video processing
`software/hardware systems” includes the “multimedia compression” referred to
`by Dr. Schonfeld.
`
`VI.(cid:3) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
`
`39.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, I’d like to turn to a different topic and talk about claim
`construction starting with the legal principles and then moving to the claims
`at issue in this proceeding, okay?
`
`A:
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`Yes. That is fine.
`
`Relevant Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`40.(cid:3) Q: What is your understanding of the legal standard for claim construction as it
`applies to this proceeding?
`
`A:
`
`It is my understanding that claim construction involves construing the terms of
`certain asserted claims of the patents at issue. This is done as a matter of law and,
`accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding ultimately may
`construe the meanings of certain terms in dispute.
`
`41.(cid:3) Q: What meaning is to be given to terms at issue in claim construction?
`
`A:
`
`Well, I understand that claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary
`meaning, that is, the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
`
`42.(cid:3) Q:
`
`How is the plain and ordinary meaning determined?
`
`
`
`A:
`
`To determine the meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would impart to a claim
`term, I understand that one should look first to the intrinsic evidence.
`
`43.(cid:3) Q: What is “intrinsic evidence” Dr. Acton?
`
`A:
`
`Intrinsic evidence is the claims themselves, the patent specification, and the
`prosecution history of the patent.
`
`44.(cid:3) Q:
`
`So if intrinsic evidence can be used to impart meaning to a claim term, is
`there such a thing as “extrinsic evidence”?
`
`
`6
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 10 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`A:
`
`Yes there is. Extrinsic evidence comprises things such as dictionaries, treatises
`and textbooks and can also provide some insight in limited circumstances,
`especially concerning the meaning of technical terms, governing scientific
`principles, and the state of the art at the time of the invention.
`
`45.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Is there hierarchy in the importance of intrinsic versus extrinsic evidence?
`
`A:
`
`
`Yes. Extrinsic evidence is less important than intrinsic evidence in determining
`the meaning of disputed claim terms.
`
`
`
`46.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, are there exceptions to the general rule that terms should be given
`their plain and ordinary meaning?
`
`A:
`
`Yes.
`
`47.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Can you give me an example or two of situations where a term should not be
`given its plain and ordinary meaning?
`
`
`A:
`
`Sure. I understand that words or terms should be given their plain and ordinary
`meaning unless it appears in the specification or the prosecution history that the
`inventor has provided his own special meaning for any disputed terms, or
`intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or otherwise surrendered certain meanings.
`
`48.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Does the patent law provide guidance on how the language of a claim should
`be read with respect to the rest of the patent?
`
`A:
`
`It does. It is my understanding that a claim must be read in the context of the
`entire patent. In particular, the words of the claim must be read in view of the
`entire specification, as the specification is the best guide for construing the claims.
`
`49.(cid:3) Q: What about the file history? Can it be used to help determine a claim terms’
`meaning?
`
`A:
`
`Yes, certainly. In addition to consulting the specification, one should also
`consider the prosecution history.
`
`50.(cid:3) Q:
`
`And what about extrinsic evidence?
`
`A:
`
`Extrinsic evidence can also be consulted, but should not be relied upon to
`contradict the intrinsic record.
`
`51.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Do you know if Complainants and Respondents have submitted proposed
`claim constructions?
`
`7
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 11 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I understand that the Complainants and Respondents have proposed
`differing constructions for certain claims terms.
`
`52.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, I am handing you a document that has been marked as CX-0810C
`(Joint CC Statement, Sep. 12, 2012). Do you recognize this document?
`
`A:
`
`Yes.
`
`53.(cid:3) Q: What is the document marked as CX-0810C (Joint CC Statement, Sep. 12,
`2012)?
`
`A:
`
`It is the parties’ Joint List of Disputed Claim Terms and Proposed Constrictions,
`Claim Terms with Agreed Constructions, and Statement Regarding Identification
`of Accused Products.
`
`54.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Have you reviewed CX-0810C (Joint CC Statement, Sep. 12, 2012)?
`
`A:
`
`Yes, I have.
`
`55.(cid:3) Q: Would you like the opportunity to respond if the ALJ construes any claim
`terms at issue with a meaning different than currently proposed by
`Complainant?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I reserve the right to modify or supplement my infringement analysis with
`respect to such terms.
`
`56.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Thank you Dr. Acton. I want to turn your attention now to the disputed
`claim terms. Have you read Dr. Schonfeld’s Witness Statement regarding
`the disputed claim terms of the ‘087 Patent?
`
`A:
`
`Yes I have.
`
`57.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Dr. Acton, I am handing you a document that has been marked as RX-0007C
`(Schonfeld Witness Statement). Do you recognize this document?
`
`A:
`
`Yes.
`
`58.(cid:3) Q: What is the document marked as RX-0007C (Schonfeld Witness Statement)?
`
`A:
`
`It is a copy of Dr. Schonfeld’s Witness Statement.
`
`59.(cid:3) Q:
`
`And have you formulated opinions regarding Dr. Schonfeld’s claim
`construction analysis in his witness statement?
`
`
`A:
`
`I have, for the claim terms that appear in the ‘087 Patent.
`
`8
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 12 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`“Single Memory”/ “Memory”
`
`60.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Okay. Turning to the parties proposed claim constructions in CX-0810C
`(Joint CC Statement, Sep. 12, 2012) and the claim terms “single memory” /
`“memory.” Respondents propose that these terms be construed as “a single
`unified memory which stores code and data for the transport logic, system
`controller and MPEG decoder functions, with reduced memory
`requirements compared to prior art designs (i.e., less than 20 or 24 Mbits),”
`do you see that?
`
`A:
`
`I do.
`
`61.(cid:3) Q:
`
`A:
`
`62.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Directing your attention to page 22 of the Schonfeld Witness Statement. Dr.
`Schonfeld states that he agrees with Respondent’s proposed construction,
`does he not?
`
`
`He does.
`
`And at pages 22-27 of the Schonfeld Witness Statement, Dr. Schonfeld
`provides his arguments in support of Respondent’s proposed construction,
`true?
`
`A:
`
`True.
`
`63.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Do you believe Dr. Schonfeld’s analysis is correct?
`
`A:
`
`No, I do not. I believe Dr. Schonfeld’s analysis is flawed.
`
`64.(cid:3) Q: Why is it flawed?
`
`A:
`
`For a number of reasons.
`
`65.(cid:3) Q:
`
`And what are those reasons?
`
`A:
`
`Well, referring to pages 23-25 of the Schonfeld Witness Statement, Dr. Schonfeld
`cites to passages from column 4 of the ’087 Patent and from these cited passages
`reaches the conclusion that “[t]he resounding theme of the ’087 patent is the use
`of a single unified memory shared between the transport logic, system controller,
`and MPEG decoder that has reduced memory requirements compared to prior art
`designs.”
`
`66.(cid:3) Q:
`
`You disagree with this conclusion?
`
`A:
`
`I do. The “resounding theme” is not that the unified memory must be smaller
`than the memory used in prior art designs, but rather that a unified memory
`enables a reduction in the total amount of memory needed for the video decoder
`
`9
`
`(cid:38)(cid:59)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`Avago Exhibit 2002
`Page 13 of 38
`
`

`
`(cid:190) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER(cid:189)
`
`system as compared to prior art designs that do not utilize a unified memory. In
`other words, the ’087 Patent is not directed to a unified memory having a
`particular size, but rather to the novel concept that use of a unified memory in a
`video decoder system can reduce overall memory requirements, simplify system
`design, and reduce cost.
`
`67.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Can you explain your opinion further, Dr. Acton?
`
`A:
`
`Yes. I understand the disclosure in column 4 of the ’087 Patent to be illustrative
`of how a unified memory can achieve a reduction in overall memory
`requirements. The use of non-limiting language with respect to memory sizes in
`the example provided in column 4 – that is, “for example” and “such as” –
`indicates to me that the invention is not limited to embodiment discussed therein.
`Rather, as noted above, I understand that portion of the specification to be
`describing an illustrative – that is, non-limiting – example of an implementation
`of the invention of the ’087 Patent.
`
`68.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Is there anything wrong with Respondents’ proposed construction?
`
`A:
`
`There is. Based on my understanding of the principles of claim construction, it
`appears to me that Respondents are improperly attempting to import limitations
`from the specification into the claims.
`
`69.(cid:3) Q:
`
`How are Respondents doing that?
`
`A:
`
`The specification of the ’087 Patent uses the terms “memory,” “single memory,”
`and “unified memory” interchangeably. These terms are used throughout the
`specification to indicate that the memory of the video decoder system (including
`MPEG decoder systems) functions as a unit. There is no indication that the
`memory is limited to a single structure, much less a single structure of a particular
`size. In fact, the figures of the ’087 Patent counsel otherwise.
`
`70.(cid:3) Q:
`
`Can you provide an example of the figures to which you referred?
`
`A:
`
`Yes, take for example FIG. 3, shown in CDX-0003 (Annotated FIG. 3 – U.S.
`Patent No. 5,870,087), the 16 Mbit SDRAM depicted by reference number 212 is
`consistent with a memory configuration of four ranks (i.e., chips). If the memory
`were limited to a single memory chip, I believe memory 212 w