Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 2
`
` ZTE (USA), INC.; HTC )
` 3 CORPORATION; and HTC AMERICA, )
` INC., )
` 4 )
` Petitioners, ) Case No.
` 5 ) IPR2016-00758
` vs. )
` 6 )
` EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, )
` 7 )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` 8
`
` 9 The deposition of PAUL S. MIN, Ph.D.,
`
` 10 called by the Patent Owner for examination pursuant
`
` 11 to notice and pursuant to the Rules of Civil
`
` 12 Procedure for the United States District Courts
`
` 13 pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before
`
` 14 Amy M. Spee, a Certified Shorthand Reporter within
`
` 15 and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at
`
` 16 Suite 2400, 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago,
`
` 17 Illinois, on the 14th day of December 2016.
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 1
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0001
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 2
`
` ZTE (USA), INC.; HTC )
` 3 CORPORATION; and HTC AMERICA, )
` INC., )
` 4 )
` Petitioners, ) Case No.
` 5 ) IPR2016-00758
` vs. )
` 6 )
` EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, )
` 7 )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` 8
`
` 9 The deposition of PAUL S. MIN, Ph.D.,
`
` 10 called by the Patent Owner for examination pursuant
`
` 11 to notice and pursuant to the Rules of Civil
`
` 12 Procedure for the United States District Courts
`
` 13 pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before
`
` 14 Amy M. Spee, a Certified Shorthand Reporter within
`
` 15 and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at
`
` 16 Suite 2400, 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago,
`
` 17 Illinois, on the 14th day of December 2016.
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 1
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0001
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
`
` 2 McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY, by
` MR. HERSH H. MEHTA
` 3 MR. CHARLES M. McMAHON
` 227 West Monroe Street
` 4 Chicago, Illinois 60606-5096
` (312) 984-7641
` 5 hmehta@mwe.com
` cmcmahon@mwe.com
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` -and-
`
` SHEPPARD MULLIN, by
` 8 MR. NAM H. KIM
` MS. ERICKA J. SCHULZ (telephonically)
` 9 12275 El Camino Real
` Suite 200
` 10 San Diego, California 92130-2006
` (858) 720-8900
` 11 nkim@sheppardmullin.com
` eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
` 12 for the petitioner;
`
` 13 ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP, by
` MR. RYAN M. SCHULTZ
` 14 800 LaSalle Avenue
` Suite 2800
` 15 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` (612) 349-8408
` 16 Rschultz@RobinsKaplan.com
` for the the patent owner;
`
` 17
`
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, by
` 18 MR. CHARLIE STIERNBERG (telephonically)
` 555 Twin Dolphin Drive
` 19 Suite 560
` Redwood Shores, California 94065
` 20 (650) 801-5000
` charliestiernberg@quinnemanuel.com
` 21 for Samsung Electronic Companies,
` Limited, and Electronics America, Inc.
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 2
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0002
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` I N D E X
`
` WITNESS: PAGE
`
` PAUL S. MIN, Ph.D.
`
` Exam by Mr. Schultz 4, 113
`
` Exam by Mr. Mehta 107
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
` ZTE/HTC EXHIBIT MARKED
`
` No. 2001 14
`
` Nos. 2002 and 2003 69
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 3
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0003
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 (Witness sworn.)
`
` 2 PAUL S. MIN, Ph.D.,
`
` 3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`
` 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`
` 5 EXAMINATION
`
` 6 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 7 Q Good morning, Dr. Min.
`
` 8 A Good morning.
`
` 9 Q I'm Ryan Schultz on behalf of the patent
`
` 10 owner, Evolved Wireless, LLC.
`
` 11 Just before we get started, I have a
`
` 12 few ground rules to go over so we make sure we're all
`
` 13 on the same page going forward so we can have a
`
` 14 smooth, efficient, and hopefully relatively quick
`
` 15 deposition.
`
` 16 You've been deposed before, correct?
`
` 17 A Yes.
`
` 18 Q Okay. So I'm not going to go over all
`
` 19 particular ground rules. I'm going to assume that
`
` 20 you kind of understand the process for it.
`
` 21 But a few that I do want to highlight
`
` 22 is, one, if you answer my question, I'm going to
`
` 23 assume that you understood the question. Okay?
`
` 24 A Okay.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 4
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0004
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 Q But to the extent that I, from time to
`
` 2 time, don't ask the most clear question, if there's
`
` 3 some clarity that you need to answer the question,
`
` 4 please feel free to ask that clarity and I will
`
` 5 attempt to clarify the question as best I can for
`
` 6 you. Okay?
`
` 7 A Yes.
`
` 8 Q All right. As you can see, the court
`
` 9 reporter here is working to write down all the words
`
` 10 that we discuss at this deposition today, but it's
`
` 11 going to be important that we don't talk over each
`
` 12 other so we can get a clean record of the discussion
`
` 13 that we have here today.
`
` 14 So on that end, I will try to wait
`
` 15 until you are done answering my question. And I
`
` 16 would just ask that you wait until I'm done asking
`
` 17 the question to start answering.
`
` 18 Is that okay?
`
` 19 A I'll do my best.
`
` 20 Q Yeah. I'm sure we'll have to remind each
`
` 21 other from time to time, it happens, but I just want
`
` 22 to have that out there to start.
`
` 23 Is there any reason that you cannot
`
` 24 testify truthfully today?
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 5
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0005
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 A Not to my knowledge, no.
`
` 2 Q Okay. Great.
`
` 3 What I've placed before you is a stack
`
` 4 of documents. Just to go over them for the record,
`
` 5 what I've handed you is Exhibit 1001, which is the
`
` 6 '481 patent -- but I guess it doesn't have the label
`
` 7 at the bottom, but that's what Exhibit 1001 is --
`
` 8 Exhibit 1002, which is -- I will refer to as
`
` 9 Panasonic 792 from time to time --
`
` 10 Is that understood?
`
` 11 A Yes.
`
` 12 Q Okay.
`
` 13 -- Exhibit 1003, which I may refer to
`
` 14 as Panasonic 114 from time to time --
`
` 15 Is that understood?
`
` 16 A Yes.
`
` 17 Q All right.
`
` 18 -- Exhibit 1004, which I will refer to
`
` 19 from time to time as the Chu article, C-h-u --
`
` 20 A Yes.
`
` 21 Q -- and then the last document in front of
`
` 22 you is Exhibit 1014, which is your declaration in
`
` 23 IPR2016-00758, correct?
`
` 24 A Okay.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 6
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0006
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 Q Now, as we had talked earlier, you've been
`
` 2 deposed before, correct?
`
` 3 A Yes.
`
` 4 Q And you've offered testimony as an expert
`
` 5 witness in other cases, correct?
`
` 6 A Yes.
`
` 7 Q In your prior expert testimony, have you
`
` 8 ever testified on behalf of the patent owner?
`
` 9 A For that particular case, you mean?
`
` 10 Q Yes.
`
` 11 A Yes, I have.
`
` 12 Q How many times have you testified for the
`
` 13 patent owner?
`
` 14 A I couldn't be exact, but I would imagine
`
` 15 maybe half a dozen times.
`
` 16 Q And how many times have you testified as an
`
` 17 expert total?
`
` 18 A A dozen -- ten, fifteen times, somewhere in
`
` 19 between.
`
` 20 Q And so it would be fair to say, then, that
`
` 21 about somewhere between four and nine of those times
`
` 22 were for -- on behalf of the accused infringer?
`
` 23 A I think so. Perhaps a little more than the
`
` 24 number of times that I actually testified on behalf
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 7
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0007
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 of patent owner.
`
` 2 Q All right. And when you were testifying as
`
` 3 an expert witness on behalf of the patent owner, were
`
` 4 you -- did you ever offer testimony that any of the
`
` 5 asserted patents in that particular case were valid?
`
` 6 A Offering opinion in response to other
`
` 7 side's invalidity assertion, yes, I have done that.
`
` 8 Q And how many times did you do that?
`
` 9 A Oh, once again, I couldn't be exact; but I
`
` 10 believe most of the time that I worked on behalf of
`
` 11 patent owner. I believe I have provided rebuttal
`
` 12 opinions against invalidity assertion made by the
`
` 13 other side.
`
` 14 Q And in any of those situations, to the best
`
` 15 you can recall, did any of those patents involve
`
` 16 cellular communication technology?
`
` 17 A Yes.
`
` 18 Q How many?
`
` 19 A Once again, I couldn't be exact, but at
`
` 20 least two, three, four times.
`
` 21 Q Now, have you ever testified against ZTE?
`
` 22 A Not that I can recall, no.
`
` 23 Q Have you ever testified against HTC?
`
` 24 A No.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 8
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0008
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 Q Have you ever testified against Samsung?
`
` 2 A No.
`
` 3 Q Have you ever testified against Apple?
`
` 4 A Yes.
`
` 5 Q How many times?
`
` 6 A There were -- there was one case that
`
` 7 actually went to trial and there was one other case
`
` 8 that actually got settled along the way, so twice.
`
` 9 Q And have you ever testified against
`
` 10 Microsoft?
`
` 11 A I don't think so.
`
` 12 Q Okay. If you can turn to Exhibit 1004,
`
` 13 which is the Chu article.
`
` 14 A Okay.
`
` 15 Q You have reviewed this article, correct?
`
` 16 A Yes.
`
` 17 Q Now, in the -- Exhibit 1004, is Equations 4
`
` 18 and 7 the Zadoff-Chu formula, or the formula for a
`
` 19 Zadoff-Chu sequence?
`
` 20 A Did you say 4 and 7?
`
` 21 Q Correct.
`
` 22 A I believe that's two equations I used in my
`
` 23 declaration. Let me just double-check.
`
` 24 Q Please do.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 9
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0009
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 A Yes. In fact, in Exhibit 1014, which is my
`
` 2 declaration, in Paragraph 52, I refer to those two
`
` 3 equation from Chu reference, Equation 4 and 7, as two
`
` 4 cases of the Parameter N of -- Equation 4 is -- 4,
`
` 5 the even -- and is equal -- and is even -- an even
`
` 6 integer, and Equation 7 is called an odd integer.
`
` 7 Q Now -- so if we look at Equation 4, just as
`
` 8 an example there, the capital N in that formula
`
` 9 relates to the length of the desired sequence,
`
` 10 correct?
`
` 11 A That's right.
`
` 12 Q All right. And what is the variable K in
`
` 13 that equation formula, 4?
`
` 14 A The K is the actual -- the value in the
`
` 15 sequence of a sequence within that Zadoff-Chu
`
` 16 sequence. So you would evaluate K from zero through
`
` 17 N minus 1.
`
` 18 Q So -- just so I'm -- make sure I understand
`
` 19 what's being disclosed here, N is the length of the
`
` 20 desired sequence.
`
` 21 A That's right.
`
` 22 Q All right. So when a person picks whatever
`
` 23 N to be, the length will be -- that will be the
`
` 24 length of the resulting sequence, correct?
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 10
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0010
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 A That's right.
`
` 2 Q And if you change K, the length of the
`
` 3 sequence will still be the same.
`
` 4 A That's right.
`
` 5 Q Okay.
`
` 6 A In fact, the equation used, Chu C, is
`
` 7 Equation 1, and the Chu reference, which is
`
` 8 Exhibit 1004. And it shows that AK, which is indexed
`
` 9 by K -- and then K goes from zero three minus one,
`
` 10 two -- enumerate different values within the
`
` 11 sequence.
`
` 12 Q And so the same would be true for -- we've
`
` 13 been looking at Exhibit -- or -- sorry -- we have
`
` 14 been looking at Equation 4. The same would be true
`
` 15 for Equation 7, that once you've set N, if you -- no
`
` 16 matter what -- the value you put in for K, you will
`
` 17 always get the same length sequence, correct?
`
` 18 A Yes. So to be clear, you can go K as --
`
` 19 any number you want, but it will repeat itself. It
`
` 20 becomes periodic after the maximum number.
`
` 21 Q Correct.
`
` 22 A Yeah.
`
` 23 Q Okay. And -- I'm sorry -- I meant to ask
`
` 24 this before, but have you given expert testimony in
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 11
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0011
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 IPR proceedings?
`
` 2 A Yes.
`
` 3 Q How many times?
`
` 4 A Maybe two, three times.
`
` 5 Q Okay. And of those times that you
`
` 6 testified in IPR proceedings, were they -- how many
`
` 7 were for the patent owner and how many were for the
`
` 8 petitioner?
`
` 9 A I think maybe once was a patent owner and a
`
` 10 couple other times for the petitioner.
`
` 11 Q Now, if you look at Exhibit 1014,
`
` 12 Paragraphs 17 and 18 -- look at Paragraph 18.
`
` 13 Now, I understand you're not an
`
` 14 attorney and I'm not holding you out to -- holding
`
` 15 you up to a standard of an attorney, but you
`
` 16 under- -- do you understand the burden of proof that
`
` 17 is required on the petitioner in an IPR proceeding?
`
` 18 A Once again, I'm not an attorney, so I don't
`
` 19 want to be super technical about the wording of your
`
` 20 question; but I understand that a patent is presumed
`
` 21 valid, and then it's up to the petitioner to prove
`
` 22 that it's not. That's what I understand.
`
` 23 Q All right. And you understand they have to
`
` 24 prove that by their preponderance of the evidence?
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 12
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0012
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 A Right.
`
` 2 Q Okay. And do you apply that standard when
`
` 3 you rendered your opinions that are found in
`
` 4 Exhibit 1014?
`
` 5 A Yes.
`
` 6 Q And so would it be fair to say that the
`
` 7 support in Exhibit 1014 is the support you feel is
`
` 8 sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the
`
` 9 evidence, that the various challenged claims are
`
` 10 invalid?
`
` 11 A Yes.
`
` 12 MR. MEHTA: Objection to form.
`
` 13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
` 14 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 15 Q So, in other words, everything that you
`
` 16 need to rely on to determine that these patents
`
` 17 are -- or these claims are invalid is found in
`
` 18 Exhibit 1014?
`
` 19 A So, once again -- now I'm going to be
`
` 20 careful here -- not all the claims are the
`
` 21 anticipation, and there are like a combination. So
`
` 22 when you say all the evidence, I have stated my
`
` 23 opinion here, right, and the -- it refers to all
`
` 24 these documents, prior references that I used.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 13
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0013
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 So I have stated my -- to the best of
`
` 2 my ability to explain the basis for my opinion that
`
` 3 resulted in the invalidity as a conclusion, the
`
` 4 anticipation or as an obviousness.
`
` 5 Q All right. And a great segue into kind of
`
` 6 my next line of questioning, is, so you understand
`
` 7 that there are -- there's been an institution
`
` 8 decision, correct?
`
` 9 A That's my understanding.
`
` 10 Q Okay. And some of the claims have been
`
` 11 instituted based on an anticipation ground and some
`
` 12 have been instituted on obviousness ground, right?
`
` 13 A Yes.
`
` 14 Q And --
`
` 15 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess we'll mark this as
`
` 16 Exhibit 2001.
`
` 17 (Deposition Exhibit No. 2001 was
`
` 18 marked for identification.)
`
` 19 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 20 Q So I've marked Exhibit 2001, which is the
`
` 21 institution decision in this proceeding. Have you
`
` 22 seen this document?
`
` 23 A Yes.
`
` 24 Q All right. And because I don't want to ask
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 14
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0014
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 you just from -- as a memorization test, I want you
`
` 2 to have that if you need to refer back to it, but you
`
` 3 understand that Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 were instituted
`
` 4 based on anticipation with the reference that is
`
` 5 Exhibit 1002, or the Panasonic 792, correct?
`
` 6 A Yes.
`
` 7 Q Okay. And you understand that Claims 3, 6,
`
` 8 10, and 13 were instituted on obviousness based on
`
` 9 combinations of Exhibit 1002, which is Panasonic 792,
`
` 10 Exhibit 1003, which is Panasonic 114, and
`
` 11 Exhibit 1004, which is the Chu article, correct?
`
` 12 A Right. So -- I mean, to be clear, the --
`
` 13 there's -- there are two separate items under the
`
` 14 order on Page 21 of institution. I don't know what
`
` 15 this document is called exactly, but the decision --
`
` 16 institution of an inter partes review decision. So
`
` 17 the Claims 3 and 10 instituted under obviousness
`
` 18 criteria of a Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 114. And
`
` 19 then separately Claim 6 and 13 are instituted under
`
` 20 obviousness of Panasonic 792, Panasonic 114, and Chu.
`
` 21 Q And you understand that the analysis for
`
` 22 obviousness is different than the analysis for
`
` 23 anticipation, correct?
`
` 24 A Analysis -- could you clarify what you
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 15
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0015
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 mean?
`
` 2 Q Sure.
`
` 3 That the -- as you've kind of outlined
`
` 4 here in Paragraphs 19 through, it looks like, 22 is
`
` 5 your understanding of anticipation and claim,
`
` 6 Paragraphs 24 through 32 are your understanding of
`
` 7 the obviousness analysis.
`
` 8 A Yes. In that regard, yes, I agree with
`
` 9 you.
`
` 10 Q Okay. You agree that they're different.
`
` 11 A Yes.
`
` 12 Q Okay. Okay. I want to focus you in first
`
` 13 on -- and I should mention, too -- I should have said
`
` 14 this earlier at the beginning. I tend to go about an
`
` 15 hour and then we can take a short break; but if at
`
` 16 any time you need to take a break, let me know. I'll
`
` 17 gladly do it.
`
` 18 All I ask is, if there's a question
`
` 19 pending, answer the question and then we can take a
`
` 20 break. Okay?
`
` 21 A Okay.
`
` 22 Q All right. So if we look at the '481
`
` 23 patent, or Exhibit 1001, I want to ask you questions
`
` 24 related to Claim 8, and also Exhibit 1002, the
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 16
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0016
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 Panasonic 792 reference.
`
` 2 A Okay.
`
` 3 Q So Claim 8 has a claim element of a
`
` 4 preamble generation unit, correct?
`
` 5 A That is the first limitation in Claim 8
`
` 6 starting with "a preamble generation unit continued
`
` 7 to generate," and it goes on to the rest of the
`
` 8 element.
`
` 9 Q Okay. If you look at -- I apologize. We
`
` 10 do have quite a few documents here, but I want to
`
` 11 make sure you understand kind of -- we're kind of
`
` 12 flipping among -- back and forth between the
`
` 13 documents.
`
` 14 If you look at your declaration,
`
` 15 Exhibit 1014 at Paragraph 75, you opine that the UE,
`
` 16 or the user equipment, performs the generation step;
`
` 17 is that correct?
`
` 18 MR. MEHTA: Objection to form.
`
` 19 THE WITNESS: So this is a -- Claim 8, that
`
` 20 is -- it's an apparatus claim. So my analysis
`
` 21 include looking for a particular element, in this
`
` 22 case, a preamble generation unit. And that unit is
`
` 23 what is configured to -- like a generating -- you
`
` 24 know, on the rest of the claim limitation on the
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 17
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0017
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 preamble unit element.
`
` 2 So UE -- as I said here, the UE
`
` 3 that -- the UE will include that preamble generation
`
` 4 unit and that will -- that is, say, satisfy this
`
` 5 limitation, that is configure to generate, and it
`
` 6 goes on to the rest of the limitation.
`
` 7 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 8 Q So in particular, on Paragraph 75 of
`
` 9 Exhibit 1014, you cite to Pages 5 and 6 of the 79- --
`
` 10 Panasonic 792 reference --
`
` 11 A Yes.
`
` 12 Q -- in support of your opinions.
`
` 13 A That's right.
`
` 14 Q Can you tell me where on Pages 5 and 6 on
`
` 15 Panasonic 792 it is stated that the UE has a preamble
`
` 16 generation unit.
`
` 17 A So -- once again, to be clear, this --
`
` 18 Claim 8 recites this is a preamble generation unit
`
` 19 that is configured to generate. And then starting
`
` 20 from -- there's a preamble sequence. That's the
`
` 21 question: What is that preamble generation sequence?
`
` 22 The preamble sequence is generated by repeating a
`
` 23 specific sequence and having a length (L), N times to
`
` 24 generate a consecutive sequence having a length, N
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 18
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0018
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 times L, and concatenating a single cyclic prefix to
`
` 2 a front end of said consecutive sequence.
`
` 3 That same limitation appears in
`
` 4 Claim 1. That's the -- I'm talking about the
`
` 5 preamble sequence, description of a preamble
`
` 6 sequence.
`
` 7 So I refer to Claim 1, to answer your
`
` 8 question, that is, where the same claim limitation is
`
` 9 recited. That is under Claim 1, starting Page 25,
`
` 10 and Claim 1 Element B. And you see that repeating a
`
` 11 specific sequence, having length (L), N times to
`
` 12 generate a consecutive sequence having a length, N
`
` 13 times L. That's shown in Claim Element 1B.
`
` 14 And Claim Element 1C goes on to say,
`
` 15 "Generating said preamble sequence by concatenating
`
` 16 a single cyclic prefix to a front end of said
`
` 17 consecutive sequence." The same element appears
`
` 18 there.
`
` 19 So I refer back, in other words,
`
` 20 instead of repeating it myself here, and I just
`
` 21 simply state that UE performs a step. And then
`
` 22 that -- I -- in addition, I just to kind of -- show
`
` 23 Pages 5 and 6 on Panasonic 792, which shows the
`
` 24 preamble generating under the Section 2.3 in the
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 19
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0019
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 figures generating those sequence and being
`
` 2 transmitting and so forth.
`
` 3 So it's really a combination of what I
`
` 4 described earlier on under Claim 1 and what is also
`
` 5 recited here in Paragraph 75 of my declaration.
`
` 6 Q All right. So where in Panasonic 792 does
`
` 7 it say the UE generates the preamble?
`
` 8 A I think the best -- to -- place to look at
`
` 9 it is Figure 1. Figure 1 basically describes -- and
`
` 10 this is the random access burst, the preamble
`
` 11 structure that is shown in Figure 1 of Panasonic 792.
`
` 12 And the whole description is about a RACH preamble
`
` 13 structure, random access channel. And the random
`
` 14 access channel is what UE uses to access the wireless
`
` 15 network.
`
` 16 So basically what's shown in Figure 1
`
` 17 is what shows the UE. So the UE is what generates
`
` 18 this random access burst as shown in Figure 1. And
`
` 19 together with what's shown in Section 2.3 that I just
`
` 20 described on Page 5 -- Pages 5 and 6 of Panasonic
`
` 21 792, it shows that the UE generates it, the preamble,
`
` 22 reading on the claim limitation of the preamble
`
` 23 generation unit in Claim 8 and also send it.
`
` 24 Q So you would agree with me that nowhere in
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 20
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0020
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 Panasonic 792 does it explicitly say in the words of
`
` 2 the text that the UE generates the preamble?
`
` 3 A That is not true because Panasonic 792 is
`
` 4 as clear as it can be, that the RACH preamble is
`
` 5 generated according to Figure 1. And the RACH
`
` 6 preamble is generated by UE. That's what the UE
`
` 7 does.
`
` 8 Q Okay. That wasn't my question, though.
`
` 9 My question is, is there any text in
`
` 10 Panasonic 792 that says the UE generates the
`
` 11 preamble?
`
` 12 A In that exact verbatim text?
`
` 13 Q Anything close to that.
`
` 14 A Oh. Close to that means -- yes, of course.
`
` 15 The --
`
` 16 Q Where?
`
` 17 A What is -- well, that's what I just
`
` 18 described to you. Let's start from this description
`
` 19 of what's shown in Figure 1.
`
` 20 Q But Figure 1 is labeled the "Preamble
`
` 21 Structure."
`
` 22 A Yeah. Yeah. Preamble is what UE uses to
`
` 23 send it to a base station.
`
` 24 Q Yeah, and we'll get to the --
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 21
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0021
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 A Okay.
`
` 2 Q -- transmission part. I'm just focusing on
`
` 3 the creation part.
`
` 4 A Okay.
`
` 5 Q Okay. And so is there text in
`
` 6 Panasonic 792 that says the UE generates or creates
`
` 7 the preamble?
`
` 8 MR. MEHTA: Objection to form.
`
` 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. Not verbatim, once again;
`
` 10 but in description of a transmission -- so we say --
`
` 11 and you had mentioned that this is what gets
`
` 12 transmitted. All right. I mean, you know, you had
`
` 13 already said that, but you are focusing on whether UE
`
` 14 actually generates this.
`
` 15 Of course it does because a
`
` 16 transmitter is what's contained in the UE. And as a
`
` 17 part of the transmission, the data has to be fed into
`
` 18 the transmitter. The data has to come from
`
` 19 somewhere. And that still is within the UE that has
`
` 20 to come and fed into the transmitter. And as a part
`
` 21 of that feeding into the transmitter, UE will have to
`
` 22 generate the data as shown in Figure 1. And that
`
` 23 part -- that process is generating the preamble
`
` 24 structure.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 22
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0022
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 2 Q So what I understand you to be saying,
`
` 3 then, is, you believe that Figure 1 and Figure 6 in
`
` 4 Panasonic 792 explicitly disclose that the UE
`
` 5 generates the preamble.
`
` 6 MR. MEHTA: Objection to form.
`
` 7 THE WITNESS: Figures 1 and 6 together with the
`
` 8 description, what is in this Panasonic 792, that
`
` 9 is -- and you have indicated that this is what gets
`
` 10 transmitted. And that's the preamble structure in
`
` 11 Figure 1. And that's shown in Figure 6. Figure 6
`
` 12 shows that UE sends that preamble to Node B. So the
`
` 13 transmission is done.
`
` 14 Then somehow, someway, that data, as a
`
` 15 part of the transmission, has to be fed into the
`
` 16 transmission unit. Right?
`
` 17 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 18 Q Right.
`
` 19 A And that's what Claim 8 is about. There's
`
` 20 a second element, which is transmission unit. The
`
` 21 feeding into that data, that's -- UE has to generate
`
` 22 the data somehow, someway to fit into that -- the
`
` 23 transmission unit. And that's what preamble -- a
`
` 24 preamble generating unit is.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 23
`
`PETITIONERS 1078-0023
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Paul S. Min, Ph.D. - 12/14/2016
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. vs. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`
` 1 Q So just to be clear, though, Figure 6
`
` 2 doesn't disclose any sort of generation of the
`
` 3 preamble; it discloses, at best, some sort of
`
` 4 transmission, correct?
`
` 5 MR. MEHTA: Objection to form.
`
` 6 THE WITNESS: Figure 6 shows UE transmitting
`
` 7 the preamble. And Figure 1 shows, as I say earlier
`
` 8 on, the structure of a preamble that needs to be
`
` 9 transmitted as shown in Figure 6.
`
` 10 The process of a transmission -- and
`
` 11 here's a structure that's shown here -- that
`
` 12 structure has to be fed into -- the data structure
`
` 13 has to be fed into the transmitter, the transmission
`
` 14 unit, and then the process of feeding into -- that
`
` 15 data into the transmission unit is what the --
`
` 16 correspond to the -- generating the preamble.
`
` 17 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 18 Q All right. One way that the UE could have
`
` 19 the data fed into it is it could have the -- all the
`
` 20 preamble sequences in a lookup table, correct?
`
` 21 A I mean, that's a possibility, yes; but
`
` 22 still, even reading it from the table structure,
`
` 23 feeding the data into the transmitter unit, that part
`
` 24 is a generation of a preamble.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 24
`
`P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
