·1· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`·4· ·ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., et al.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`
`·6· ·v.
`
`·7· ·MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`·8· ·TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`10· ·__________________________________/
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · ·The oral deposition of PAUL KAKAES, PH.D.,
`
`13· ·continued on Friday, December 16, 2016, commencing
`
`14· ·at 10:07 a.m., at the law offices of Ropes & Gray
`
`15· ·LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest,
`
`16· ·Washington, D.C., before Susan Ashe, RMR, CRR,
`
`17· ·Notary Public.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24· ·REPORTED BY:· Susan Ashe, RMR, CRR
`
`25
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 143, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`·4· ·ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., et al.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`
`·6· ·v.
`
`·7· ·MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`·8· ·TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`10· ·__________________________________/
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · ·The oral deposition of PAUL KAKAES, PH.D.,
`
`13· ·continued on Friday, December 16, 2016, commencing
`
`14· ·at 10:07 a.m., at the law offices of Ropes & Gray
`
`15· ·LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest,
`
`16· ·Washington, D.C., before Susan Ashe, RMR, CRR,
`
`17· ·Notary Public.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24· ·REPORTED BY:· Susan Ashe, RMR, CRR
`
`25
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 143, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·2· · · · ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`
`·3· · · · HENNING SCHMIDT, ESQUIRE
`
`·4· · · · · ·Reed & Scardino LLP
`
`·5· · · · · ·301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1250
`
`·6· · · · · ·Austin, Texas· 78701
`
`·7· · · · · ·(512) 474-2449
`
`·8
`
`·9
`· · · · · ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER AND THE WITNESS:
`10
`· · · · · MEGAN F. RAYMOND, ESQUIRE
`11
`· · · · · · ·Ropes & Gray LLP
`12
`· · · · · · ·2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
`13
`· · · · · · ·Washington, D.C.· 20006-6807
`14
`· · · · · · ·(202) 508-4600
`15
`
`16
`
`17· ·ALSO PRESENT:
`
`18· ·Stefan Geirhofer, Ph.D.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 144, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · INDEX
`
`·2· · · · · · ·Deposition of PAUL KAKAES, PH.D.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · December 16, 2016
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·Examination By:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page
`
`·6· ·Mr. Schmidt· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 146
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·Exhibit No.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Marked
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 6· ·A Mobile Base Station Phased
`
`10· · · · · · · ·Array Antenna
`
`11· · · · · · · ·SEC 00009141 through -144· · · · · · 198
`
`12· ·Exhibit 7· ·International Publication
`
`13· · · · · · · ·SEC 00011643 through -667· · · · · · 198
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 145, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· ·Whereupon,
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · ·PAUL KAKAES, PH.D.,
`
`·4· ·the Witness, called for examination, having been
`
`·5· ·first duly sworn according to law, was examined and
`
`·6· ·testified as follows:
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`
`·8· ·BY MR. SCHMIDT:
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Do you recall the testimony you provided
`
`10· ·yesterday?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you speak to anyone about the
`
`13· ·testimony since yesterday?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Did you speak to your attorneys about the
`
`16· ·testimony?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So can you take a look at the
`
`19· ·Petrovic reference, please.
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Are these mine?
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Mine -- quote, unquote -- right?
`
`23· · · · · · ·Okay.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·So in the introduction, paragraph 1 here,
`
`25· ·it states that -- in the middle of the paragraph, it
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 146, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·says:· Typically, the gross bit rate of 1200 bits
`
`·2· ·per second is achieved through a 25-kilohertz radio
`
`·3· ·channel by binary frequency shift keying, FSK.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·So that's the modulation that was used,
`
`·7· ·typically, in paging networks at the time.· Right?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· Say that again.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·That's the modulation that was typically
`
`10· ·used in paging networks at the time.· Right?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·It is one of the modulation schemes.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes; it was used a lot.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·And so relating to the '891 patent, is
`
`15· ·that the modulation scheme used in that patent?
`
`16· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection to form,
`
`17· ·scope.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·There are different kinds of frequency
`
`19· ·shift keying modulation schemes.
`
`20· · · · · · ·But the '891 patent does use a form of
`
`21· ·frequency shift keying modulation.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And at the time of the '891 patent,
`
`23· ·the FCC allocated 25-kilohertz channels.· Right?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Among others.
`
`25· · · · · · ·25-kilohertz channels was one of the
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 147, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·allocations.· There were other allocations as well.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And the allocation referred to in the '891
`
`·3· ·patent was 25 kilohertz.· Right?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·That's right.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the solution proposed in
`
`·6· ·Petrovic relies on doubling the channel bandwidth.
`
`·7· ·Right?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·The solution proposed by Petrovic is using
`
`·9· ·a 50-kilohertz channel -- using it in a different
`
`10· ·way than it was used before, as articulated by the
`
`11· ·two different techniques that Petrovic proposes.
`
`12· · · · · · ·And in both of those techniques, it would
`
`13· ·have been a 50-kilohertz channel that Petrovic
`
`14· ·proposed.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And the reason Petrovic proposes
`
`16· ·50 kilohertz is in order to fit eight carriers.
`
`17· ·Right?
`
`18· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form, scope.
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I'm not sure that the rationale is as
`
`20· ·simple as saying:· Because of X, it's Y.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Petrovic proposed a system with various
`
`22· ·parameters.· And as a whole, it worked as Petrovic
`
`23· ·proposed that it would work.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·So Petrovic's objective was to increase
`
`25· ·throughput.· Right?
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 148, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Petrovic's objective was to increase the
`
`·2· ·bit rate, as well as increase the spectral
`
`·3· ·efficiency.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So bit rate and spectral
`
`·5· ·efficiency?· Right.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So, higher data throughput, basically?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·Or the high bit rate, as a person of
`
`·8· ·ordinary skill in the art would know, is the basis
`
`·9· ·upon which one can use that higher throughput in any
`
`10· ·number of different ways.
`
`11· · · · · · ·That higher bit rate provides the
`
`12· ·capability to have other benefits.
`
`13· · · · · · ·And of course, providing a higher spectral
`
`14· ·efficiency is important.· As the word "efficiency"
`
`15· ·indicates, you become a more efficient user of the
`
`16· ·allocated spectrum.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's assume that we have a
`
`18· ·given frequency band -- in this case, 50 kilohertz
`
`19· ·in Petrovic.· Right?
`
`20· · · · · · ·And you have a certain number of carriers
`
`21· ·in that band.· Right?
`
`22· · · · · · ·So one way to improve throughput or
`
`23· ·improve bit rate and efficiency would be to -- or
`
`24· ·one way to improve throughput would be to increase
`
`25· ·the bit rate on a given carrier.· Right?
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 149, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·To transmit more data on that carrier.
`
`·2· ·Right?
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·More data, and it's very -- I'm not sure
`
`·5· ·exactly what you mean by "more data."
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So -- and I also don't know exactly what
`
`·7· ·you mean by "more throughput."· So you need to
`
`·8· ·define those terms.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·And I don't think we've done that.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's assume a hypothetical
`
`11· ·situation.
`
`12· · · · · · ·You have a channel that has one carrier
`
`13· ·and that has a bit rate of -- what makes sense,
`
`14· ·2400?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I don't know what makes sense because I
`
`16· ·don't know where the channel is.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's talk about the channel
`
`18· ·used in Petrovic.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Okay.· So let's look at paragraph 1 here
`
`20· ·in the introduction.· Right?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· Look where?
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·The first paragraph in the introduction.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·So he's talking about current radio paging
`
`25· ·systems.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 150, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·And he's mentioning a gross bit rate of
`
`·2· ·1200 bits per second in a 25-kilohertz radio
`
`·3· ·channel.· Right?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·Right.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So one way to increase the bit rate
`
`·6· ·would be to transmit at a higher rate inside that
`
`·7· ·channel.· Right?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Those two statements are synonymous --
`
`·9· ·transmitting at the higher rate means transmitting
`
`10· ·at the higher bit rate.
`
`11· · · · · · ·So I'm not sure what you mean.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So in other words, yes, that's
`
`13· ·correct?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Again, I'm not sure what you said.
`
`15· · · · · · ·What you said is that transmitting at the
`
`16· ·higher bit rate is a way to transmit at the higher
`
`17· ·bit rate.
`
`18· · · · · · ·I cannot disagree with that statement, but
`
`19· ·it's kind of void of any meaning.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Transmitting at a higher bit rate
`
`21· ·increases data throughput.
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Again, that needs -- one needs to define
`
`23· ·what "data throughput" means.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·What does "data throughput" mean to you?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·It depends on the context.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 151, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·In this context.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·In which context?
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·In the context of the Petrovic article.
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Petrovic does not discuss increasing
`
`·6· ·throughput.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·He doesn't?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Well, he talks about -- he measures
`
`·9· ·everything in terms of bit rate.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Um-hum.· Bit rate is throughput, I thought
`
`11· ·you said.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Throughput can be measured in several --
`
`14· ·can be defined to be -- in more than one way.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So until we see a definition of
`
`16· ·"throughput," one can be very -- one -- coming up
`
`17· ·with a correct answer to a question that involves
`
`18· ·throughput requires having a definition, an
`
`19· ·agreed-upon definition, of what "throughput" is.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·So can you provide a definition of
`
`21· ·"throughput."
`
`22· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I would need to have a context within
`
`24· ·which to provide a definition of "throughput."
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Well, in the context of this bit of prior
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 152, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·art of the Petrovic article.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Again, we would need to talk about how one
`
`·4· ·would define "throughput."
`
`·5· · · · · · ·One would define "throughput" as a number
`
`·6· ·of messages transmitted successfully per second.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Um-hum.
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·And then one would have to quantify how
`
`·9· ·big the messages are and what the resulting
`
`10· ·throughput of that would be.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·So let's take a look at the last paragraph
`
`12· ·on the first page that starts with, "We propose...."
`
`13· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·The last -- yes.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·And that paragraph continues on the next
`
`16· ·page.· Right?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Yes, it does.· The paragraph continues.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So at the end of that paragraph, it
`
`19· ·says:· Symbols are transmitted at 4 kilobaud rate,
`
`20· ·which gives a gross bit rate of 24 kilobits per
`
`21· ·second.· Right?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Right.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So if I double the symbol
`
`24· ·transmission rate, that will increase the bit rate
`
`25· ·correspondingly.· Right?
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 153, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·If you double the baud rate from 4 to 8 --
`
`·2· ·is that what you mean?
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Um-hum.
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·Assuming everything else stays the same,
`
`·5· ·that would, that would double the bit rate.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·From 24, you would make it 48.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And assuming the receiver is able to
`
`·8· ·receive everything correctly at that speed, then
`
`·9· ·data throughput would also double correspondingly.
`
`10· ·Right?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·That's an inaccurate assumption.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·The assumption I'm making is wrong?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·How so?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·You cannot assume that doubling the baud
`
`16· ·rate would not affect the error rate.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Right.· But I'm asking you to assume that.
`
`18· · · · · · ·So can we make that assumption?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I can't.· It's a wrong assumption.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let's do this then.
`
`21· · · · · · ·So if we half the baud rate -- okay? -- so
`
`22· ·instead of 4, it's 2 -- that would result in a
`
`23· ·corresponding decrease in gross bit rate.· Right?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes.· That would make the bit rate be half
`
`25· ·of 24, which would be 12.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 154, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Great.· So now can we assume that the
`
`·2· ·receiver can receive that without increasing the
`
`·3· ·error rate?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·We can assume that it will not increase
`
`·5· ·the error rate.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· So by halving the bit rate,
`
`·7· ·we're now also halving data throughput.· Right?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Why not?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Because halving the bit rate does not
`
`11· ·maintain the same error rate.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·I thought we just assumed that it would.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·But we -- a reasonable assumption is that
`
`14· ·it would not increase the error rate.
`
`15· · · · · · ·And indeed, halving -- cutting in half the
`
`16· ·bit rate would -- all other things being equal,
`
`17· ·would not increase the error rate.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Would it decrease the error rate?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·Most likely.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's assume for the second that
`
`21· ·it would keep the same error rate, approximately.
`
`22· ·Okay?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Again, that's not keeping everything else
`
`24· ·the same.
`
`25· · · · · · ·Maintaining the same error rate would mean
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 155, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·that some other parameters are changed.· But....
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·The error rate is not something that's set
`
`·3· ·in the system.· That's a function of the
`
`·4· ·transmission.· Right?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·You can't set that at all.· It either
`
`·6· ·happens or it doesn't happen.
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·You cannot set it -- you're right on that
`
`·8· ·part.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·But the error rate is a function of
`
`10· ·several parameters, including the baud rate and the
`
`11· ·modulation schemes, etc.
`
`12· · · · · · ·So if you keep everything else the same,
`
`13· ·the error rate would go down.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So that means that you would
`
`15· ·transmit slightly more than half the data as before.
`
`16· ·Right?
`
`17· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·You now changed the word "you would
`
`19· ·transmit."
`
`20· · · · · · ·You transmit half of what you have
`
`21· ·transmitted before, but the throughput would not be
`
`22· ·exactly halved.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So how would the throughput be?
`
`24· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`25· · · · A.· ·It depends on the other parameters of the
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 156, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·structures of error control coding that's used, of
`
`·2· ·error correction coding, of error detection coding,
`
`·3· ·etc.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·But the throughput could be more than
`
`·5· ·half.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But it would be approximately half.
`
`·7· ·Right?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Again, I would need to analyze the system
`
`10· ·that you're contemplating.
`
`11· · · · · · ·But the throughput would be affected -- if
`
`12· ·you cut the baud rate in half, the throughput would
`
`13· ·generally go down.
`
`14· · · · · · ·I would not want to, on the fly here,
`
`15· ·assume that it would be cut in half, because, again,
`
`16· ·it would depend on what -- the values the other
`
`17· ·parameters have.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's try a new assumption.
`
`19· ·Okay?
`
`20· · · · · · ·Let's try a perfect channel with a zero
`
`21· ·error rate as a hypothetical situation.· Okay?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`24· · · · A.· ·That's not okay.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·So are you unwilling to answer questions
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 157, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·about the hypothetical?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·No, I'm not unwilling to answer questions
`
`·3· ·about the hypothetical.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·I'm unwilling to make an assumption which
`
`·5· ·we all know is just plainly wrong, because wrong
`
`·6· ·assumptions lead to conclusions that are just
`
`·7· ·illogical.· That's the basis of a proof by
`
`·8· ·contradiction.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·So I can't assume something that is
`
`10· ·knowingly wrong.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's say, for example, I have a
`
`12· ·channel and I transmit ten bits per second.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`15· · · · · · · · · How does this relate to the opinions
`
`16· ·in his report?
`
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· It relates.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · The opinion is all about the '891
`
`19· ·patent, about Petrovic.· They all relate to data
`
`20· ·throughput.
`
`21· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· You don't get to ask
`
`22· ·any question about Petrovic or the '801 patent.
`
`23· ·That's not· within the scope.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· I'm sorry.· I thought
`
`25· ·his entire declaration is about Petrovic and the
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 158, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·'891 patent.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Yeah.· His opinions
`
`·3· ·regarding Petrovic and the '891 patent --
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· Right.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· -- you're allowed to
`
`·6· ·ask about.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· Yeah, that's what I'm
`
`·8· ·doing.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· So what I'm asking is:
`
`10· ·How --
`
`11· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· If you want to stop the
`
`12· ·deposition, then go ahead and do that.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · But in the meantime, I'd ask you to
`
`14· ·let me continue my questions uninterrupted.
`
`15· · · · · · · · · If you do want to stop the
`
`16· ·deposition, then we'll have to take this up with the
`
`17· ·Board and reconvene another day.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Well, we could take it
`
`19· ·up with the Board today and then continue today.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · But --
`
`21· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· If would you like to
`
`22· ·call the Board, then let's do that.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · But in the meantime, I'd ask you to
`
`24· ·let me finish my questioning.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Well, what I'm asking
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 159, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·is that -- if I call the Board, I would like to know
`
`·2· ·what your explanation is.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · And if you want to go off the record
`
`·4· ·and talk about this outside of the ears....
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· Let's stay on the
`
`·6· ·record.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Okay.· Well, what I'm
`
`·8· ·asking is:· If we go to the Board, then what is
`
`·9· ·going to be your explanation for what this has to do
`
`10· ·with the opinions that are in his declaration?
`
`11· · · · · · · · · Is your position that you can ask
`
`12· ·anything about Petrovic you want?
`
`13· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· My position is that the
`
`14· ·questions I've been asking relate to his
`
`15· ·declaration, that relate to Petrovic, that relate to
`
`16· ·the '891 patent.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· And how do they relate
`
`18· ·to Petrovic and the opinions that he has given about
`
`19· ·Petrovic?
`
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· If you want to --
`
`21· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· What paragraph does it
`
`22· ·relate to in his report?
`
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· If you want to, I can
`
`24· ·give you a detailed explanation for every question
`
`25· ·later.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 160, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · But I'm not going to do that right
`
`·2· ·now while we're taking up deposition time.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· That's fine.· Then we
`
`·4· ·can go off the record.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · But what I'd like to know is:· If
`
`·6· ·we're going to call the Board, then we need to know
`
`·7· ·what we're fighting about in front of the Board.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · And my position is that if your
`
`·9· ·position is just you can ask anything about
`
`10· ·Petrovic, then that's not correct.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · And if you have some reason as to how
`
`12· ·this relates to his opinion, then maybe we can avoid
`
`13· ·calling the Board.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· I have given you my
`
`15· ·position.· So that's where I'm at.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Okay.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· So if you would like to
`
`18· ·call the Board, then you'll have to do that.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Okay.· Well, I'll
`
`20· ·consider that.· Thank you.
`
`21· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· Okay.· Shall we
`
`22· ·continue -- Megan?
`
`23· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· You can continue for
`
`24· ·now.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · MR. SCHMIDT:· Sounds good.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 161, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · And I can tell you this much:· We're
`
`·2· ·not going to spend too much more time here, but I do
`
`·3· ·want to finish this line of questioning.
`
`·4· ·BY MR. SCHMIDT:
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·So let's assume that we are transmitting
`
`·6· ·10 bits per second on a carrier -- okay? -- in a
`
`·7· ·perfect environment.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·When you say "on the carrier," what
`
`10· ·exactly do you mean?
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·There's a radio transmitter and a receiver
`
`12· ·on the other end, and I'm transmitting 10 bits per
`
`13· ·second.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Using that carrier, modulating that
`
`16· ·carrier -- transmit the 10 bits per second.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Is that what you mean?
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And I'm assuming zero error rate.· Right?
`
`22· ·So --
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Well, I mean, you can assume anything you
`
`24· ·want to.· I'm not willing to contemplate that
`
`25· ·assumption, because it's just not realistic.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 162, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·There is just no channel in the world,
`
`·2· ·under any circumstances, that has a zero error rate.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever done a theoretical
`
`·4· ·experiment?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·"A theoretical experiment" -- I'm not sure
`
`·6· ·what you mean by that.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·A theoretical experiment, where you set
`
`·8· ·assumptions and then you contemplate what the result
`
`·9· ·would be, considering a perfect environment.
`
`10· · · · · · ·I think that's commonly done in
`
`11· ·engineering.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·What you're contemplating, of course, I've
`
`14· ·done.
`
`15· · · · · · ·I wouldn't call them "experiments."
`
`16· · · · · · ·"Experiment" to me means actually having a
`
`17· ·lab and doing an experiment.
`
`18· · · · · · ·I would consider that a "study."
`
`19· · · · · · ·Yes, I've done theoretical studies -- many
`
`20· ·of them.
`
`21· · · · · · ·But any theoretical study that makes
`
`22· ·assumptions that are knowingly outside of the realm
`
`23· ·of possibility are just probably not worth the paper
`
`24· ·they're written on.
`
`25· · · · · · ·So the assumption I've made are
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 163, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·assumptions that have some relevance to the real
`
`·2· ·world.· And in the abstract, that's all I'm going to
`
`·3· ·say.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·What kind of assumptions one is willing to
`
`·5· ·make in any given situation would just depend on the
`
`·6· ·situation.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So I want to perform a thought --
`
`·8· ·what did you call it? -- study -- okay?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·And the idea is -- and these are
`
`10· ·hypothetical situations where I'm giving you the
`
`11· ·assumptions that I want you to take for granted.
`
`12· ·Okay?
`
`13· · · · · · ·So the idea is to transmit 10 bits per
`
`14· ·second on one carrier in the perfect environment,
`
`15· ·with no error rate.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`17· · · · A.· ·You cannot transmit 10 bits per second on
`
`18· ·a carrier.
`
`19· · · · · · ·On the carrier, you cannot transmit any
`
`20· ·bits per second.
`
`21· · · · · · ·You have to modulate that carrier.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's modulate the carrier in
`
`23· ·order to transmit 10 bits per second.
`
`24· · · · · · ·Can we start there?
`
`25· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 164, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Yeah, we can start there.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·What kind of modulation scheme do we want
`
`·3· ·to use?
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·What would make sense in the paging
`
`·5· ·system?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·You're making hypothetical.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Is the paging system part of the
`
`·8· ·hypothetical?
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Yes.
`
`10· · · · A.· ·What channel are you considering?
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Let's take FSK modulation.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Does that work?
`
`13· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Okay.· And how wide is the channel?
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Irrelevant to my hypothetical.
`
`16· · · · · · ·All I'm asking you --
`
`17· · · · A.· ·That's --
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·-- is to assume for a minute that I'm
`
`19· ·transmitting 10 bits on a modulated carrier and then
`
`20· ·the receiver receives 10 bits -- okay? -- no problem
`
`21· ·in error rate.
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Per second?
`
`23· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form, scope.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Per second, yes.
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Let's -- 10 bits per second.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 165, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· If I am able to transmit 20 bits
`
`·2· ·per second and still have no error rate, then the
`
`·3· ·receiver will receive 20 bits per second.· Right?
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form, scope.
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.· If you transmit 20 bits per second,
`
`·6· ·the receiver will transmit 20 bits per second.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So in that scenario, in that
`
`·8· ·perfect hypothetical scenario, limited to the
`
`·9· ·assumption I told you, doubling the bit rate would
`
`10· ·double the data received on the other side?
`
`11· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; scope.
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Doubling the number of bits you transmit
`
`13· ·would double the number of bits received.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thanks.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So now, if I -- instead of doubling the
`
`16· ·number of bits transmitted on one carrier, what if I
`
`17· ·add a second carrier?
`
`18· · · · · · ·Now, assuming no interference between the
`
`19· ·carriers and no error rate still, that would
`
`20· ·similarly result in 20 bits being received on the
`
`21· ·other side.· Right?
`
`22· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form, scope.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Again, the assumptions you make -- well,
`
`24· ·where is the other carrier?· You assume that there
`
`25· ·is no interference between them.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 166, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·I would like to know how that is done so
`
`·2· ·that there's no interference.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·And you're still assuming the unreasonable
`
`·4· ·assumption that the error rate is zero.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·I mean, those are just -- and all of them
`
`·6· ·are just unreasonable assumptions.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·And on any one of those -- any one of
`
`·8· ·those could be the reason why one cannot answer a
`
`·9· ·hypothetical question.
`
`10· · · · · · ·But if you just are playing sort of like a
`
`11· ·numbers game -- are you saying that two times six is
`
`12· ·equal to twice six?· The answer is yes.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
`
`14· · · · · · ·So going back to the Petrovic system --
`
`15· ·okay? -- so we're done with the hypothetical --
`
`16· ·Petrovic, again, relied on doubling the channel
`
`17· ·bandwidth.· Right?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Petrovic proposed doubling the channel
`
`19· ·bandwidth from 25 to 50.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And he fit eight carriers spaced 5
`
`21· ·kilohertz apart in those -- in that channel.· Right?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·That's what his proposal was.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And eight carriers would not have
`
`24· ·fit in the 25-kilohertz channel.· Right?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Again, those are design parameters.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 167, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·They would fit.· But they would be closer
`
`·2· ·together, with all of the implications that I would
`
`·3· ·have.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Do you think it's safe to assume that
`
`·5· ·Dr. Petrovic would have recommended using eight
`
`·6· ·carriers in the 25-kilohertz channel if that was
`
`·7· ·possible?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form.
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I wouldn't want to speculate what
`
`10· ·Dr. Petrovic would have done, what he did do, and
`
`11· ·what he may have done.
`
`12· · · · · · ·He may have studied that and may have
`
`13· ·found that that wasn't producing the desired bit
`
`14· ·error rates and abandoned that proposal.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So in the paper, he presented what he
`
`16· ·presented in the paper.
`
`17· · · · · · ·What else he might have done, I'm not in a
`
`18· ·position to speculate.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So if he had kept the 5-kilohertz
`
`20· ·spacing of the carriers and stuck with a
`
`21· ·25-kilohertz channel, he would not have been able to
`
`22· ·fit eight carriers.· Right?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Well, five times seven is 35, which is
`
`24· ·more than 25.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 168, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·So, obviously, it doesn't fit.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So he had to increase the channel
`
`·3· ·to fit eight carriers 5 kilohertz spaced apart.
`
`·4· ·Right?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form.
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·Say it again.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·So in order to fit eight carriers spaced 5
`
`·9· ·kilohertz apart, he had to increase the channel.
`
`10· · · · A.· ·He had to increase it from 25 -- is what
`
`11· ·you mean?
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Um-hum.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes.· The arithmetic is very clear.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I agree.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So Petrovic uses on/off keying.· Right?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Permutation modulation, in other words?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·No -- those are not synonymous.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·They're not?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·I thought Petrovic says that he uses a
`
`22· ·type of permutation modulation.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·He does.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`25· · · · A.· ·But on/off keying can be used in more than
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 169, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· ·one way.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·So he used permutation modulation in the
`
`·3· ·main body, in Section II.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·And then he uses on/off keying, but not
`
`·5· ·permutation modulation in Section IV.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·I see.· So let's talk about permutation
`
`·7· ·modulation, because the majority of his work here
`
`·8· ·relates to that.· Right?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I mean, they're both there.
`
`10· · · · · · ·Section II relates to that, and Section IV
`
`11· ·relates to an alternative.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let's talk about Section II,
`
`13· ·permutation modulation.· Okay?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Permutation modulation the way
`
`16· ·Dr. Petrovic describes here would not work with two
`
`17· ·carriers.· Right?
`
`18· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form --
`
`19· ·scope.
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yeah, it would -- it could.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·You will only get four symbols.· Right?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Yes, you would get four symbols.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Do you think that would be sufficient for
`
`24· ·a paging system to work?
`
`25· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form, scope.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2013, Aruba v. MTel., Page 170, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·I'm not sure what you mean.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Well, Dr. Petrovic here says:· In the
`
`·3· ·proposed code book, there are 70 symbols, 64 of
`
`·4· ·which are used for data transmission.· Right?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And six are saved.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·If you only have four symbols, that's
`
`·8· ·significantly less, I believe, to transmit data.
`
`·9· ·Right?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Yes, absolutely.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you think it's safe to say that,
`
`12· ·using just two carriers, one couldn't implement the
`
`13· ·system that Petrovic describes here?
`
`14· · · · · · · · · MS. RAYMOND:· Objection; form, scope.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I would have to analyze a complete system
`
`16· ·that this hypothetical Petrovic would have proposed.
`
`17· · · · · · ·I don't think he would propose using two
`
`18· ·carriers in a 50-kilohertz channel, for example.
`
`19· · · · · · ·So I would need to know all the parameters
`
`20· ·of that.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But you do acknowledge
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
