Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple Inc., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) IPR2016-01203
` )Patent No. 5,850,482
`vs. )
` )
`FastVDO, LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH E. ZEGER, Ph.D.
` San Diego, California
` Thursday, June 1, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`Tricia Rosate, RDR, RMR, CRR, CCRR
`CSR No. 10891
`Job No. 124915
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple Inc., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) IPR2016-01203
` )Patent No. 5,850,482
`vs. )
` )
`FastVDO, LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH E. ZEGER, Ph.D.
` San Diego, California
` Thursday, June 1, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`Tricia Rosate, RDR, RMR, CRR, CCRR
`CSR No. 10891
`Job No. 124915
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 1
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Thursday, June 1, 2017
` 9:08 a.m.
`
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH E. ZEGER, Ph.D.,
`taken at 12531 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, California,
`commencing at 9:08 a.m. and concluding at 5:08 p.m.,
`Thursday, June 1, 2017, before Tricia Rosate, RDR, RMR,
`CRR, CCRR, CSR 10891, a Certified Shorthand Reporter.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 2
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`For the Petitioner, APPLE, INC.:
` MORRISON & FOERSTER
` 707 Wilshire Boulevard
` Los Angeles, California 90017
` BY: RYAN MALLOY, ESQ.
`
`For the Patent Owner, FASTVDO, LLC:
` DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY
` 8300 Greensboro Drive
` McLean, Virginia 22102
` BY: WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 3
`
`
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS: Kenneth Zeger, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`By Mr. Malloy .............................. 5, 135
`By Mr. Helge .............................. 253
`
`Page 4
`
` E X H I B I T S
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1050 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 135
` Infringement Contentions
`
`Exhibit 1051 Exhibit A, U.S. Patent No. 135
` 5,850,482
`Exhibit 1052 Exhibit B, U.S. Patent No. 135
` 5,850,482
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 5
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2017
` 9:08 A.M. - 5:08 P.M.
` - - - -
` KENNETH ZEGER, PhD,
` having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Good morning, Dr. Zeger.
` A Good morning.
` Q You understand you're under oath today?
` A Yes.
` Q Have you ever had your deposition taken
`before?
` A Yes.
` Q How many times?
` A I don't know exactly, but somewhere between,
`like, 16 to 20.
` Q Okay. So you're familiar with the
`deposition process?
` A Yes.
` Q You understand that I'll ask questions and
`you'll provide verbal answers.
` A Yes.
` Q We don't even have a videographer today, but
`if you shake your head or make some hand gesture or
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
`anything, it just won't be recorded. So everything
`has to be said so that the transcript can discern the
`meaning.
` A Okay.
` Q Okay?
` I'm going to hand you what's been marked or
`designated as Exhibit 2009 to this proceeding.
` (Exhibit 2009 was referenced.)
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q What is Exhibit 2009?
` A It looks like a printout from my resume,
`probably from my website.
` Q Is it correct and up to date?
` A I mean, it's -- I don't know if it's exactly
`up to date, but it looks pretty close.
` Q Well, take a moment and let me know if you
`think that there's something missing or something
`relevant to this matter that you think should be
`included there.
` A Well, one thing I see, I don't know if this
`is relevant at all, but I've had two more papers
`listed. I guess that would be on page 11. I
`probably added them in the last couple -- like, week
`or two. So --
` Q Okay.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
` A So this would be, like, after No. 74. It
`would be 75 and 76.
` Q Do those papers relate to any of the issues
`in this IPR proceeding?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Not at all.
` I'm sorry. There's no relation really.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Okay. So is it fair to say that Exhibit
`2009 accurately reflects your background and
`experience that you bring to this IPR proceeding?
` A I believe so.
` Q Can you describe to me your experience with
`entropy code?
` A Well, I've been involved in various
`different aspects of entropy coding, probably
`starting around maybe 1981 when I was an
`undergraduate student, and I continued that pretty
`much continuously up to present. So it's, like, more
`than 35 years. So I've been involved in entropy
`coding --
` I teach courses that involve it. I teach
`about it, both undergrad and graduate level at
`universities. I've done research involving entropy
`coding. I've supervised students, postdoctoral
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`researchers with entropy coding.
` I've written my own software for entropy
`coding. I've had jobs, consulting jobs where I was
`paid to perform entropy coding.
` I've read and reviewed many papers,
`articles, attended lectures. Anyways, many, many
`other things as well.
` Q What is entropy coding?
` A Well, entropy coding is not always a precise
`term. It depends who -- how you're using it, what
`context. But generally speaking, it typically
`involves lossless coding of symbols, often involving
`things like variable-length code words, for example.
` Q Can you describe your experience with
`prefix- and suffix-based entropy codes?
` A Well, most entropy codes that are typically
`used are what's called prefix codes. And there are
`suffix codes, too, but it turns out that they are
`mathematically equivalent in a certain sense, so most
`people deal with prefix codes.
` There are other types of codes that are
`neither prefix or suffix codes that are also entropy
`codes, and these are usually called uniquely
`decodable codes or uniquely decipherable codes. And
`in terms of my involvement in those, it's pretty much
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 9
`the same as what I just went through in the previous
`question. All the years of experience I've had were
`involving mostly prefix codes.
` Q Do you recognize a distinction between what
`you just called prefix codes and the vision of
`prefix -- the division of code words into prefixes
`and suffixes such as what's disclosed in the '482
`patent?
` A Well, the terminology "prefix codes" refers
`to a specific concept, which is, like I mentioned
`before, generally lossless coding of symbols where
`each symbol is represented by a code word, typically
`binary. And the -- the notion of being a prefix code
`is the condition that none of the code words is a
`prefix of any of the other code words in the sense
`that it's not a beginning word of it. So that's a --
`that use of prefix has to do specifically with a type
`of lossless coding.
` In contrast, a prefix of a binary word is
`just a beginning portion of the word. So if you take
`a binary word and you break it into, let's say, two
`pieces -- you divide it up into a left half and a
`right half -- the left half you could correctly call
`it prefix, and the right half you could correctly
`call a suffix. Now, that use of prefix though, is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10
`not necessarily implying that there's any kind of
`prefix coding going on.
` Q Right. So we'll get to the '482 patent in a
`moment. The '482 patent, I believe, calls it the
`first portion and the second portion as opposed to a
`prefix and a suffix. I can't remember. Do you
`remember?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Do you remember whether it uses the word
`"prefix" and "suffix" or "first portion" and
`"second portion"?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I remember that the '482
`patent in the claim language talks about a first
`portion and a second portion. I'm pretty sure
`they --
` Well, I'm not sure without looking at it
`whether they use the term "prefix" and "suffix" also.
`It wouldn't surprise me either way.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q If I use the terminology "prefix" and
`"suffix" today, will you understand that I'm talking
`about division of codes words into the first portion
`and second portion and not referring to what you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 11
`
`described as prefix coding?
` A Well, I'd like to -- I brought with me the
`claim construction order. I'd like to just refer to
`that in answering your question. And I believe that
`this became an issue during claim construction, which
`is not really part of this IPR proceeding, but I have
`adopted the District Court's claim construction
`ruling. And there was an issue about whether or
`not --
` Oh. So I'm looking at page 11 of the claim
`construction order in the District Court case
`corresponding to this IPR.
` MR. HELGE: And just to be clear, this is of
`record in this case. I believe it's Exhibit 2003.
`It's a different number in the two cases that
`FastVDO's part of.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Well, I just want to clarify. I'm just
`talking about my terminology. I'm not talking about
`the District Court's claim constructions. It's not a
`trick question. Just for today, if I use the word
`"prefix" and "suffix" and I'm using that to refer to
`the first portion of the code word and the second
`portion of the code word, will you understand me?
`That's all I'm asking.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 12
` A Well, I'd like to be careful, because I know
`that "first portion" and "second portion" are claim
`terminology in the '482 patent, and whenever you have
`claim language, you have to be careful how you use
`it, to make sure you got it right. And I don't want
`to misconstrue or misuse the notion of the first
`portion, second portion, with prefix.
` But if you're telling me that whenever you
`use "first portion" -- I'm sorry. If you tell me
`that whenever you use "prefix," it is to mean a
`certain thing, I can certainly understand that.
` Q That's what I'm saying.
` A Okay.
` Q If I use the word "prefix" today --
` I do understand that there's this concept of
`prefix coding where no code word is a prefix of
`another one, but I'm not talking about that. But if
`I use the word "prefix" today, I'm talking about the
`first portion of a code word. I just want you to
`understand.
` A Okay. I can adopt that understanding.
` Q Okay. Do you have any experience with
`division of code words into prefixes and suffixes?
` A Yes.
` Q Describe your experience.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 13
` A That's a typical thing that happens all the
`time in writing programs, in terms of analyzing
`properties of code words mathematically. It's a
`concept in the classroom, it's a concept in practice.
`So I've encountered that quite a bit.
` Q When did you first encounter it?
` A The notion of taking a binary word and
`thinking or discussing or using a prefix of that word
`for some particular purpose, I'm sure I've used that
`as early as the late 1970s.
` Q When?
` A You mean which year?
` Q Well, in what capacity were you using it?
` A Well, when I first learned about -- let's
`say in about maybe 1981 or so, 1982 -- this may not
`be the first one -- but when I studied information
`theory in a graduate-level class while I was an
`undergraduate at MIT, I studied prefix codes. It was
`taught in that class. We talked about the properties
`of prefix codes, the mathematical capabilities of
`them, how to use them, things like that.
` Q But, again, I want to make clear. I'm not
`talking about prefix codes like Huffman codes. When
`I use the word "prefix" and "suffix," I'm referring
`to this notion that you take a code word and make it
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 14
`have two parts, the first portion and the second
`portion.
` Do you understand my question is directed to
`that?
` A Oh. So maybe I misunderstood. Because I
`thought what you were talking about is given a binary
`word, breaking it into, like, a prefix and a suffix
`as opposed to --
` Now you're talking about code word. So is
`there implicitly a code behind this?
` Q Well, you understand that the '482 patent
`claims, in part, division of code words into a
`first portion and a second portion.
` A That's correct.
` Q And I'm asking your experience with that
`concept.
` A Oh. The concept of taking a binary word
`from a code and viewing it as having a prefix and a
`suffix?
` Q Sure. Yes.
` A Offhand, I don't know if I've actually ever
`explicitly talked exactly about that notion. The
`notion I would have -- what would have been more
`common is to talk about whether one code word's a
`prefix of another code word. And then -- so in that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15
`sense, you are kind of breaking it up, because you're
`looking at the prefix of it and asking, "Is that
`equal to another code word?" but it's not really the
`same sense as the '482.
` Q Well, let me give you an example.
`Golumb-Rice coding. Are you familiar with that?
` A Yes.
` Q Is it correct that in Golomb-Rice coding,
`code words are divided into two parts?
` A Well, actually, I don't remember the details
`offhand, but it sounds familiar. I'd have to go back
`and look at details.
` Q Well, I think -- is it --
` Would it be correct --
` Do you recall that one portion of the
`Golumb-Rice code word would be --
` I'm not going to get the terminology right.
`Are you familiar with, like, modulo division? Are
`you familiar --
` I'm going to strike the last question.
` Are you familiar with modular division?
` A Do you mean modular arithmetic?
` Q Yeah. Modular arithmetic.
` A Yeah. Of course.
` Q And modular arithmetic has a remainder
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 16
`
`portion. Would you agree with that?
` A It depends how you use it. Normally if you
`talk about mod n arithmetic, the letter n, you don't
`normally deal with the remainder. You just say that
`numbers -- integers can be reduced mod n. There's
`often a remainder involved in the arithmetic to get
`there, but at the end of the day, there's no
`remainder.
` Q Right. So I'm not going to get the
`terminology right, so we don't need to dwell on it.
` I take it you're not able to discuss
`Golomb-Rice coding today.
` A Yeah. I would have to review the specific
`details for this.
` Q Can you describe for me your experience with
`any coding schemes in which a first portion of a code
`word is used to provide information about a
`second portion of a code word?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the '482 patent
`discusses that.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Before the '482 patent, can you describe
`your experience?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 17
` THE WITNESS: I can't think of one off the
`top of my head. I may have encountered something. I
`just can't think of it right now.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Can you describe for me your experience with
`unequal error protection?
` A Well, I've -- similar to the previous answer
`about prefix codes, I've, you know, learned about it,
`I've taught it, I've used it, I've written some
`papers involving it for many years.
` Q Can you remember when you first got involved
`with using unequal error protection?
` A I would say I probably learned about it to
`some extent in the 1980s.
` Q Where?
` A Probably again at MIT in a course when I
`took information theory. That would be about 1982.
` Q How about after that?
` A It comes up. I've been to seminars, I've
`read journal publications, I've written my own papers
`regarding it. I've done some work in consulting.
` Q And what is unequal error protection?
` A Well, again, it's kind of a generic term,
`but typically what it means is that you have some
`data or information that you want to protect against
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 18
`errors, and for whatever reason, you can -- you may
`want to protect some of the data at a higher level
`than other data. And what I mean by "higher level"
`is add more protection so that it has a higher
`probability of surviving channel errors.
` Q And why would you do that?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: So one reason might be that
`you might view some of the data as more important in
`some sense, so you want to make sure that that data
`has a better chance of surviving. You might be
`sending the data over two different links, perhaps,
`and in that case, one link might be noisier than the
`other link, so you might want to add more protection
`perhaps to that link.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Were those things known prior to the '482
`patent to people of skill in the art?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: The general notion of unequal
`error protection has been known, you know -- like I
`said, at least to my knowledge, it goes back to the
`1980s. And the motivations for using it may have
`changed over time, but I think the motivations I just
`gave probably existed back then.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
`
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Why would some data be more important than
`other data?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, it really depends on the
`application. You know, you might have a coding
`system --
` I think, for example, the '482 patent
`describes, I believe, in its introduction how the
`notion of propagation of errors -- that if some data
`is corrupted by channel noise, that data might lead
`to a cascade of errors where other data becomes
`incorrect, and that's normally called propagation of
`errors.
` In contrast, more resilient data might have
`the property that if it gets corrupted by noise, the
`effect of that does not spread; it's kind of
`confined. So that might be an incentive to have more
`protection for the data that's not as error resilient
`and can propagate errors.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Was that concept known prior to the '482
`patent?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: The concept of propagation of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 20
`errors when there's corruption due to channel noise
`was certainly known at least as back as far as the
`1980s.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Was the concept of unequal error protection
`to mitigate errors from propagation known before the
`'482 patent?
` A I don't offhand recall seeing anything like
`that.
` Q How about in Kato? K-a-t-o.
` A What's your specific question?
` Q Does Kato disclose unequal error protection
`to mitigate errors due to propagation?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't have Kato in front of
`me, but from my recollection, I believe that's
`correct. They don't do it in the same arrangement
`and manner as the '482 patent, but there is something
`in that general idea.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Kato does disclose unequal error protection
`to mitigate errors due to propagation.
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, as I said, from my
`recollection, it doesn't do it in the same way as the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 21
`
`'482 patent, but I believe it does generally do
`something along those lines. Correct.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q And you think that Kato came up with that
`concept, or was it known even prior to Kato?
` MR. HELGE: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: The general concept of using
`unequal error protection to mitigate propagation of
`errors outside of the confines of the '482 patent and
`the specific arrangements there, it wouldn't surprise
`me if it was known before Kato. I don't offhand
`remember any specific prior art I can point to.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Why wouldn't that surprise you if it was
`known?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the general concept of
`that --
` Again, outside of the invention of the '482
`and all the specifics there, the general concept, I
`feel like there probably was something that I'm not
`remembering that might have preceded Kato. I just
`can't remember.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Yeah. But my question was: You said it
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 22
`wouldn't surprise you if it was known. I'm just
`trying to understand. Is there a reason it wouldn't
`surprise you?
` A Yeah. I just answered that. The reason it
`wouldn't surprise me is because I have a feeling that
`I did see something prior to Kato, but I'm not
`100-percent sure, though.
` Q Gotcha.
` Have you ever personally used unequal error
`protection?
` A Yes.
` Q Prior to the '482 patent?
` A Yeah. In fact, I have it in my publication
`list. I think I did something with the co-author
`Sherwood on that.
` Q Is it reference 23 on page 7?
` A Yeah. It's either --
` Q Well, there's that, and there's 30.
` A Right. It's one of those two.
` Or I think there's a third one. Let's see.
`Let's see.
` Yeah. You know, I'd have -- I have a lot of
`papers, so it's hard to remember what's in what, but
`it's either -- I would say it's either 23 or 30. Or
`it could potentially be in my conference papers,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 23
`
`which --
` Let's see where that would be.
` On page 15 of my CV, again --
` Yeah. So reference 40 on page 15, that
`might just be a copy, a closely similar version of
`one of the journal papers.
` And then there's one at 49, item number 49.
` Q Okay.
` A So -- and then there's also 57. So all the
`ones with Sherwood, I think it's -- it's among one of
`those, or possibly more than one of those, and those
`are all in the time of the late 1990s, I believe.
` Q Have you ever designed an unequal error
`protection scheme?
` A It depends what you mean by "design." I've,
`you know, used them. And generally with unequal
`error protection schemes, one of the tasks you have
`to do is decide the trade-off between how much
`protection you use on one side and how much you use
`on the other side, and then you also have to decide
`which error control coder you're going to use or do
`you want to use more than one. There's a lot of
`things you have to take into account, a lot of
`experimenting.
` So, you know, if I take off-the-shelf
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 24
`error-correcting codes and I work through all that
`and I do all the experimenting and I see what works,
`whether or not you would call that a design or not,
`I'm not sure.
` Q Would a person of skill in the art prior to
`the '482 patent consider the importance of different
`data in developing an unequal error protection
`scheme?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Let me strike that. I missed a key word.
` Would a person of skill in the art, prior to
`the '482 patent, consider the relative importance of
`different data in developing an unequal error
`protection scheme?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think it's possible that the
`relative importance of data would be certainly a
`possible motivation prior to the '482 patent.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q What other motivations would there be for
`unequal error protection besides relative importance
`of the data?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, there could be issues
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 25
`with complexity and timing. You might have data that
`can somehow be divided into a large quantity and a
`small quantity, and you might not want to use a
`very -- a very -- what's called a very protective
`channel encoder on the large data just because it
`would add a lot of redundancy, and that would wind up
`incurring an expense either with bandwidth, time,
`money, or delay. And similarly for memory storage,
`that could be an issue. So generally --
` You know, so time, complexity, costs. Those
`could all be considerations for using unequal error
`protection.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Prior to the '482 patent, would a person of
`skill in the art have considered the -- strike that.
` Is it correct that data that can lead to
`propagation of errors if it's decoded incorrectly
`would be relatively more important than data that
`could not lead to such propagation of errors?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'd say it could go either
`way. I can think of circumstances where sometimes it
`would and sometimes where it would not.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q What circumstance? What are the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 25
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`circumstances where it would?
` A I'm sorry. Did you say, "would" or "would
`not"?
` Q Would.
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, if you had data that
`when corrupted by channel noise and then incorrectly
`decoded led to propagation of errors, I could
`envision a system where that would be very, very
`important, such as in a -- for example, a speech
`coding system. If, let's say, a single-bit error
`wound up propagating so far in time that, you know,
`it destroyed, let's say, a whole second of speech,
`that would be very annoying to a user, and the user
`might not want to buy a product that uses such
`technology.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Would a person of skill in the art prior to
`the '482 patent have recognized that problem?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think the problem I just
`described in the previous answer is not a new
`concept. So I think that general notion would have
`been known before the '482 patent.
`///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 26
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q In what context?
` A I don't recall what your question is.
` Q Give me an example of a situation in which
`people of skill in the art would have understood that
`concept.
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think that's exactly what I
`just answered, is that --
` Maybe I'll try to be more specific. But if
`somebody were, let's say, working for a company to
`build a speech coder maybe for a cell phone or
`otherwise, and they knew that the transmission of the
`digital data would encounter channel noise but might
`lead to propagation of channel errors upon incorrect
`decoding of some symbols, and if such corruption led
`to maybe one full second of lost speech, that would
`probably, I'm guessing, be unacceptable as a
`commercial product.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Are you familiar with video coding?
` A Yes.
` Q Do you recall if prior to the '482 patent
`the notion of I-frames versus B and P frames was
`known?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 27
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 28
` A I don't remember the exact date, but I do
`remember that JPEG was formalized around 1990, and
`that's for still frames. So, yeah, I'm pretty
`sure --
` We're talking about 1995 as the date?
` Q April 1996.
` A April 1996.
` Q Correct.
` A Yeah. I think those would have been known
`before that date.
` Q Well, I don't want to get off track. Let's
`end that line of questioning there.
` Have you ever designed a coding scheme in
`which code words were divided into first portions and
`second portions?
` A I don't think I ever did. I'm possibly
`forgetting, but offhand, I can't think of anything.
` Q I'm going to quickly grab a glass of water.
`You're free to, too, but I don't really want to take
`a break.
` A I'll just wait here for you.
` Q Okay. Actually, I do want to talk about
`prefix codes in the sense that you were talking
`about, which is --
` Well, I'll let you answer. Can you describe
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 29
`
`for me again what prefix coding means to you?
` A Well, prefix coding in -- what prefix coding
`means to the information theory community or the
`coding community, which is the meaning I usually try
`to adopt, is that a code which consists of what's
`called code words that could be binary or with other
`similar alphabets has the property that if you look
`at any two of the code words, you can never have the
`situation where one of those two is a prefix of the
`other, and that would be called a prefix code if
`every such pair of code words satisfies that
`property.
` Q Was prefix coding in that sense known prior
`to 1996?
` A Yes.
` Q Was it known for decades prior to 1996?
` MR. HELGE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, one example of prefix
`coding is Huffman coding, and I believe that that was
`designed in David Huffman's master's degree thesis at
`MIT around 1949, if I had to guess. I'm pretty sure
`it's around then.
`BY MR. MALLOY:
` Q Okay. And prior to 1996, did persons of
`skill in the art recognize that if there was an error
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1014 Page 29
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 30
`in one code word in a stream of code w
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
