`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`·3· ·----------------------------------- )
`
`·4· ·CANON, INC.; CANON USA, INC.; CANON )
`
`·5· ·FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; FUJIFILM· )
`
`·6· ·CORPORATION; FUJIFILM HOLDINGS· )
`
`·7· ·AMERICA CORPORATION; FUJIFILM NORTH )
`
`·8· ·AMERICA CORPORATION; JVC KENWOOD· · )
`
`·9· ·CORPORATION; JVC KENWOOD USA· · · · )Case Nos.
`
`10· ·CORPORATION; NIKON CORPORATION;· · ·)IPR 2016-01199
`
`11· ·NIKON, INC.; OLYMPUS CORPORATION;· ·)IPR 2016-01200
`
`12· ·OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC.; PANASONIC· · )IPR 2016-01211
`
`13· ·CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION· )IPR 2016-01212
`
`14· ·OF NORTH AMERICA; SAMSUNG· · · · · ·)IPR 2016-01213
`
`15· ·ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; and· · · )IPR 2016-01214
`
`16· ·SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,· )IPR 2016-01216
`
`17· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,· · · · )IPR 2016-01225
`
`18· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`
`19· ·PAPST LICENSING GMBH & COMPANY KG,· )
`
`20· · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· · · ·)
`
`21· ·----------------------------------- )
`
`22· · · · ·DEPOSITION OF PAUL REYNOLDS, JR., Ph.D.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · ·Washington, D.C.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · March 9, 2017
`
`25· ·REPORTED BY:· Tina Alfaro, RPR, CRR, RMR
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.1
`
`
`
`Page 2
`·1· · · · · · Deposition of PAUL REYNOLDS, JR., Ph.D.,
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:· (Cont'd)
`
`Page 4
`
`·2· ·held at the offices of:
`
`·2· · · · ON BEHALF OF FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM
`
`·3
`
`·3· · · · HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·Jones Day
`
`·4· · · · AMERICA CORPORATION:
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
`
`·5· · · · ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`·6· · · · BY: CHRISTOPHER HIGGINS, ESQ.
`
`·7
`
`·7· · · · · · VANN PEARCE, ESQ.
`
`·8· · · · · · Taken pursuant to agreement before Tina M.
`
`·8· · · · · · 1152 15th Street, NW
`
`·9· ·Alfaro, a Notary Public within and for the District
`
`·9· · · · · · Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`10· ·of Columbia.
`
`10· · · · · · (202) 339-8418
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`11· · · · ON BEHALF OF JVC KENWOOD CORPORATION, JVC
`
`12· · · · KENWOOD USA CORPORATION, PANASONIC
`
`13· · · · CORPORATION, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
`
`14· · · · AMERICA:
`
`15· · · · JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`
`16· · · · BY: RACHEL CAPOCCIA, ESQ.
`
`17· · · · · · 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
`
`18· · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067
`
`19· · · · · · (310) 201-3521
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:· (Cont'd)
`
`·2· · · · ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`·2· · · · ON BEHALF OF OLYMPUS CORPORATION, OLYMPUS
`
`·3· · · · FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
`
`·3· · · · AMERICA, INC.:
`
`·4· · · · BY: JOSEPH MARINELLI, ESQ.
`
`·5· · · · · · PAUL HENKELMANN, ESQ.
`
`·4· · · · MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
`
`·5· · · · BY: ANDREW DEVKAR, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · · · 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
`
`·6· · · · · · The Water Garden, Suite 2050 North
`
`·7· · · · · · Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
`·7· · · · · · 1601 Cloverfield Boulevard
`
`·8· · · · · · (312) 577-7000
`
`·8· · · · · · Santa Monica, California 90404
`
`·9· · · · ON BEHALF OF CANON, INC., CANON USA, INC.,
`
`·9· · · · · · (310) 255-9070
`
`Page 5
`
`10· · · · CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.:
`
`11· · · · JONES DAY
`
`12· · · · BY: DAVID MAIORANA, ESQ.
`
`13· · · · · · MARC BLACKMAN, ESQ.
`
`14· · · · · · North Point
`
`15· · · · · · 901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`16· · · · · · Cleveland, Ohio 44114
`
`17· · · · · · (216) 586-3939
`
`18· · · · ON BEHALF OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY,
`
`19· · · · LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.:
`
`20· · · · DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
`
`21· · · · BY: NICK COLIC, ESQ.
`
`22· · · · · · 1500 K Street, NW
`
`23· · · · · · Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`24· · · · · · (202) 230-5115
`
`25
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.2
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`·3· ·WITNESS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`·4· · · By Mr. Marinelli· · · · · · · · · · · · ·7
`·5· · · By Mr. Henkelmann· · · · · · · · · · · · 81
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
`·7· ·REYNOLDS EXHIBITS· DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · PAGE
`·8· ·Exhibit 1· · · · · CV· · · · · · · · · · · ·9
`·9· ·Exhibit 2· · · · · '746 Patent· · · · · · · 15
`10· ·Exhibit 3· · · · · '144 Patent· · · · · · · 15
`11· ·Exhibit 4· · · · · Declaration in 1213 IPR· 16
`· · · · · · · · · · · · proceeding
`12
`· · ·Exhibit 5· · · · · '532 Patent· · · · · · · 43
`13
`· · ·Exhibit 6· · · · · SCSI spec· · · · · · · · 67
`14
`· · ·Exhibit 7· · · · · McNeil reference· · · · ·70
`15
`· · ·Exhibit 8· · · · · Declaration· · · · · · · 70
`16
`· · ·Exhibit 9· · · · · Declaration in 1199 IPR· 81
`17· · · · · · · · · · · proceeding
`18· ·Exhibit 10· · · · ·'081 Patent· · · · · · · 81
`19· ·Exhibit 11· · · · ·Declaration in 1200 IPR· 81
`· · · · · · · · · · · · proceeding
`20
`· · ·Exhibit 12· · · · ·Declaration in 1212 IPR· 108
`21
`· · ·Exhibit 13· · · · ·English translation of· ·108
`22· · · · · · · · · · · Kawaguchi patent
`23· ·Exhibit 14· · · · ·607 Patent· · · · · · · ·108
`24· ·Exhibit 15· · · · ·Declaration in 1211 IPR· 108
`25
`
`Page 8
`·1· · · · Q.· Okay.· And just let me know if you don't
`·2· ·understand a question, I'll try to rephrase it.· Is
`·3· ·that okay?
`·4· · · · A.· Sure.
`·5· · · · Q.· All right.· And let's do our best --
`·6· ·probably the most important thing is that we don't
`·7· ·talk over each other.· So I will try to as best I
`·8· ·can let you finish your answer before I start on
`·9· ·the question.· Okay?
`10· · · · A.· I'd appreciate that.
`11· · · · Q.· All right.
`12· · · · · · You are being compensated for your
`13· ·testimony today?
`14· · · · A.· I am.
`15· · · · Q.· By whom?
`16· · · · A.· Multiple law firms.
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· So you're invoicing the law firms
`18· ·directly?
`19· · · · A.· I am.
`20· · · · Q.· All right.· Do you have any --
`21· ·Dr. Reynolds, do you have any patents yourself?
`22· · · · A.· No.
`23· · · · Q.· You're not an inventor on any U.S.
`24· ·patents?
`25· · · · A.· No.
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· ·WHEREUPON:
`·2· · · · · · · PAUL F. REYNOLDS, JR., 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. MARINELLI:
`·7· · · · Q.· Good morning, Dr. Reynolds.
`·8· · · · A.· Good morning.
`·9· · · · Q.· My name is Joe Marinelli.· I'm one of the
`10· ·attorneys representing Papst in this IPR
`11· ·proceeding.· We've never met before, correct?
`12· · · · A.· No.
`13· · · · Q.· Before we begin, could you please state
`14· ·your name for the record.
`15· · · · A.· Paul F. Reynolds, Junior.
`16· · · · Q.· All right.· And, Dr. Reynolds, what's your
`17· ·address?
`18· · · · A.· 857 Locust Avenue in Charlottesville,
`19· ·Virginia.
`20· · · · Q.· Okay.· I know you've had your deposition
`21· ·taken a number of times already.· So I don't think
`22· ·I need to go through the ground rules, but is there
`23· ·any reason why you're unable to provide competent,
`24· ·accurate testimony today?
`25· · · · A.· No, not that I know of.
`
`Page 9
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · (Reynolds Exhibit 1 marked as
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·requested.)
`·3· ·BY MR. MARINELLI:
`·4· · · · Q.· All right.· You provided a CV which I'm
`·5· ·going to mark as the first exhibit to the
`·6· ·deposition.· I just have a couple questions about
`·7· ·your CV.· Okay.· Do you recognize this as a copy of
`·8· ·your CV?
`·9· · · · A.· It appears to be.
`10· · · · Q.· So I obtained this copy through the
`11· ·initial petition for Interparty Review and is
`12· ·this -- and it's dated April 2016.· Is there
`13· ·anything significant to update on your CV?
`14· · · · · · · · · · · (Witness reviewing document.)
`15· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`16· · · · A.· I think there's a deposition that was done
`17· ·since then with respect to the '449 Burrell, the
`18· ·top one on the third page.· I had a deposition at
`19· ·the end of the summer last year.
`20· · · · Q.· Okay.· Anything else?
`21· · · · A.· No.
`22· · · · Q.· No new articles?
`23· · · · A.· No.
`24· · · · Q.· Let me -- let me ask you about your
`25· ·experience in Interparty Review proceedings.· You
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.3
`
`
`
`Page 10
`·1· ·have them listed, as you said, on page 3.· It may
`·2· ·be indicated on here and I'm missing it, but for
`·3· ·the IPR related to the Burrell patent, were you --
`·4· ·which side were you on?· Were you the Petitioner's
`·5· ·side or the patent owner's side?
`·6· · · · A.· The Petitioner's side.
`·7· · · · Q.· Were you on the Petitioner's side in all
`·8· ·of these proceedings listed on page 3?
`·9· · · · A.· Yes, I was.
`10· · · · Q.· Okay.· Have you ever been on the patent
`11· ·owner's side in an IPR proceeding?
`12· · · · A.· No.· The opportunity has never presented
`13· ·itself.
`14· · · · Q.· All right.· Now, you have a number of
`15· ·articles listed beginning on page 4 of your CV, and
`16· ·I looked through the titles of the articles and I
`17· ·was trying to identify whether any of these
`18· ·articles relate to the technology pertinent to the
`19· ·patents -- relevant to the patents in these IPR
`20· ·proceedings and I wasn't easily able to discern
`21· ·that.
`22· · · · · · So do any of the articles relate to the
`23· ·technology of the patents involved in these IPR
`24· ·proceedings?
`25· · · · A.· The answer is yes.· All right.· At the
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· ·a computer?
`·2· · · · A.· I'd have to think about that for a minute.
`·3· ·Yes, in the following way.· You'll see references
`·4· ·to my work in distributed simulation, and in the
`·5· ·world of distributed simulation, we're often
`·6· ·attaching devices that are measuring human position
`·7· ·and so forth to computers or, let me say,
`·8· ·platforms, military platforms, that are
`·9· ·communicating with computers.
`10· · · · Q.· Okay.· Do any of these articles relate
`11· ·to -- directly to processing of analog data?
`12· · · · A.· Not directly as I recall, no.
`13· · · · Q.· Do any of the articles relate directly
`14· ·to --
`15· · · · A.· I take that back.· I mean, a lot of the
`16· ·data that -- I interpreted your question as
`17· ·performing A to D or something like that.
`18· ·Certainly we use technologies that did that.· So
`19· ·the answer really is yes.· But did I do research
`20· ·directly in that area, I would say no, not with
`21· ·that as the target.
`22· · · · Q.· Okay.· Do any of the articles specifically
`23· ·discuss in the articles SCSI interfaces?
`24· · · · A.· They should, yes.· The work that was done
`25· ·in the early '90s we used SCSI interfaces in
`
`Page 11
`·1· ·bottom of page 4, the very bottom article, it
`·2· ·starts off "An efficient framework for parallel
`·3· ·simulation," the one above it "Design and
`·4· ·performance analysis of hardware support for
`·5· ·parallel simulation," the one four up from the
`·6· ·bottom with C.C. Williams, "Combining atomic
`·7· ·actions."
`·8· · · · · · You'll notice papers on Isotach Networks
`·9· ·that relate to novel approaches to message delivery
`10· ·ordering in networks that brought me into contact
`11· ·with a lot of work with hardware and interfacing.
`12· · · · · · The Srinivasan paper, "Elastic time," we
`13· ·built special purpose hardware to support that.
`14· ·That was -- that's under the refereed journal
`15· ·publications.· There would have been a number of
`16· ·conference publications in the same time frame
`17· ·where we were building special purpose hardware,
`18· ·working with SCSI devices, and so forth.
`19· · · · Q.· Okay.· So let me ask you a little more
`20· ·direct question.· Do any of these articles relate
`21· ·specifically to computer peripherals?
`22· · · · A.· Not in a direct sense, but certainly in an
`23· ·indirect sense, yes.
`24· · · · Q.· Okay.· Any articles relate in a direct
`25· ·sense to the connection of computer peripherals to
`
`Page 13
`·1· ·special purpose hardware, what I call the parallel
`·2· ·reduction network.· We used SCSI technology in
`·3· ·that.
`·4· · · · Q.· So are you saying that if I went and read
`·5· ·the article, I would find reference to SCSI
`·6· ·technology?
`·7· · · · A.· I don't remember.· We used SCSI
`·8· ·technology.· It was -- the focus was on combining
`·9· ·operations in a parallel reduction network.· The
`10· ·SCSI technology supported the data that went into
`11· ·that network.
`12· · · · Q.· Okay.· You don't -- so what I understand
`13· ·you to be saying is you recall having used SCSI
`14· ·technology in relation to projects, but you don't
`15· ·recall today whether these articles actually
`16· ·discuss SCSI interfaces; is that right?
`17· · · · A.· I don't recall if they mentioned
`18· ·explicitly that we were using SCSI interfaces, but
`19· ·we were.
`20· · · · Q.· And a lot of your -- some of your articles
`21· ·that you list in your CV do mention various
`22· ·protocols.· I'm wondering whether any of the
`23· ·articles specifically discuss protocols that could
`24· ·be used to allow a computer peripheral to
`25· ·communicate with a host computer?
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.4
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· · · · A.· In a general sense, yes.
`·2· · · · Q.· What do you mean?
`·3· · · · A.· Well, a lot of my work was focused on time
`·4· ·management in parallel and distributed simulations.
`·5· ·So we were interested in maintaining what's known
`·6· ·as logical time with respect to each of those
`·7· ·devices that were connected into a network, into
`·8· ·computers in the network.
`·9· · · · Q.· All right.· I'd like to ask you if you're
`10· ·familiar with some references just by virtue of
`11· ·your experience.· Are you familiar with the IBM
`12· ·dictionary of computing?
`13· · · · A.· I think I've heard of it.
`14· · · · Q.· Have you ever used it?
`15· · · · A.· Not that I recall.
`16· · · · Q.· Okay.· Are you familiar with the Microsoft
`17· ·Press Computer Dictionary?
`18· · · · A.· My recollection is I used the Microsoft
`19· ·encyclopedia, but not the dictionary.
`20· · · · Q.· Okay.· Are there certain references that
`21· ·you -- you know, you consider to be kind of go-to
`22· ·technical references that you use frequently in
`23· ·your work or have used frequently in your work?
`24· · · · A.· Not so much.· On occasion, yeah, when we
`25· ·need it for building hardware or something like
`
`Page 16
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit 3 were marked as
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·requested.)
`·3· ·BY MR. MARINELLI:
`·4· · · · Q.· Dr. Reynolds, I'm going to hand you what
`·5· ·I've marked Exhibit 2 to your deposition.· This is
`·6· ·U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 to Tasler.· Then I'm
`·7· ·going to hand you Exhibit 3 to your deposition.
`·8· ·This is U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144, also to Tasler.
`·9· ·So these are Exhibits 2 and 3.· These are the two
`10· ·patents that are involved in these IPR proceedings,
`11· ·correct?
`12· · · · A.· They appear to be.· I'm looking through
`13· ·them right now.
`14· · · · Q.· Are those the two patents involved in the
`15· ·proceedings?
`16· · · · A.· They appear to be.
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· You can hang on to those.· I just
`18· ·wanted to mark them to get them in the record.
`19· ·We'll get to them.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · (Reynolds Exhibit 4 was marked
`21· · · · · · · · · · · ·as requested.)
`22· ·BY MR. MARINELLI:
`23· · · · Q.· Then I want to hand you what I've marked
`24· ·as Exhibit 4.· This is a copy of your declaration
`25· ·in relation to the 1213 IPR proceeding -- I'm going
`
`Page 15
`·1· ·that.· Most of the time I'm going to be looking at
`·2· ·papers rather than encyclopedic-like documents.
`·3· · · · Q.· Do any of the encyclopedic or desk
`·4· ·reference documents come to mind that you've used?
`·5· · · · A.· I'm sure there are some.· I'm not
`·6· ·remembering them right now.
`·7· · · · Q.· Okay.· What about the IEEE standard
`·8· ·dictionary of electrical and electronics terms, is
`·9· ·that one that you've used?
`10· · · · A.· I don't recall that I have, no.
`11· · · · Q.· Have you ever used the Barron's Dictionary
`12· ·of Computer Terms and Internet Terms?
`13· · · · A.· Possibly through Web reference, but I
`14· ·don't remember doing it.
`15· · · · Q.· Okay.· Now, you did in your declaration --
`16· ·or at least in one of your declarations you
`17· ·reference the MS-DOS Encyclopedia by Ray Duncan; do
`18· ·you recall that?
`19· · · · A.· Yes.
`20· · · · Q.· How did you become aware of that
`21· ·reference?
`22· · · · A.· My best recollection was that it was
`23· ·through search.· I expected to find it and I did.
`24
`25· · · · · · · · · · · (Reynolds Exhibit 2 and
`
`Page 17
`·1· ·to call it that, that's the serial number given by
`·2· ·the board -- to the proceeding related to the
`·3· ·'746 Patent which you've got as Exhibit 2 and the
`·4· ·lead reference being the Yamamoto reference, U.S.
`·5· ·Patent No. 6,088,532.
`·6· · · · · · All right.· So you agree that's a copy of
`·7· ·your declaration?
`·8· · · · A.· I'm determining that right now.
`·9· · · · Q.· Okay.
`10· · · · · · · · · · · (Witness reviewing document.)
`11· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`12· · · · A.· It appears to be the '746 declaration for
`13· ·Yamamoto.
`14· · · · Q.· Okay.· All right.· Who wrote the
`15· ·declaration?
`16· · · · A.· I did.
`17· · · · Q.· Did you write the whole thing?
`18· · · · A.· I drafted it, yes.· I'm responsible for
`19· ·it.
`20· · · · Q.· Did you write it with the assistance of
`21· ·attorneys?
`22· · · · A.· I consulted with attorneys.
`23· · · · Q.· Who wrote the first draft of it?
`24· · · · A.· I did.
`25· · · · Q.· After you wrote the first draft, did you
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.5
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·subsequently edit the draft?
`·2· · · · A.· Yes.
`·3· · · · Q.· Okay.· You revised it?
`·4· · · · A.· Yes.
`·5· · · · Q.· All right.· And then eventually I presume
`·6· ·you attached your signature to the document.· Did
`·7· ·you finally review the document before you signed
`·8· ·it?
`·9· · · · A.· I reviewed the document.
`10· · · · Q.· Did you assist in writing the petition for
`11· ·Interparty Review in this case, this being the
`12· ·Yamamoto reference applied to the '746 Patent?
`13· · · · A.· Never directly, no.· There was discussion,
`14· ·an exchange of thoughts.
`15· · · · Q.· But your drafting was related to your
`16· ·declaration, in other words, more so than the
`17· ·petition itself?
`18· · · · A.· I'm sorry.· I didn't understand your
`19· ·question.
`20· · · · Q.· The writing exercise, the drafting
`21· ·exercise you took, that related to your declaration
`22· ·rather than the actual petition, correct?
`23· · · · A.· Yes.· Yes.· This is a declaration original
`24· ·to me.
`25· · · · Q.· All right.· If you could turn to
`
`·1· · · · A.· With a four-year degree?
`·2· · · · Q.· Yes.
`·3· · · · A.· Beginning courses in -- well, I've
`·4· ·mentioned a couple of fields here, but beginning
`·5· ·courses in computer science, courses in networking,
`·6· ·courses in computer organization and computer
`·7· ·architecture.· There are many others.· I'm not sure
`·8· ·if I said operating systems, probably artificial
`·9· ·intelligence, discrete math.· In electrical
`10· ·engineering I would add courses in logic design.
`11· · · · Q.· So is it your testimony that somebody
`12· ·would have to have courses as you listed in order
`13· ·to attain ordinary skill in the art?
`14· · · · A.· This is what I've said, they would have
`15· ·had at least a four-year degree from a reputable
`16· ·university in these areas.
`17· · · · Q.· So a degree in electrical engineering,
`18· ·would that -- a four-year degree include a course
`19· ·on networking?
`20· · · · A.· Yes.
`21· · · · Q.· And would a four-year degree in electrical
`22· ·engineering include a course on computer
`23· ·organization architecture?
`24· · · · A.· Yes.
`25· · · · Q.· Would a four-year degree in electrical
`
`Page 19
`·1· ·paragraph 40 of Exhibit 4.· All right.· This is a
`·2· ·paragraph that's in a section titled "Level of
`·3· ·Ordinary Skill in the Art," correct?
`·4· · · · A.· Yes, it is.
`·5· · · · Q.· All right.· Do you consider yourself to be
`·6· ·somebody having ordinary skill in the art relevant
`·7· ·to the '746 Patent?
`·8· · · · A.· Yes, I do.
`·9· · · · Q.· Would you consider yourself to have a
`10· ·level of skill above what you would consider to be
`11· ·ordinary skill?
`12· · · · A.· Yes, I do.
`13· · · · Q.· Now, you mentioned when you're describing
`14· ·what you believe to be the ordinary skill in the
`15· ·art you say that "The prior art discussed herein
`16· ·demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the
`17· ·art at the relevant time, 1996 to 1998, would have
`18· ·at least a four-year degree from a reputable
`19· ·university in electrical engineering, computer
`20· ·science, or related field of study or equivalent
`21· ·experience"; do you see that?
`22· · · · A.· Yes, I do.
`23· · · · Q.· What types of courses would a person have
`24· ·to have as part of a four-year degree to reach a
`25· ·level of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`Page 21
`·1· ·engineering include courses on -- or a course on
`·2· ·operating systems?
`·3· · · · A.· Very likely.
`·4· · · · Q.· And would a four-year degree in electrical
`·5· ·engineering include courses on artificial
`·6· ·intelligence?
`·7· · · · A.· Less likely.
`·8· · · · Q.· Would a four-year degree in electrical
`·9· ·engineering include a course on discrete math?
`10· · · · A.· Yes.
`11· · · · Q.· All right.· And then you mention in
`12· ·addition to a four-year degree, looking at
`13· ·paragraph 40, a person of ordinary skill would have
`14· ·to have at least two years experience in studying
`15· ·or developing computer interfaces or peripherals;
`16· ·do you see that?
`17· · · · A.· Yes, I do.
`18· · · · Q.· How would somebody obtain experience in
`19· ·studying or developing computer interfaces or
`20· ·peripherals?
`21· · · · A.· At the Master's level, you know, which
`22· ·generally would be what this two years of
`23· ·experience is about, you would have advanced
`24· ·courses in computer architecture and computer
`25· ·organization, advanced courses in networking.· In
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.6
`
`
`
`Page 22
`·1· ·electrical engineering you would have advanced
`·2· ·courses in device design.
`·3· · · · Q.· All right.· Would a person of ordinary
`·4· ·skill in the art have to have specific experience
`·5· ·or training in SCSI interfaces?
`·6· · · · A.· At the priority date of the '746, it's
`·7· ·very likely that they would have, yes.
`·8· · · · Q.· And why do you say at the time of the
`·9· ·priority date of the patent?
`10· · · · A.· SCSI has fallen out of some favor. I
`11· ·still imagine it would be covered in a historical
`12· ·perspective.
`13· · · · Q.· Can you please flip to paragraph 65, still
`14· ·within Exhibit 4, which is your declaration.
`15· ·All right.· So in paragraph 65 you state "For most
`16· ·computers when a disk drive is found to be
`17· ·attached, e.g., via the SCSI inquiry exchange, the
`18· ·computer's operating system will attempt to
`19· ·identify a bootable partition and/or file system
`20· ·information on the first sector of the disk."· Then
`21· ·you cite to the MS-DOS encyclopedia.
`22· · · · · · Now, when you say "for most computers,"
`23· ·why do you qualify it with most computers?· Is
`24· ·there a category of computers where this would not
`25· ·be the case?
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· ·computers when a disk drive is found to be
`·2· ·attached."· When you say "attached," are you
`·3· ·referring to physically -- physical attachment
`·4· ·through a cable or some other connector?
`·5· · · · A.· That's the thought I had in mind when I
`·6· ·wrote that, yes.
`·7· · · · Q.· Okay.· You weren't referring to the --
`·8· · · · A.· They have to be communicatively coupled by
`·9· ·some method.
`10· · · · Q.· All right.· Then if you could go to the
`11· ·next paragraph, paragraph 66, please.· All right.
`12· ·So in this paragraph you're referencing a disk
`13· ·drive and I just want to understand what disk drive
`14· ·are you referring to in your explanation here?· Is
`15· ·it a specific drive, a SCSI drive?
`16· · · · A.· It doesn't have to be a SCSI drive in
`17· ·paragraph 66.· I reference SCSI in paragraph 66,
`18· ·but this would be true of any disk drive real or
`19· ·emulated.
`20· · · · Q.· Okay.· Now, you say "The disk drive may
`21· ·not have a file system installed."· In what cases
`22· ·would a disk drive not have a file system
`23· ·installed?
`24· · · · A.· Well, I think we address that in
`25· ·paragraph 65.· There may be cases -- unusual cases
`
`Page 23
`·1· · · · A.· I'm hard-pressed to think of any, but I
`·2· ·can imagine some embedded applications where that
`·3· ·might be the case intentionally.
`·4· · · · Q.· What do you mean by that?
`·5· · · · A.· The kind of system that I'm considering
`·6· ·would be one where it doesn't expect to find files
`·7· ·because it has already been programmed to look for
`·8· ·what we would call raw data instead.· That would be
`·9· ·rare.
`10· · · · Q.· Okay.
`11· · · · · · And you say "For most computers when a
`12· ·disk drive is found."· What type of disk drive are
`13· ·you referring to when you reference disk drive?
`14· · · · A.· Well, I'm referencing a SCSI inquiry here
`15· ·and a disk drive would represent itself in the SCSI
`16· ·protocol as a direct access device.· So in the case
`17· ·of SCSI, the response to the SCSI inquiry would
`18· ·be -- from the device would be I'm a direct access
`19· ·device.
`20· · · · Q.· So would the disk drive be a SCSI disk
`21· ·drive?
`22· · · · A.· It either could be a SCSI disk drive or it
`23· ·could be software interrelating in the SCSI disk
`24· ·drive, among other things.
`25· · · · Q.· All right.· Then when you say "For most
`
`Page 25
`·1· ·in embedded systems whereby design you're working
`·2· ·with raw data rather than with any kind of file
`·3· ·structure or system.
`·4· · · · Q.· If a hard drive was unformatted, would it
`·5· ·have a file system?
`·6· · · · A.· Generally, no.
`·7· · · · Q.· And if a -- if the file system of a hard
`·8· ·drive is corrupted, a read command of the block
`·9· ·that contains the file system, what would be
`10· ·returned?
`11· · · · · · MR. MAIORANA:· Object to the form of the
`12· ·question.
`13· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`14· · · · A.· I can't answer that question as posed.
`15· · · · Q.· Why not?· You don't understand?
`16· · · · A.· It's too -- too ambiguous.
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.
`18· · · · A.· What's being written?
`19· · · · Q.· Right.· Well, I'm looking at your
`20· ·paragraph 66 and it says that "On the host
`21· ·computer, a device controller or operating system
`22· ·component will analyze the returned information."
`23· ·So what information would be returned if there was
`24· ·a corrupt file system on a hard drive?
`25· · · · · · MR. MAIORANA:· Object to the form.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.7
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`·2· · · · A.· That depends a lot on the corruption, how
`·3· ·the device responds to the corruption.· There are
`·4· ·many factors.
`·5· · · · Q.· Okay.· What about in the case of an
`·6· ·unformatted hard drive?· If there was -- if the
`·7· ·host computer initiated a command to read the file
`·8· ·system of -- to read a file system on an
`·9· ·unformatted drive, what would be returned from the
`10· ·unformatted drive?
`11· · · · A.· I'm going to assume that when you say
`12· ·"read a file system," you're attempting to do a,
`13· ·for example, sector zero read which is what I'm
`14· ·discussing?
`15· · · · Q.· Yes.
`16· · · · A.· There are indicators generally in sector
`17· ·zero if there is a file system present.· The
`18· ·assumption is that if none of those indicators is
`19· ·present that there is not a file system present.
`20· · · · Q.· So the information returned from the hard
`21· ·drive, what indicator would be present in that
`22· ·message back from the hard drive to convey to the
`23· ·host computer that there's no file system?
`24· · · · A.· I don't remember all the details, in
`25· ·particular, what indicators are used by different
`
`Page 28
`·1· · · · A.· A physical disk drive as opposed to an
`·2· ·emulated disk drive.
`·3· · · · Q.· Okay.· So in the case of a physical disk
`·4· ·drive, what you referred to as an actual disk
`·5· ·drive, did you say that the firmware controller
`·6· ·would be in a PROM?
`·7· · · · A.· Most generally.
`·8· · · · Q.· And that would be -- that PROM would be
`·9· ·part of the disk drive itself?
`10· · · · A.· Most generally.
`11· · · · Q.· All right.· Now, if you could go to the
`12· ·next page.· It's paragraph 67 which begins on
`13· ·page 37 and goes on to page 38.· So you've got a
`14· ·diagram on page 38.· Where did you get this
`15· ·diagram?
`16· · · · A.· I made it.
`17· · · · Q.· Okay.· So this is your own creation?
`18· · · · A.· It is.
`19· · · · Q.· And what is this diagram intended to
`20· ·convey?
`21· · · · A.· Multiple things.· It conveys the three
`22· ·steps that I have spelled out in some detail in my
`23· ·declaration about the recognition process that
`24· ·typical disk drives, whether real or emulated, will
`25· ·go through in order to reach a state where files
`
`Page 27
`·1· ·file systems, but I know that file systems tend to
`·2· ·have unique indicators, bit patterns, that say I'm
`·3· ·a FAT 16 file system, I'm a FAT 36 file system, I'm
`·4· ·a UNIX file system and so forth.
`·5· · · · Q.· All right.· Now, in paragraph 66 in the
`·6· ·second sentence you say "Whether or not it does, a
`·7· ·firmware controller for an actual disk drive will
`·8· ·respond with information found in the sectors it
`·9· ·has been asked to read."
`10· · · · · · First of all, what do you mean by a
`11· ·"firmware controller" in that sentence?
`12· · · · A.· Disk drives -- real physical disk drives
`13· ·tend to have control logic associated with them
`14· ·that will control reading and writing on the
`15· ·device, for example.
`16· · · · Q.· Okay.· Is a firmware controller a physical
`17· ·piece of circuitry or software application?
`18· · · · A.· If it's a real physical drive, it's going
`19· ·to tend to be in a PROM, for example.· If it's an
`20· ·emulated drive, it could be software emulating the
`21· ·function of the firmware that would be on a disk
`22· ·drive.
`23· · · · Q.· Okay.· Now, you reference -- I think your
`24· ·language is for an actual disk drive.· What do you
`25· ·mean by an actual disk drive?
`
`Page 29
`·1· ·can be read and written.· As long as you asked the
`·2· ·question, it also indicates quotes from Tasler
`·3· ·relating to which steps of these Tasler set were
`·4· ·already known by those skilled in the art.
`·5· · · · Q.· Okay.· Now, you mentioned the three steps.
`·6· ·What are the three steps as depicted in the
`·7· ·diagram?
`·8· · · · A.· The first step is the inquiry -- I'm going
`·9· ·to call it an inquiry exchange.· It's a two-part
`10· ·process.· A SCSI bus controller typically will send
`11· ·out an inquiry to devices that are found on -- or
`12· ·that exist on the SCSI bus.· That's a standard part
`13· ·of the SCSI protocol.· The devices are expected to
`14· ·respond with an inquiry response.· As the picture
`15· ·depicts, they return information such as device ID,
`16· ·vendor type, I think revision device type, and so
`17· ·forth.· So a device type, for example, a disk drive
`18· ·would tend to return that it's a direct access
`19· ·device.· That is the first step of the three.
`20· · · · · · The second step, which I have spelled out
`21· ·in detail in this declaration, is where the host
`22· ·device, typically a device driver at this point, it
`23· ·doesn't have to be, will attempt to find a file
`24· ·system on the device that has identified itself as
`25· ·a direct access device.· As I have said in my
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2011, p.8
`
`
`
`Page 30
`·1· ·declaration, that is typically done at the priority
`·2· ·date of the patent.· You're at a sector zero read.
`·3· ·It's typically called the boot sector.· That will
`·4· ·return file system information, as I've indicated
`·5· ·in the figure.
`·6· · · · · · These two steps, the inquiry exchange and
`·7· ·the file system information acquisition, are
`·8· ·necessary for a host accessing this device to be
`·9· ·able to access -- to know what blocks to access
`10· ·associated with files.· So you can't do file reads
`11· ·and writes on a host until you've gone through the
`12· ·equivalent of these two steps.
`13· · · · Q.· Okay.· And then the third step is what?
`14· ·Is the third step the access?
`15· · · · A.· Is the actual access, yes, what we would
`16· ·call file reading which is actually done by reading
`17· ·specific blocks on the device, whether real or
`18· ·emulated.
`19· · · · Q.· Okay.· Now, you've got this long box in
`20· ·this diagram, vertically-oriented box, that you --
`21· ·I think that you've labeled as "Target"; do you see
`22· ·that?
`23· · · · A.· Yes.· This is terminology from the SCSI
`24· ·protocol.· You have an initiat