In The Matter Of:
`Sony Corporation, et al. v.
`Creative Technology Limited
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D.
`July 11, 2017
`
`195 State Street • Boston, MA 02109
`888.825.3376 - 617.399.0130
`Global Solutions
`court-reporting.com
`
`Original File Benjamin B. Bederson_Ph.D. 7-11-17.txt
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`
`
`Sony Corporation, et al. v.
`Creative Technology Limited
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D.
`July 11, 2017
`
`195 State Street • Boston, MA 02109
`888.825.3376 - 617.399.0130
`Global Solutions
`court-reporting.com
`
`Original File Benjamin B. Bederson_Ph.D. 7-11-17.txt
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 2
`
` 3 SONY CORPORATION, SONY )
` MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS )
` 4 (USA) INC., SONY MOBILE )
` COMMUNICATIONS AB, and )
` 5 SONY MOBILE ) Case No.
` COMMUNICATIONS INC., ) IPR2016-01407
` 6 Petitioners, )
` )
` 7 v. )
` )
` 8 CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY )
` LIMITED, )
` 9 Patent Owner, )
` U.S. Patent No. )
`10 6,928,433 )
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13 DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D., an expert
`
`14 witness in the above-entitled cause, taken before
`
`15 Susan Lozzi, Registered Professional Reporter and
`
`16 Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
`
`17 Massachusetts, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.52, at
`
`18 Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., 600 Atlantic Avenue,
`
`19 Boston, Massachusetts, on Tuesday, July 11, 2017,
`
`20 commencing at 12:56 p.m.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
` 2
`
` 3 FARNEY DANIELS, PC
` 411 Borel Avenue - Suite 310
` 4 San Mateo, California 94402
` (424) 268-5210
` 5 For the Patent Owner,
` Creative Technology Limited.
` 6 BY: MICHAEL SAUNDERS, ESQ.
`
` 7
` WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
` 8 405 Lexington Avenue
` New York, New York 10174
` 9 (212) 697-7890
` For the Petitioners.
`10 BY: MICHAEL N. RADER, ESQ.
`
`11
` WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`12 600 Atlantic Avenue
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`13 (617) 646-8000
` For the Petitioners.
`14 BY: ANDREW J. TIBBETTS, ESQ.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17 ALSO PRESENT:
` Sarah Racicot, Summer Associate.
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
` 1 INDEX
`
`
`
` 2 BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D. Page
`
` 3 Direct Examination by Mr. Saunders 4
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Rader 129
` 4 Redirect Examination by Mr. Saunders 141
`
` 5
` EXHIBITS
` 6
` (No exhibits were marked.)
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`4
`
`
` 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
` 2 BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D., having
`
` 3 been sworn to tell the truth, testified as follows:
`
` 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SAUNDERS:
`
` 5 Q. All right. Good afternoon, Dr. Bederson.
`
` 6 Can you go ahead and state and spell your full name,
`
` 7 for the record.
`
` 8 A. It's Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D.
`
` 9 B-E-N-J-A-M-I-N, B, middle, and then last name
`
`10 Bederson, B, as in boy, E-D-E-R-S-O-N, like Nancy.
`
`11 Q. And is there any reason to prevent you
`
`12 from giving accurate and complete testimony today?
`
`13 A. No.
`
`14 Q. And you understand if you need a break to
`
`15 get some water or use the restroom, can you please
`
`16 let me know and we can agree to that after any
`
`17 question that's currently pending is answered?
`
`18 A. Yes.
`
`19 Q. Okay. And you were previously deposed in
`
`20 this case, correct?
`
`21 A. Yes, I was.
`
`22 Q. Okay. And you understand that you're
`
`23 still not allowed to discuss the substance of your
`
`24 testimony with counsel during a break in your
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`5
`
`
` 1 cross-examination. You understand that?
`
` 2 A. Yes, I do.
`
` 3 Q. And your first deposition in this case was
`
` 4 about a declaration that you submitted in support of
`
` 5 the Patent Owner's Petit -- or sorry. Withdraw.
`
` 6 Your first declaration -- withdraw.
`
` 7 Your first deposition in this case was in regards to
`
` 8 a declaration you submitted in support of the
`
` 9 Petitioners' petition in this case, correct?
`
`10 A. That sounds about right.
`
`11 Q. And since that time you've submitted a
`
`12 second declaration in support of the Petitioners'
`
`13 reply in this case, correct?
`
`14 A. Yes, I have.
`
`15 Q. I'm handing you a document that's been
`
`16 previously marked as SONY Exhibit 1020, and is that
`
`17 the reply declaration that you submitted in this
`
`18 case?
`
`19 (Reviewing document.)
`
`20 A. Yes, it is.
`
`21 Q. Okay. And you understand now when I
`
`22 refer to this case, I'm referring to IPR2016-01407,
`
`23 is that right?
`
`24 A. Yes.
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`6
`
`
` 1 Q. Can you tell me generally what you did to
`
` 2 prepare for today's deposition?
`
` 3 A. I read some documents and met with
`
` 4 counsel.
`
` 5 Q. And how many meetings did you have with
`
` 6 counsel?
`
` 7 A. The only in-person meeting was today.
`
` 8 Q. And how long was that meeting?
`
` 9 A. Approximately, four hours.
`
`10 Q. And other than yourself, who was present
`
`11 at that meeting?
`
`12 A. These two gentlemen: A.J. Tibbetts and
`
`13 Mike Rader.
`
`14 Q. No one else?
`
`15 A. No.
`
`16 Q. Can you tell me how long you worked on
`
`17 this case between the conclusion of your first
`
`18 deposition in this case and the submission of
`
`19 Exhibit 1020, your reply declaration?
`
`20 A. No, I cannot. I did not review that time.
`
`21 Q. What's your best estimate that you can
`
`22 give me?
`
`23 MR. RADER: Objection to form. You
`
`24 can answer.
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`7
`
`
` 1 (Pause.)
`
` 2 A. As I said, I didn't review and I really
`
` 3 don't recall how many hours, so I really can't give
`
` 4 you a -- anything close to an accurate estimate.
`
` 5 Q. Okay. How much time was spent --
`
` 6 withdraw. How much time did you spend drafting your
`
` 7 reply declaration?
`
` 8 A. Same answer. That's not something that I
`
` 9 reviewed or have thought about, so I really don't
`
`10 recall how long I spent working on the reply
`
`11 declaration.
`
`12 Q. You're charging an hourly fee to
`
`13 Petitioners in this case, correct?
`
`14 A. Yes, I am.
`
`15 Q. So you do keep track of the hours that you
`
`16 spend working on this case, correct?
`
`17 A. Yes.
`
`18 Q. You just don't remember how much time you
`
`19 spent after your first deposition and don't have any
`
`20 estimate of that?
`
`21 A. That's correct.
`
`22 Q. Turning to your reply declaration, is it
`
`23 fair to say that Paragraphs 3 through 9 of your
`
`24 reply declaration are your response to Mr. Bear's
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`8
`
`
` 1 opinions regarding the problem solved by the '433
`
` 2 patent?
`
` 3 (Reviewing document.)
`
` 4 A. At a high level, yes.
`
` 5 Q. And you understand from today for now on
`
` 6 when I refer to the '433 patent, I'm referring to
`
` 7 U.S. Patent 6,928,433?
`
` 8 A. Okay.
`
` 9 Q. You say in Paragraph 3 of your
`
`10 declaration, your reply declaration "I do not
`
`11 understand the '433 patent to have presented any new
`
`12 solution to any problem." Do you see that?
`
`13 A. It looks like you're reading a portion of
`
`14 the sentence that continues "and instead understand
`
`15 the '433 patent to have merely recycled existing
`
`16 functionality according to known uses of that
`
`17 functionality."
`
`18 Q. But I correctly read that portion of that
`
`19 sentence, right?
`
`20 A. Yes. You did correctly read a portion of
`
`21 a sentence.
`
`22 Q. Okay. And do you have an understanding
`
`23 whether novelty was a ground that was instituted in
`
`24 this proceeding?
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`9
`
`
` 1 MR. RADER: Objection. Form. You can
`
` 2 answer.
`
` 3 (Pause.)
`
` 4 A. I understand that some of the grounds
`
` 5 referred to the validity of the patent, which I
`
` 6 think includes issues of novelty.
`
` 7 Q. Handing you a document that's labeled
`
` 8 "Paper 13" and IPR2016-01407, DECISION Institution
`
` 9 of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. 42.108, have you
`
`10 seen this document before?
`
`11 (Reviewing document.)
`
`12 A. I believe I have.
`
`13 Q. Can you turn to the last page, Page 25,
`
`14 and do you see at the end of Page 25 it says,
`
`15 It is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`16 Section 314(a), an inter partes review is hereby
`
`17 instituted on the following grounds [as read] and
`
`18 then there's a list of six items. Do you see that?
`
`19 A. Yes, I do.
`
`20 Q. And do you have an understanding that
`
`21 those are the grounds that have been instituted in
`
`22 this case?
`
`23 A. Yes, I do.
`
`24 Q. And do you see each of the grounds begins
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`10
`
`
` 1 with the phrase obviously -- or the word
`
` 2 "Obviousness"?
`
` 3 A. Yes, I do.
`
` 4 Q. Does that refresh your recollection
`
` 5 whether novelty was an instituted ground in this
`
` 6 case?
`
` 7 MR. RADER: Objection. Form.
`
` 8 A. So I know that there were petitioned
`
` 9 grounds of anticipation and obviousness and,
`
`10 clearly, the obviousness grounds are the ones that
`
`11 were instituted, so I think anticipation and
`
`12 obviousness and I guess if novelty refers only to
`
`13 anticipation, then that was not an instituted
`
`14 ground.
`
`15 Q. And, therefore, you understand that the
`
`16 ultimate questions at issue in this case are whether
`
`17 the claims are obvious; not whether they present new
`
`18 solutions, correct?
`
`19 MR. RADER: Objection. Form. You can
`
`20 answer.
`
`21 (Pause.)
`
`22 A. So I stand by my opinion in this report
`
`23 that I don't think that the '433 patent presented
`
`24 any new solutions to any problem, but I also
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`11
`
`
` 1 understand that the instituted grounds are focusing
`
` 2 on the combination of different pieces of art.
`
` 3 Q. At the time that you rendered your
`
` 4 opinions in your reply declaration, did you have an
`
` 5 understanding as to whether analyzing the problem
`
` 6 solved by a patent is legally relevant to the
`
` 7 analysis of obviousness?
`
` 8 MR. RADER: Objection. You can
`
` 9 answer.
`
`10 A. My general understanding of the
`
`11 requirements for obviousness are specified in my
`
`12 reports, including my original declaration.
`
`13 And at a high level, I think that it
`
`14 requires that there is some motivation to combine
`
`15 the relevant pieces of art and that in those pieces
`
`16 of art, all of the limitations are disclosed.
`
`17 I -- in this section of my Reply -- reply
`
`18 declaration, as I had described, I was responding to
`
`19 what I understood to be an argument of the -- that
`
`20 the Patent Owner made in the Patent Owner Response
`
`21 about the need to solve a problem, but I do not
`
`22 understand combination to require -- the combination
`
`23 to specifically address the problem identified by
`
`24 the patent in question.
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`12
`
`
` 1 Q. At the time that you rendered your
`
` 2 opinions in your reply declaration, did you have an
`
` 3 understanding as to whether the problem solved by a
`
` 4 patent is legally relevant to the analysis of the
`
` 5 motivation to combine prior art references?
`
` 6 MR. RADER: Objection. Asked and
`
` 7 answered. You can answer again.
`
` 8 A. So I think the answer I just gave was true
`
` 9 at the time that I wrote this reply declaration and
`
`10 I understood that to be true.
`
`11 Q. If you thought that the problems solved by
`
`12 a patent were legally relevant to the analysis of
`
`13 the motivation to combine, you would have certainly
`
`14 analyzed that in one of your declarations, correct?
`
`15 (Pause.)
`
`16 A. I certainly did my best to respond to what
`
`17 I thought were all of the relevant legal
`
`18 requirements at the time I wrote my declarations.
`
`19 Q. But you didn't expressly identify a
`
`20 problem solved by the '433 patent in either your
`
`21 opening or reply declaration, isn't that correct?
`
`22 (Pause.)
`
`23 A. As I just said, I think the legal
`
`24 requirement for combination is whether there is a
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`13
`
`
` 1 motivation to combine; not whether the prior art
`
` 2 directly addresses a problem laid out in the patent
`
` 3 in question.
`
` 4 Q. And because of that you didn't identify a
`
` 5 problem in either your opening or reply declaration,
`
` 6 correct?
`
` 7 (Pause.)
`
` 8 A. Well, as I said, I don't think the '433
`
` 9 patent presented any new solution to any problem.
`
`10 And I'll also say that my opinions are in my
`
`11 declarations. Right now I don't recall if in any of
`
`12 the declarations I spell out exactly what the
`
`13 problem was.
`
`14 Q. I can give you your opening declaration
`
`15 and you can look at that and look at your reply
`
`16 declaration and tell me whether you expressly
`
`17 identified a problem solved by the '433 patent or
`
`18 attempted to be solved by the '433 patent. Would
`
`19 that help you in answering my question?
`
`20 A. Well, to be honest, my opening declaration
`
`21 is well over a hundred pages, so to definitively
`
`22 rule out whether I said anything I would have to
`
`23 read that entire declaration. I don't recall right
`
`24 now specifically identifying what the problem in the
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`14
`
`
` 1 '433 patent is.
`
` 2 MR. SAUNDERS: I'm handing -- can we
`
` 3 all go off the record just for a second?
`
` 4 (Discussion off the record.)
`
` 5 Q. Handing you a document that's labeled
`
` 6 DECLARATION OF ERIC J. GOULD BEAR IN SUPPORT OF
`
` 7 PATENT OWNER RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.120.
`
` 8 Do you see that?
`
` 9 (Reviewing document.)
`
`10 A. Yes, I do.
`
`11 Q. I'll represent to you this is filed as
`
`12 Exhibit Creative 2014, and I understand that counsel
`
`13 for Sony's accepted that representation.
`
`14 This was the declaration that you're
`
`15 responding to in your reply declaration, correct?
`
`16 (Reviewing document.)
`
`17 A. Yes.
`
`18 Q. Okay. You understand that Paragraphs 42
`
`19 through 73 of that declaration contain Mr. Bear's
`
`20 opinions regarding why he believes the Petitioners'
`
`21 reasons for selecting and combining Birrell and
`
`22 Seidensticker are flawed and inadequate, correct?
`
`23 MR. RADER: Michael, can you just
`
`24 repeat? I apologize. I didn't hear the paragraphs
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`15
`
`
` 1 that you were referring to.
`
` 2 Q. You'd agree with me that me that
`
` 3 Paragraphs 42 through 73 of Mr. Bear's declaration
`
` 4 contain his opinions for why he believes that
`
` 5 Petitioners' reasons for selecting and combining
`
` 6 Birrell and Seidensticker are flawed and inadequate,
`
` 7 correct?
`
` 8 A. Well, I haven't read those paragraphs
`
` 9 right now, but that is the section heading of those
`
`10 paragraphs.
`
`11 Q. You read this declaration prior to
`
`12 submitting your reply declaration, correct?
`
`13 A. Yes, I did.
`
`14 Q. And...
`
`15 (Pause.)
`
`16 Q. I'm handing you a document titled Creative
`
`17 Technology Limited Patent Owner Response Pursuant to
`
`18 37 C.F.R. Section 42.120 [as read].
`
`19 This is the document you referred to as
`
`20 Patent Owner Response, or POR, in your reply
`
`21 declaration, is that right?
`
`22 (Reviewing document.)
`
`23 A. Yes, it is.
`
`24 Q. And in Paragraph 2 of your reply
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`16
`
`
` 1 declaration you state, I understand the Patent Owner
`
` 2 Response to assert that the "problem" solved by the
`
` 3 '433 patent is how to "navigate and select among
`
` 4 hundreds of songs" using a "compact user interface,"
`
` 5 and that this problem "arose from specific issues
`
` 6 relating to a portable media player." Did I read
`
` 7 that right?
`
` 8 (Reviewing document.)
`
` 9 A. Yes, you did.
`
`10 Q. And you cite Pages 1 through 2 and 28
`
`11 through 30 of the Patent Owner Response at the end
`
`12 of that sentence, right?
`
`13 A. Yes, I do.
`
`14 Q. And Page 29 of the Patent Owner Response
`
`15 cites to Mr. Bear's declarations in a number of
`
`16 paragraphs, including paragraphs 69, 70 and 72?
`
`17 (Reviewing document.)
`
`18 Q. Is that right?
`
`19 A. Oh, yes, it is.
`
`20 Q. Paragraph 69 of Mr. Bear's declaration
`
`21 states that, "Petitioners' expert analysis is also
`
`22 flawed and demonstrates hindsight reasoning because
`
`23 it fails to discuss or address the problems of the
`
`24 prior art or the primary solution that the '433
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`17
`
`
` 1 patent was trying to solve. In particular, as
`
` 2 discussed above, the claims provide for an improved
`
` 3 user interface that visually subdivides the
`
` 4 presentation of stored media content into
`
` 5 categories, subcategories, and items in a series of
`
` 6 screens, permitting orders of magnitude fewer items
`
` 7 to navigate through than a sequential list." Do you
`
` 8 see that?
`
` 9 (Reviewing document.)
`
`10 A. I see that. Can I just make one small
`
`11 request? When you are going to read something from
`
`12 the document, can you make sure I get to that point
`
`13 in the document before you start reading?
`
`14 Q. Sure. I apologize.
`
`15 A. Thank you.
`
`16 Q. I completely understand. When Mr. Bear
`
`17 says "as discussed above," do you understand he's
`
`18 referring back to his discussion of the background
`
`19 of the technology in Paragraphs 33 through 40 of his
`
`20 declaration?
`
`21 (Reviewing document.)
`
`22 A. That appears to be what he's referring to,
`
`23 but since he doesn't refer to specific paragraphs,
`
`24 I can't be sure exactly which sections he's
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`18
`
`
` 1 referring to when he says "as discussed above."
`
` 2 Q. That was the understanding you had at the
`
` 3 time you rendered your opinions in your reply
`
` 4 declaration, correct?
`
` 5 MR. RADER: Objection. Form.
`
` 6 A. It's certainly a relevant section. I just
`
` 7 am not sure that that's the only relevant portions
`
` 8 of the prior portion of Dr. Bear's report since he
`
` 9 didn't specify exactly which paragraphs he was
`
`10 referring to.
`
`11 Q. Okay. You see Mr. Bear says again earlier
`
`12 in paragraph 35, "In particular, the claims provide
`
`13 for an improved user interface that visually
`
`14 subdivides the presentation of stored media content
`
`15 into categories, subcategories, and items in a
`
`16 series of screens, permitting orders of magnitude
`
`17 fewer items to navigate through than a sequential
`
`18 list," and he cites to Exhibit 1001, Claim 1. You
`
`19 see that, right?
`
`20 A. Yes, I do.
`
`21 Q. And you see that Mr. Bear also cites to a
`
`22 number of portions of the '433 patent, which is
`
`23 Exhibit 1001, in Paragraph 34 of his report,
`
`24 correct?
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`19
`
`
` 1 A. He does cite to Exhibit 1001 in
`
` 2 Paragraph 34.
`
` 3 Q. And you know that's the '433 patent,
`
` 4 right?
`
` 5 A. Yes, I believe that's right.
`
` 6 Q. And he also cites to Exhibit 1001, the
`
` 7 '433 patent, in Paragraph 33 of his report, correct?
`
` 8 A. Yes, he does.
`
` 9 Q. It's fair to say that Mr. Bear analyzed
`
`10 specific portions of the '433 patent specification
`
`11 and claims in his report in identifying the problem
`
`12 that he believed was solved by the '433 patent,
`
`13 correct?
`
`14 (Reviewing document.)
`
`15 A. I think that's right.
`
`16 Q. And in your reply declaration, you do not
`
`17 dispute that Mr. Bear -- withdrawn. In your reply
`
`18 declaration, you do not dispute Mr. Bear's analysis
`
`19 of the contents of the '433 patent in identifying
`
`20 the problems to be solved by the '433 patent, isn't
`
`21 that correct?
`
`22 A. Well, I think I did disagree in the
`
`23 section that we already discussed in my Paragraph 3
`
`24 where I said that I do not understand the '433
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`20
`
`
` 1 patent to have represented any new solution to any
`
` 2 problem and, instead, understand the '433 patent to
`
` 3 have merely recycled existing functionality
`
` 4 according to known uses of that functionality.
`
` 5 So I understand that Mr. Bear thinks that
`
` 6 the '433 addressed the problem, but I don't think it
`
` 7 was a -- it was not -- there was no new solution to
`
` 8 any problem.
`
` 9 Q. In responding to Mr. Bear's opinions
`
`10 regarding the problem solved by the '433 patent, You
`
`11 don't advance any opinion in your reply declaration
`
`12 that he misinterpreted any specific disclosure of
`
`13 the '433 patent, isn't that true?
`
`14 A. My opinion is in my reports, but I don't
`
`15 recall disagreeing with any characterization that
`
`16 Mr. Bear made of the '433 patent's technical
`
`17 description, although I certainly do disagree to the
`
`18 extent that he claimed that there was any novelty.
`
`19 Q. In fact, in your portion of your
`
`20 declaration responding to Mr. Bear's analysis of the
`
`21 problem solved by the '433 patent, you don't have
`
`22 any citations to the '433 patent, itself, isn't that
`
`23 true?
`
`24 (Reviewing document.)
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`21
`
`
` 1 A. I don't see any direct citations to the
`
` 2 '433 in my Paragraphs 3 through 9 of my reply
`
` 3 declaration.
`
` 4 Q. And in your reply declaration, you don't
`
` 5 identify any portion of the '433 patent which you
`
` 6 believe provides a broader description of the
`
` 7 problems to be solved by that patent than the
`
` 8 portions which are cited and identified by Mr. Bear,
`
` 9 isn't that true?
`
`10 A. As I think we've already discussed in my
`
`11 Paragraph 2, I summarize that the Patent Owner's
`
`12 response describes the problem being relating to how
`
`13 to navigate and select among hundreds of songs using
`
`14 a compact user interface and that this problem arose
`
`15 from specific issues relating to a portable media
`
`16 player. I think that is at a high level consistent
`
`17 with Mr. Bear's characterization of the '433 patent.
`
`18 Q. And in your declaration, you don't offer
`
`19 an alternative interpretation of the '433 patent as
`
`20 solving a different problem, correct?
`
`21 A. No, I don't think I do.
`
`22 Q. In Paragraph 4 of your reply declaration
`
`23 you state that "I believe that my understanding" --
`
`24 actually, let me start reading earlier. The last
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`22
`
`
` 1 sentence of Paragraph 3 of your reply declaration
`
` 2 is, "In fact, contrary to Patent Owner's assertions,
`
` 3 I understand both the 'problem' and the 'solution'
`
` 4 identified by Patent Owner to have been in the prior
`
` 5 art at the time of the alleged invention of the '433
`
` 6 patent." Do you see that?
`
` 7 A. Yes, I do.
`
` 8 Q. And then you continue on in Paragraph 4
`
` 9 saying, I believe that my understanding in this
`
`10 respect is confirmed, and Patent Owner's arguments
`
`11 are rebutted, by prior art standards released by the
`
`12 International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
`
`13 that were cited by Patent Owner's expert Mr. Bear in
`
`14 his declaration, Exhibit 2014 in paragraph 28, and
`
`15 which I reviewed following the citation by Mr. Bear
`
`16 [as read].
`
`17 And then it goes on. It says, For
`
`18 example, a portion of ISO9241 titled "Ergonomic
`
`19 requirements for office work with visual display
`
`20 terminals (VDTs) - Part 14: Menu dialogues"
`
`21 confirms my understanding [as read]. Do you see
`
`22 that?
`
`23 A. Yes, I do.
`
`24 Q. You would agree with me, however, that
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`23
`
`
` 1 ISO9241 was not cited in Mr. Bear's declaration,
`
` 2 correct?
`
` 3 (Reviewing document.)
`
` 4 A. So ISO9241-14 was -- was one of the
`
` 5 publications of the International Organization For
`
` 6 Standardization that was referenced by the ISO
`
` 7 publication that Mr. Bear cited, to my recollection.
`
` 8 Q. But ISO9241, itself, was not cited in
`
` 9 Mr. Bear's declaration, correct?
`
`10 A. ISO9241 is in the same field of human
`
`11 computer interaction and user interface design as
`
`12 the ISO publication that Mr. Bear cited, but I don't
`
`13 believe Mr. Bear cited this particular one.
`
`14 MR. SAUNDERS: Objection.
`
`15 Nonresponsive to the portion of the answer prior to
`
`16 "I don't believe."
`
`17 MR. RADER: Objection to the
`
`18 objection.
`
`19 Q. Isn't it right that Paragraph 28 of
`
`20 Mr. Bear's report -- sorry -- withdraw. Isn't it
`
`21 right that Paragraph 28 of Mr. Bear's declaration
`
`22 are the only parts of his declaration which cite to
`
`23 any ISO standards, isn't that right?
`
`24 (Reviewing document.)
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`24
`
`
` 1 A. Paragraph 28 of Mr. Bear's declaration is
`
` 2 a general description of his understanding of the
`
` 3 science of human computer interaction.
`
` 4 And in this section he describes a wide
`
` 5 range of publishers and publications and people in
`
` 6 the field that a person of ordinary skill would be
`
` 7 familiar with, and he references multiple ISO
`
` 8 standards in the field of human computer
`
` 9 interaction, and I don't recall, and -- I don't
`
`10 recall him giving further detail of ISO beyond this
`
`11 paragraph.
`
`12 Q. Certainly, Paragraph 28 of his --
`
`13 Mr. Bear's declaration is the only paragraph of his
`
`14 declaration that you cite after saying "prior art
`
`15 standards released by the International Organization
`
`16 For Standardization (ISO) that were cited by Patent
`
`17 Owner's expert Mr. Bear in his declaration," isn't
`
`18 that true?
`
`19 A. This sentence in my report in Paragraph
`
`20 4 cites to Mr. Bear's Paragraph 28. I don't
`
`21 think this sentence cites any other paragraphs of
`
`22 Mr. Bear's report.
`
`23 Q. And we already discussed earlier today the
`
`24 portions of Mr. Bear's report that analyze the
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`25
`
`
` 1 problem solved by the '433 patent. Do you remember
`
` 2 that?
`
` 3 A. Yes, I do.
`
` 4 Q. And Paragraph 28 wasn't one of those
`
` 5 paragraphs, isn't that right?
`
` 6 A. I don't think you referred me to
`
` 7 Paragraph 28 when you were referring me to the other
`
` 8 sections of Mr. Bear's report.
`
` 9 Q. You'd agree with me that Mr. Bear didn't
`
`10 cite to any ISO standard in his analysis of the
`
`11 problem solved by the '433 patent, isn't that right?
`
`12 (Reviewing document.)
`
`13 A. I don't think he did.
`
`14 Q. Specifically, he didn't cite -- withdrawn.
`
`15 You were aware of the existence of the ISO
`
`16 organization certainly before you began working on
`
`17 your reply declaration, correct?
`
`18 A. Yes, I was.
`
`19 Q. And you were certainly aware of the ISO
`
`20 organization before you submitted your first
`
`21 declaration in this case, correct?
`
`22 A. Yes, I was.
`
`23 Q. And you were certainly aware before you
`
`24 submitted your first declaration in this case that
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. - July 11, 2017
`
`26
`
`
` 1 the ISO organization issues various standards
`
` 2 documents, correct?
`
` 3 A. Yes, I was.
`
` 4 Q. And you were aware prior to submitting
`
` 5 your first declaration in this case that the ISO
`
` 6 issues standards in the field of human and computer
`
` 7 interaction, isn't that correct?
`
` 8 A. Yes, I was.
`
` 9 Q. And you were aware that the ISO issues
`
`10 standards documents in the field of user interfaces
`
`11 prior to submitting your first declaration in this
`
`12 case, correct?
`
`13 A. Yes, that's correct.
`
`14 Q. So you'd agree with me that you could have
`
`15 cited to and relied on ISO standards in support of
`
`16 your conclusion
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
