Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` HTC CORPORATION AND )
` HTC AMERICA, INC., )
` )
` Petitioners, )
` )
` VS. ) CASE IPR2016-01501
` ) Patent 8,457,676
` CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS )
` EQUIPMENT LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
`ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAY P. KESAN, Ph.D.
` JULY 26, 2017
` JOB NO: 127475
` ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of
` JAY P. KESAN, Ph.D., produced as a witness at the
` instance of the Petitioners, and duly sworn, was taken
` in the above-styled and -numbered cause on the 26th of
` July, 2017, from 10:06 a.m. to 1:32 p.m., before
` Therese J. Casterline, CSR in and for the State of
` Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the offices
` of Bragalone Conroy, PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite
` 4500-W, in the City of Dallas, County of Dallas, State
` of Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
` Procedure and the provisions stated on the record.
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 1
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
` PAGE
`Appearances 2
`
`WITNESS: JAY P. KESAN, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH 4
`EXAMINATION BY MR. SAAD 131
`
`Changes and Signature 136
`Reporter's Certificate 138
`
` EXHIBITS
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`(Previously marked)
`Petitioner's United States Patent 30
`Exhibit 1001 8,457,676
`
`Petitioner's United States Patent 75
`Exhibit 1005 Application Publication
` 2006/0140154
`
`CCE Declaration of Dr. Jay P. 9
`Exhibit 2005 Kesan
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS:
` Mr. Brian Nash, Esq.
` PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
` 401 Congress Avenue
` Austin, TX 78701
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` Mr. Terry Saad, Esq.
` BRAGALONE CONROY
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Dallas, TX 75201
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Mr. Joseph McDermott, Videographer
`
`Page 4
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Now on record at
` 10:06 a.m. on July 26th, 2017 for the
` videotaped deposition of Dr. Jay Kesan in
` Dallas, Texas, in the action entitled HTC
` Corporation and HTC America versus Cellular
` Communications Equipment LLC, Case Number
` IPR2016-01501. This is media number 1.
` Counsel may identify themselves;
` afterwards, the court reporter will swear in
` the witness.
` MR. SAAD: Terry Saad from Bragalone
` Conroy on behalf of the Patent Owner,
` Cellular Communications Equipment LLC.
` MR. NASH: Brian Nash of Pillsbury
` Winthrop Shaw Pittman here on behalf of the
` Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC America.
` JAY P. KESAN, Ph.D.,
`having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. NASH:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Kesan. How are
` you?
` A. I'm good, thank you.
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` Q. Now, you understand why you're here
`today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I think this isn't your first
`deposition, correct?
` A. No, it's not.
` Q. Okay. So you know the general rules
`on a deposition, right?
` A. (Nods head.)
` Q. You're under oath?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. That's the same as if you were
`at trial in a courthouse or at the PTAB, you're
`giving sworn testimony?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'll assume you understand the
`questions. If you don't, feel free to ask me for
`a clarification.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You're going to have to answer
`audibly, which you're already doing. It's great.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. You can't shake your head because it
`won't be picked up by our court reporter.
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`12
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 2
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` You can take a break at any time, just
`that if there's a question pending, I'd ask that
`you answer the question, and then we'll take a
`break. Does that sound okay?
` A. Thank you. That's fine.
` Q. Your attorney may object. Unless he
`instructs you not to answer, I'm going to want
`you to answer, okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then if there's any reason that
`you can't give accurate or complete testimony
`today, would you let me know?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Okay. So you've been engaged as an
`expert in IPR Case Number 2016-1501 on behalf of
`Cellular Communications Equipment, correct?
` A. Yeah, I assume that's the number for
`this IPR.
` Q. Right. Yes.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So the one that we read onto
`the record this morning?
` A. Yes. Yes.
` Q. Yes.
`
`Page 8
`
` KESAN
`declaration, the Kwak reference and so on, other
`things that are listed in my declaration.
` Q. Okay. So most -- mostly the items
`listed in your declaration, or were there any
`other items that you reviewed?
` A. I think there were items in my
`declaration.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And then I am not exactly sure if I
`reviewed all of them, but probably a subset of
`them to prepare.
` Q. Sure. Okay.
` Did you meet with anybody to prepare
`for today?
` A. Yes, I met with counsel.
` Q. Terry?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And when did you meet?
` A. Yesterday.
` Q. Yesterday? And how long?
` A. A few hours.
` Q. Did you speak with anyone else in
`preparing for today's deposition?
` A. No.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` And that one relates to US Patent
`8,457,676; does that sound right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And it's okay if I call that
`the '676 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. We would all know what that is?
` A. (Nods head.)
` Q. Are you being compensated by -- so I'm
`going to call them CEC; is that okay?
` A. That's fine.
` Q. Are you being compensated by CEC?
` A. Yeah. I'm being compensated for my
`time, yes.
` Q. How much are you being compensated?
` A. My rate of compensation for my time is
`550 per hour.
` Q. Okay. And did you do anything to
`prepare for today's deposition?
` A. I reviewed the materials that I've
`listed in the materials considered in my
`declaration --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- including the patent, my
`
`Page 9
`
` KESAN
` Q. And besides yesterday and reviewing
`documents that you mentioned, did you do anything
`else to prepare for today's deposition?
` A. No, just reviewing the documents and
`reviewing the materials I mentioned and
`discussing with counsel.
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
` I -- I believe you've rendered an
`opinion in this case, correct?
` A. Yeah, the declaration.
` Q. And that's the declaration you were
`discussing?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I'm going to hand it to you now,
`and it's been marked as CEC Exhibit 2005.
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And that's the declaration we were
`talking about earlier; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you prepare it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you write the entire document
`yourself?
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 3
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` A. No. We sort of engaged in a process
`with counsel where we discussed the references
`and discussed the claims and talked about what we
`thought were the key points we wanted to make,
`went back and forth.
` Q. And so did you do the actual drafting
`or did counsel do the drafting?
` A. I did some of the drafting, counsel
`made some suggestions, and I would review them,
`and the end result is the declaration, I guess.
` Q. Do you recall whether there were
`specific portions that you drafted?
` A. I think it was basically going back
`and forth on the document until we were happy.
` Q. Is there any portions that you recall
`that you did the first draft of?
` A. Oh, there were several things that,
`you know, were necessarily things that I would
`put in without discussion, such as, you know, my
`background and so on, so -- so the other things
`we discussed, the substantive issues.
` Q. So for the other things you discussed,
`and then counsel took the first cut at it; would
`that be fair?
`
`Page 12
`
` KESAN
` A. I want to say I've encountered about,
`you know -- I want to say four or five, something
`around that number.
` Q. Okay.
` A. They're all in various stages, so I
`may be off in my number by one or two.
` Q. Right. I don't need an exact number.
`I was just curious.
` So as that background relates, that
`may be similar or even identical to some
`technical backgrounds that you've had in other
`patents related to power control; is that
`correct?
` A. Yeah. It's -- it's -- I don't think
`it's identical, because I remember that I
`tailored it to some of the specifics of this
`particular IPR.
` Q. I see.
` A. But -- but the -- sort of the gist of
`the material is perhaps similar.
` Q. Like the genesis of where it started
`from came from somewhere else; is that right?
` A. From one of these power -- control
`power headroom reporting patents.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` A. In some -- some situations, yes. Some
`situations I did, depending on the points we had
`to make, but I was comfortable with the end
`result.
` Q. Do you recall if you took the lead on
`drafting any of the portions about the background
`of the technology?
` A. So the background was something that
`we have developed, you know, because there were
`so many patents involved, so we had gone back and
`forth on -- on that.
` Q. And so that background is something
`you've seen and used in other cases related to
`this technology?
` A. That we developed in other cases --
` Q. Right.
` A. -- counsel and I worked on from other
`power -- control power headroom patents.
` Q. Okay. And those are other patents in
`the CEC portfolio?
` A. Correct.
` Q. How many of those cases or patents
`have you been engaged as an expert to opine on;
`do you recall?
`
`Page 13
`
` KESAN
` Q. Okay. What about the section in your
`declaration that's focused on analyzing the Kwak
`reference?
` MR. NASH: That's K-W-A-K.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Is that something that you would have
`taken the first cut at drafting; do you recall?
` A. I don't recall it specifically, but
`obviously that's what, you know, I spent most of
`my time doing was -- was focusing on the -- the
`specifics of the Kwak reference.
` Q. And what about the writing of that
`section? Is that something that you recall
`drafting first or drafting later, or just
`providing your input for others to draft?
` A. Basically, we discussed all the points
`that we wanted to make, and -- and I -- I could
`be wrong, but I recall that some of the issues
`were similar to the issues that we had dealt with
`elsewhere in the same case involving similar
`patents.
` So we -- you know, we had some
`materials from before so we sort of put it
`together.
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 4
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` Q. Can you explain what you mean by that,
`some similar issues to other cases?
` A. So I -- I don't recall very
`specifically, but I -- and I could be mistaken
`about this, but -- but I thought that we had
`dealt with the '676 patent in the district court
`matter or, you know -- and I think we had some
`other materials related to validity of the
`patent --
` Q. I see.
` A. -- so --
` Q. And you were able to leverage some of
`those previous resources?
` A. Right, right, right. And I believe it
`included -- may have even included the Kwak
`reference.
` Q. All right. Do you recall what that
`case might have been?
` A. Not off the top of my head, because
`there were so many of them, but it involved, you
`know, one of the district court matters, I
`think.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Again, I'm going from the top of my
`
`Page 16
`
` KESAN
` Q. And a lot of your discussion in Kwak
`is responding to Dr. Williams' opinions; is that
`correct?
` A. Correct.
` Just to clarify, I thought you were
`asking me about the prior involvement of
`Dr. Williams.
` Q. Right, and I am.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I am asking that.
` A. That's what I don't remember.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Obviously, I know that Dr. Williams --
` Q. Sure. No, no.
` A. -- is HTC's expert.
` Q. I certainly wasn't trying to imply
`that you'd forgotten it. I was more just trying
`to set the stage for, in your section discussing
`Kwak, there's a lot of discussion about
`Dr. Williams and his opinions, correct?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. And so I was wondering if, when we
`were talking about being able to leverage work
`from other cases, is that work that you're
`
`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
`head, but I -- I could be mistaken.
` Q. Do you recall who the plaintiff -- or,
`sorry, the defendant would have been in that
`district court matter that you're thinking of?
` A. There were so many of them that --
`and -- but I want to say one of them, you know,
`may have been Apple, but there were so many
`defendants, and some of them are not in the case
`anymore, et cetera, so I'm not -- not sure the
`exact caption of the case.
` Q. Are the materials that you're thinking
`of from that district court case an expert report
`that you may have written?
` A. Right. I think so. Again, I'm going
`from memory, but -- and I'm not even sure if it
`was this patent, or it was just a reference or --
`you know, there was some commonalities.
` Q. Okay. Was there any commonality as it
`related to Dr. Williams?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. You recall that Dr. Williams was the
`expert that provided a declaration on behalf of
`the Petitioner in this case, correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`Page 17
`
` KESAN
`referring to also responding to a report or
`testimony by Dr. Williams, or do you recall?
` A. Yeah, I -- I'm not sure, but I did
`focus on Dr. Williams' declaration in this
`matter, sort of as a starting point, because I
`thought I was responding to Dr. Williams'
`declaration in this matter.
` Q. Okay. Great.
` Do you recall how much time you spent
`on this declaration, preparing it?
` A. Again, it's a little hard to tell,
`because this was not the first time I was looking
`at the patent and this was not the first time I
`was -- so there was some prior knowledge.
` Q. Yeah.
` A. So it's -- it's sort of unfair, you
`know, in the sense that there was -- you know,
`this has been going on now for about, I guess, a
`year or more, so --
` Q. There's certainly some efficiencies if
`you've already looked at this patent and this
`reference before --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- is that what you're saying?
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 5
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` A. Right. Right.
` Q. Do you have any recollection of how
`much time?
` A. Yeah, I probably spent -- I'm
`guessing, you know, a sum total of about, you
`know, four or five days, you know, off and on,
`not necessarily all days, but -- but I just
`worked on it until I was happy, and I thought I
`made all the points that needed to be made.
` Q. Okay. Do you have a rough estimate on
`how many hours per day?
` A. You know, I -- it could be more days,
`but I'm guessing that I probably spent, you know,
`25, 30 hours. You know, I'm just guessing. But,
`again, some of it was easier because I was
`familiar with some of these things.
` Q. Well, that makes sense. I wouldn't
`expect you to just bill for the sake of billing.
` So if you wouldn't mind, let's take a
`look at your statement about the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. I think that starts
`on page 23.
` And there's a -- looks like three
`paragraphs that kind of -- three to four that
`
`Page 20
`
` KESAN
`ordinary skill for this technology or this
`patent?
` A. Well, I mean, it's my understanding
`that I'm supposed to look at several factors that
`go into defining the level of ordinary skill in
`the art, and I looked at those factors, and --
`and then I thought that, you know, based on those
`factors, for an invention like this one, I would
`think that a person with an electrical
`engineering degree and with, you know, a
`reasonable amount of familiarity with wireless
`communication would be a sort of typical person
`of ordinary skill in the art in the -- given the
`subject matter of this technology.
` Q. Okay. Is there anything special about
`five years? Is -- do you have a basis for why
`you feel like it's five?
` A. Well, I think it would be -- that
`would be a sufficient amount of time for someone
`to -- to have a sense of how the electrical
`engineering education they had, how that is
`applied, you know, in this field.
` Q. Does your person of ordinary skill in
`the art differ from Dr. Williams' statement about
`
`Page 19
`
` KESAN
`kind of deal with this issue --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- paragraphs 42 to 45; is that
`correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. So -- and you state that -- and I'm
`reading from paragraph 44 -- a person of ordinary
`skill in the art as relevant to the '676 patent
`would have completed an undergraduate program --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- in electrical engineering or comp
`sci and would have at least five years of
`professional experience in the field of wireless
`communications.
` A. Right.
` Q. Then you say, alternatively, that
`person would have completed a graduate program in
`electrical engineering or computer science and
`would have had at least two years of professional
`experience in the field --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- of wireless; is that correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. How did you arrive at that level of
`
`Page 21
`
` KESAN
`what he believes the person of ordinary skill in
`the art would be?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. I don't have his level of ordinary
`skill in the art right in front of me here,
`but -- so I'm going from memory. But I don't
`think we -- we had a disagreement about that.
` Q. At least it wasn't a meaningful
`difference that you felt you needed to opine on
`with respect to your declaration; is that
`correct?
` A. Yeah, I believe so.
` Q. And to the extent there was a
`difference, that wouldn't have affected your
`testimony, correct?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. Yeah, I don't think so. Not that I
`recall.
` Q. You don't recall that any of your
`opinions hinge on whether it's your person of
`ordinary skill in the art or Dr. Williams' person
`of ordinary skill in the art; is that fair?
` A. Yeah, I believe --
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 6
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
` KESAN
` A. -- I believe that is correct.
` Q. Is there a particular time period
`associated with this person of ordinary skill in
`the art that you have described here in
`paragraphs 42 through 45?
` A. Not specifically. I know the patent
`itself -- again, I'm going from memory, but as I
`recall, the patent was -- the provisional may
`have been filed around 2007, I believe, but these
`wireless communications systems, they -- you
`know, there is -- at that point in time, you
`know, a good 15, 20 years, I mean, of development
`in this space.
` And so, you know, a person who had the
`level of education I'm talking about would
`understand the kinds of problems that are
`encountered in this field and what types of
`solutions might be used and so on.
` And so all that would be meaningful
`knowledge for them to sort of -- as long as they
`had that sort of experience or at least this kind
`of experience by that time, they would be able to
`appreciate the subject matter of this patent.
` Q. Okay. And with respect to how you
`
`Page 24
`
` KESAN
`devices at that time, and so I was working on
`some of my own patents at that time, and -- so
`around the time frame of this invention of this
`particular patent.
` Q. Okay. Let's take a look at your claim
`construction section, and it's, I think, just
`paragraphs 40 and 41.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And let me know when you're there.
` A. Yeah, I'm here.
` Q. Okay. So I see in paragraph 40 that
`you quote the -- the panel's claim construction
`for the term "transmission time intervals"; is
`that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And just for the record, that says,
`transmission time intervals is time periods
`determined by the duration of a transmission of
`one or more transport blocks; is that correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. Do you agree with that construction?
` A. Yes. It's, I think, directly -- I
`agree with the PTAB's construction, and it's also
`consistent with the patent.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
`considered and -- and analyzed the Kwak
`reference, is it fair to say that you did it with
`your perspective based on this person of ordinary
`skill that you described here?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You didn't have your lawyer hat on
`when you were doing it, right?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. No, I was looking at it from the
`technical perspective of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, you know, as I've described in
`the declaration.
` Q. Okay. And I guess I -- I should know
`this based off of your CV, but around that time
`frame, 2007, were you in the engineering field
`then or were you in the legal field then; do you
`recall?
` A. Well, I've always worn, you know, a
`couple of -- of different hats, and -- and so
`I've continued my technical work all through.
` And around this time is when I had --
`or right around this time is when I had started
`doing some of my radiofrequency identification
`
`Page 25
`
` KESAN
` Q. And so that's the construction you
`applied in your analysis; is that true?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Would one of ordinary skill in the art
`have been familiar with a phrase like that in
`2007?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. They should have been familiar with
`that term, or if they weren't, they would surely
`know, you know, where to look it up and remind
`themselves of what -- of what that meant.
` Q. It -- it was a term that was utilized
`in the context of UMTS; is that correct?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. I've seen it utilized in that context,
`yes.
` Q. And TTI is an abbreviation that's used
`for that; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that's often used in an UMTS
`context, correct?
` A. Yes.
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. It's used in these contexts, yes.
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 7
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
` KESAN
` Q. If I was looking at references about
`UMTS around that time frame, would I have come
`across the term "transmission time intervals" if
`those were references related to UMTS?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. I mean, I don't know which particular
`reference you're talking about, but as a general
`matter, I think that term would have been used,
`yes.
` Q. Well, like -- I think that you had a
`couple of references that you utilized in your
`declaration to just generally talk about UMTS; is
`that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Like the UMTS networks referenced by
`Wiley?
` A. Right.
` Q. Do you recall providing some testimony
`about that?
` A. Right, I provided some background.
`And I just want to mention that I think Wiley was
`the publisher.
` Q. Yeah. It was just a shorthand way of
`referring to --
`
`Page 28
`
` KESAN
`others?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you recall that one?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that's Exhibit 2001.
` And then I think Exhibit 2003 is
`called Fundamentals of LTE.
` A. Yes.
` Q. References like those, is it likely
`that if I read that front to back, I would run
`across the term "transmission time intervals"?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` A. I have not gone and looked for that
`word in these references, but -- so I -- you
`know, if they're not there, then I stand
`corrected. But the chances are that you would
`find that word.
` Q. So there's a paragraph 41 in your
`claim construction section. And I believe what
`you're saying in this -- but feel free to correct
`me -- is that the words of the claims have a
`plain meaning, and that you'll apply the plain
`meaning unless that's inconsistent with something
`else in the patent; is that fair?
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` A. Yes.
` Q. I think you're right. The actual
`authors are Heikki Kaaranen, Ari Ahtiainen and
`others --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- that I'm going to have trouble
`pronouncing.
` A. Right.
` Q. But --
` MR. SAAD: I think that's why he
` corrected you just so that you'd have to say
` that.
` MR. NASH: Guilty as charged.
` Q. But you recall the reference I'm
`talking about?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I think it's Exhibit 2002 --
` A. 2, yes.
` Q. -- is that correct?
` And I think there was another two
`other references. There's maybe the UMTS
`long-term evolution reference --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- edited by Stefania Sesia and
`
`Page 29
`
` KESAN
` MR. SAAD: Objection --
` A. Yeah, that's the --
` MR. SAAD: -- mischaracterizes the
` witness' testimony.
` Jay, just let me get my objection out
` first.
` A. Yeah. Yeah, that's my understanding
`of what I'm supposed to do.
` Q. Okay. And -- but you haven't applied
`any additional constructions in paragraph 41; is
`that true?
` A. None except what I have mentioned in
`paragraph 40 for TTI.
` Q. So you -- in terms of what's required
`by the '676 patent, you would agree that it's the
`claim language, and then any constructions
`related to that claim language; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
` Q. And for purposes of your opinion, the
`only constructions that you're relying on is the
`one for transmission time intervals as
`articulated in paragraph 40; is that fair?
` MR. SAAD: Objection, form.
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2016-01501
`(HTC v. CCE)
`
`Page 8
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
` KESAN
` A. I mean, together with what I
`mentioned, that is my understanding, that I'm
`supposed to follow the rules of claim
`construction.
` Q. So you haven't articulated any
`additional constructions as part of your
`testimony; is that correct?
` A. No, other than what I mentioned.
` Q. And by what you mentioned, you mean
`paragraph 40's construction, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So, otherwise, there's no other
`constructions?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's take a look at the '676
`patent -- and I have that somewhere.
` So for the record, this has been
`previously marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 1001,
`and I'll hand that to you.
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. That's the '676 patent that we were
`talking about earlier; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`Page 32
`
` KESAN
`discussing what a transport block is?
` A. Yeah. It's basically telling you what
`that transport block is, and it's also telling
`you how, during that period of time, called the
`transmission time interval, TTI, several
`transport blocks, you know, are delivered to the
`physical layer.
` Q. And what is a transport block?
` A. So it's just basically a -- a basic
`unit of data that might be exchanged, you know,
`between layers, in the media layers.
` Q. I see in this sort of penultimate
`sentence in that paragraph, it says, it is
`composed of an RLC PDU and a MAC header.
` Do you see that?
` A. Right.
` Q. So the transport block is comprised of
`at least an RLC PDU and a MAC header --
` A. Right.
` Q. -- is that correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. What is an RLC referring to?
` A. So that is typically the radio, you
`know, logical control, and that's shown -- I
`
`Page 31
`
` KESAN
` Q. So let's take a look at its
`description of transmission time intervals.
` And before we do, if I call those TTIs
`on occasion, will you understand what I'm
`referring to?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So I think we can look at column 2,
`lines 19 to 29.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does that describe transmission time
`intervals --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- or TTIs in that section?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And how is it articulating what a TTI
`is in the context of that section?
` A. Well, it basically talks about how
`information is sent from the MAC layer to the
`physical layer, and that's what they're referring
`to there.
` Q. Well, I notice that our construction
`has the words "transport blocks" in it, right?
` A. Right.
` Q. Okay. And so is this section
`
`Page 33
`
` KESAN
`guess that is not shown in the figure, but -- but
`it's basically a portion that deals with the
`radio resources.
` Q. I couldn't find RLC expressly defined
`in the context of the '676. But would you agree
`that it could refer to radial link control layer,
`maybe?
` A. Yeah, yeah.
` Q. Does that sound right?
` A. Ye