ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC., )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` vs. ) Case No. IPR2016-01520:
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA ) U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
`_______________________
`
` Videotaped Deposition of ANTHONY J.
`
`WECHSELBERGER, called for examination, taken
`
`pursuant to the rules of the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, pertaining to the taking of
`
`depositions, taken before Lynn A. McCauley, CSR
`
`No. 84-003268, RPR, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`of the State of Illinois, at 300 North LaSalle
`
`Street, 7th Floor, Chicago, Illinois, on May 4, 2017,
`
`at 9:18 a.m.
`
`JOB No. 2604091
`
`PAGES 1 - 129
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2020
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 1
`
`

`

`ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the record. 09:18
`2 Please note that the microphones are 09:18
`3 sensitive and may pick up whispering and private 09:18
`4 conversations. 09:18
`5 Please turn off all cellphones or 09:18
`6 place them away from the microphones, as they can 09:18
`7 interfere with the deposition audio. 09:18
`8 Recording will continue until all 09:18
`9 parties agree to go off the record. 09:18
`10 My name is Eric Campbell 09:18
`11 representing Veritext. 09:18
`12 The date is today is May 4, 2017, 09:18
`13 and the time is approximately 9:18 a.m. 09:18
`14 This deposition is located at 09:18
`15 300 North LaSalle Street in Chicago, Illinois. 09:18
`16 The caption of this case is Apple 09:18
`17 Incorporated versus Personalized Media 09:18
`18 Communications, LLC. 09:18
`19 The name of the witness is Anthony 09:18
`20 Wechselberger. 09:18
`21 At this time the attorneys present 09:18
`22 in the room will identify themselves and the parties 09:18
`23 they represent, after which our court reporter, Lynn 09:18
`24 McCauley, representing Veritext, will swear in the 09:18
`25 witness, and we can proceed. 09:18
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`
`Appeared on behalf of Petitioner:
`
`23
`
`45
`
` KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`6 BY: MR. JOEL R. MERKIN
`7 300 North LaSalle Street
`8 Chicago, Illinois 60654
`9 312-862-2179
`10 joel.merkin@kirkland.com
`11
`12 Appeared on behalf of Patent Owner:
`13
`14 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`15 BY: MR. DOUGLAS J. KLINE
`16 MR. STEVE SCHREINER
`17 100 Northern Avenue
`18 Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`19 617-570-1209
`20 dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`21 sschreiner@goodwinlaw.com
`22
`23 ALSO PRESENT:
`24 MR. ERIC CAMPBELL, Videographer
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 MR. KLINE: Doug Kline of Goodwin for 09:19
`2 Personalized Media Communications, LLC; and with me 09:19
`3 is my partner Steve Schreiner. 09:19
`4 MR. MERKIN: Joel Merkin of Kirkland & Ellis 09:19
`5 on of behalf of the petitioner, Apple. 09:19
`6 (WHEREUPON, the witness was
`7 duly sworn.)
`8 ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`9 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`10 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`11 EXAMINATION
`12 BY MR. KLINE:
`13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Wechselberger. 09:19
`14 A. Good morning. 09:19
`15 Q. As you just heard, my name is Doug Kline, 09:19
`16 and I represent Personalized Media Communications, 09:19
`17 LLC, which I'll often refer to as PMC, in connection 09:19
`18 with the Petition for Inter Partes review that Apple 09:19
`19 filed against PMC's United States Patent 8,559,635. 09:19
`20 Could you tell us your name for the 09:19
`21 record, please? 09:19
`22 A. Anthony Wechselberger. 09:19
`23 Q. Where do you live, Mr. Wechselberger? 09:19
`24 A. I live in Escondido, California. 09:19
`25 Q. How long have you lived there? 09:19
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS:
`4 ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`5 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
`6 MR. KLINE 5
`
`EXHIBITS: DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`7 8 9
`
`10
`11 Exhibit 2019 Declaration of 111
`12 Anthony J.
`13 Wechselberger Under
`14 37 C.F.R. 1.68 In
`15 Support OF Petition
`16 for Inter Partes
`17 Review of U.S.
`18 Patent No. 8,559,635
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2020
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 2
`
`

`

`ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`1 A. About 35 years. 09:19
`2 Q. Any plans to move? 09:19
`3 A. Not from there. 09:19
`4 Q. Sure. 09:19
`5 I understand you've been deposed 09:19
`6 several times before; is that correct? 09:19
`7 A. Yes. 09:20
`8 Q. Right. So I'm sure anything I say to you 09:20
`9 in the next moment is going to be familiar with you, 09:20
`10 but I'm going to ask you a series of questions and 09:20
`11 ask that you answer the questions audibly as opposed 09:20
`12 to by physical gesture. Fair enough? 09:20
`13 A. Yes. 09:20
`14 Q. If you don't understand a question I ask 09:20
`15 you, please tell me that, and I'll try and rephrase 09:20
`16 it, or we can have the court reporter reread it or do 09:20
`17 whatever else we can to get it into a form that you 09:20
`18 understand it. 09:20
`19 Fair enough? 09:20
`20 A. Fair enough. 09:20
`21 Q. And I will violate this as often as maybe 09:20
`22 you will, but let's try to give one another an 09:20
`23 opportunity to complete what each of us is saying 09:20
`24 before the other begins to speak. 09:20
`25 Fair enough? 09:20
`
`1 K-h-a-n-n-a; and, from time to time, on the phone, we 09:21
`2 had Mr. Alan Rabinowitz, who was dialing in I believe 09:21
`3 from New York. 09:21
`4 Q. Anybody else attend those meetings? 09:21
`5 A. No. 09:21
`6 Q. So you mentioned something that I'm 09:21
`7 interested to know. 09:21
`8 When's the last time you reviewed 09:21
`9 your declaration that you submitted in connection 09:21
`10 with this IPR? 09:21
`11 A. The last time would have been last night. 09:21
`12 MR. KLINE: Okay. And maybe what we should 09:21
`13 do is -- I'm going to show it to you because you've 09:21
`14 submitted a few declarations for Apple adverse to 09:21
`15 PMC, so I want to make sure we're focused properly. 09:22
`16 And, Joel, I think -- and you -- if 09:22
`17 you disagree, tell me, because I want to make sure we 09:22
`18 do this right. 09:22
`19 We're not going to remark these. 09:22
`20 We're just going to refer to these as previously 09:22
`21 marked. 09:22
`22 MR. MERKIN: That's perfectly acceptable by 09:22
`23 me. 09:22
`24 MR. KLINE: Right. All right. Thanks. 09:22
`25 So I'm going to ask the court 09:22
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 A. Yes. 09:20
`2 Q. Right. And if you'd like to take a 09:20
`3 break, just let me know, and we'll like to -- if 09:20
`4 there's a question pending, we'll try to hear an 09:20
`5 answer to the question and take a break at the 09:20
`6 soonest next convenient spot. 09:20
`7 Fair enough? 09:20
`8 A. Yes. Fair. 09:20
`9 Q. Thank you. 09:20
`10 Did you do anything to prepare for 09:20
`11 your deposition here today? 09:20
`12 A. Yes. 09:20
`13 Q. What did you do? 09:20
`14 A. When I first got notice that the 09:20
`15 deposition was going to happen, since I hadn't worked 09:20
`16 on these materials in a while, I started doing some 09:20
`17 homework back at my home office, reviewing my 09:21
`18 declaration, the prior art. 09:21
`19 And then most recently I flew out on 09:21
`20 Tuesday for meetings here in Chicago with the 09:21
`21 Kirkland Ellis Group, so a day and a half of 09:21
`22 meetings.
`23 Q. Who was at those meetings? 09:21
`24 A. In person was Mr. Merkin, Joel, here to 09:21
`25 my right; another attorney named Rajat Khanna, 09:21
`Page 7
`
`1 reporter to hand to you a document previously marked 09:22
`2 as Apple Exhibit 1001. 09:22
`3 BY MR. KLINE: 09:22
`4 Q. Do you recognize that document, 09:22
`5 Mr. Wechselberger? 09:22
`6 A. I do. 09:22
`7 Q. What is it? 09:22
`8 A. It is the declaration that is the subject 09:22
`9 of today's deposition. 09:22
`10 Q. Right. Thank you. 09:22
`11 So if you turn to the last page, 09:22
`12 this is a little confusing, the page numbers on your 09:22
`13 declaration vary just a little from the page number 09:23
`14 of the exhibit, so I will try consistently to refer 09:23
`15 to the exhibit page number, but we'll try also 09:23
`16 consistently to refer to paragraph numbers so that 09:23
`17 we're on the same page. And, again, if there's 09:23
`18 confusion, just let me know. 09:23
`19 But on the last page of Apple 09:23
`20 Exhibit 1001, Page 96, is that your signature? 09:23
`21 A. It is. 09:23
`22 Q. And did you sign it on or around July 29 09:23
`23 of 2016? 09:23
`24 A. Yes. 09:23
`25 Q. Great. 09:23
`
`Page 9
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`PMC Exhibit 2020
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 3
`
`

`

`ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`1 So when -- when is the last time you 09:23
`2 read the declaration start to finish? Was that last 09:23
`3 night? 09:23
`4 A. Yes. 09:23
`5 Q. Okay. And before that when is the last 09:23
`6 time you had read it start to finish? 09:23
`7 A. On the airplane ride out here on Tuesday. 09:23
`8 Q. Great. Thank you. 09:23
`9 Who wrote the declaration? 09:23
`10 A. It was a collaborative effort. It's my 09:23
`11 deposition. I own all the opinions in it. I didn't 09:24
`12 write every word that's in this personally. 09:24
`13 Q. And you -- if I heard you right, you said 09:24
`14 it was a collaborative effort. Who participated in 09:24
`15 that collaborative effort? 09:24
`16 A. I think primarily Mr. Khanna. 09:24
`17 Q. He's the attorney at Kirkland you 09:24
`18 mentioned a moment ago? 09:24
`19 A. He is. 09:24
`20 Q. All right. Who wrote the first draft of 09:24
`21 it? Was there a first draft? 09:24
`22 A. There was a draft, which is -- my typical 09:24
`23 modus operandi is to modify the draft as we go 09:24
`24 forward. 09:24
`25 Q. So did you write the first draft, or did 09:24
`Page 10
`
`1 Mr. Khanna write the first draft? 09:24
`2 A. Like I say, it was a collaborative 09:24
`3 effort. I think it's fair to say that we both 09:24
`4 participated in it. 09:24
`5 Q. Who actually typed it out? 09:24
`6 A. Portions of it I typed, portions of it he 09:24
`7 typed. 09:24
`8 Q. What percentage of it did you type out 09:24
`9 the first draft for? 09:25
`10 A. Gee, I don't -- I don't remember. 09:25
`11 Q. More than half? 09:25
`12 A. More than -- perhaps half. 09:25
`13 Q. Okay. The parts that you didn't type 09:25
`14 out, did you discuss -- what did you do to ensure 09:25
`15 that they accurately reflected your own personal 09:25
`16 opinions? 09:25
`17 Do you need that back? I might have 09:25
`18 bungled it a little. 09:25
`19 A. Yes, please. 09:25
`20 Q. Sure. 09:25
`21 The parts of your declaration that 09:25
`22 you did not type out the first draft for, what, if 09:25
`23 anything, did you do to make sure those sections 09:25
`24 described your personal opinions? 09:25
`25 A. I would have read them. I would have 09:25
`Page 11
`
`1 basically made them mine by tweaking them or 09:25
`2 otherwise rewriting them until I was happy with them. 09:25
`3 Q. How did you decide -- strike that. 09:25
`4 Is it fair to say that your -- your 09:26
`5 declaration includes a section concerning your 09:26
`6 opinion related to the priority date the claims in 09:26
`7 PMC's '635 patent are entitled to? 09:26
`8 A. That took awhile to get out. Could I 09:26
`9 hear it one more time. 09:26
`10 Q. Is it fair to say that your declaration 09:26
`11 includes a section concerning your opinion related to 09:26
`12 the priority date that the claims in PMC's '635 09:26
`13 patent are entitled to? 09:26
`14 A. Yes. And opinion would be plural. I 09:26
`15 have opinions. 09:26
`16 Q. Sure. Thank you. Fair enough. 09:26
`17 And you have another section of your 09:26
`18 declaration that expresses your opinions concerning 09:26
`19 whether the claims -- certain claims of PMC's '635 09:26
`20 patent are novel and un-obvious over certain prior 09:26
`21 art; right? 09:27
`22 A. Opinions on invalidity, yes. 09:27
`23 Q. Right. So that's great. 09:27
`24 So we have a priority section of 09:27
`25 your declaration; right? 09:27
`
`Page 12
`
`1 A. Yes. 09:27
`2 Q. And we have an invalidity section of your 09:27
`3 declaration; right? 09:27
`4 A. Yes. 09:27
`5 Q. And then we also have some general 09:27
`6 background information that's in a section of your 09:27
`7 declaration; right? 09:27
`8 A. That is correct. 09:27
`9 Q. Right. 09:27
`10 How did you go about forming an 09:27
`11 opinion concerning the priority date that PMC's '635 09:27
`12 patent claims are entitled to? 09:27
`13 MR. MERKIN: Object to the form. 09:27
`14 MR. KLINE: What's the objection, Joel. 09:27
`15 MR. MERKIN: Vague and ambiguous. Go about. 09:27
`16 MR. KLINE: Okay. Fair enough. Thanks. 09:27
`17 THE WITNESS: What's the standing question? 09:27
`18 BY MR. KLINE: 09:27
`19 Q. How did you go about forming an opinion 09:27
`20 concerning the priority date that the challenged 09:27
`21 claims of PMC's '635 patent are entitled to? 09:27
`22 MR. MERKIN: Same objection. 09:28
`23 BY THE WITNESS: 09:28
`24 A. I think I was asked to provide opinions 09:28
`25 on certain characteristics of the challenged claims, 09:28
`
`Page 13
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`PMC Exhibit 2020
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 4
`
`

`

`ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`1 and having been asked about them, I would then study 09:28
`2 the -- the two patents at issue, which is the '635 09:28
`3 and comparing it to the '490, the original November 09:28
`4 '81 patent, and then develop my opinions from there. 09:28
`5 BY MR. KLINE: 09:28
`6 Q. Did you take into consideration in your 09:28
`7 priority analysis how the claims -- how any terms of 09:28
`8 the challenged claims ought to be construed? 09:28
`9 A. I was provided with -- when it came to 09:28
`10 claim construction issues, I was provided 09:28
`11 constructions to assume. Otherwise I used plain and 09:29
`12 ordinary meaning. 09:29
`13 Q. Plain and ordinary to whom? 09:29
`14 A. To one of ordinary skill in the art. 09:29
`15 Q. When? 09:29
`16 A. Under the BRI principles. 09:29
`17 Q. I'm sorry. 09:29
`18 Plain and ordinary meaning to one of 09:29
`19 ordinary skill in the art under the BRI principles 09:29
`20 when? 09:29
`21 A. Well, the '635, the argument was whether 09:29
`22 the '635 had a -- was eligible for an '87 priority 09:29
`23 date, and so I would have looked at it from that -- 09:29
`24 that point in time. 09:30
`25 Q. Well, in truth, the dispute is whether 09:30
`
`Page 14
`
`1 the priority date of the challenged claims of the 09:31
`2 '635 patent, you considered the perspective of a 09:31
`3 person of ordinary skill in the art in 1987; correct? 09:31
`4 A. Reading the '635 patent, yes, in '87. 09:31
`5 Q. All right. You did not consider the 09:31
`6 perspective -- strike that. 09:31
`7 Your declaration does not report 09:31
`8 that you considered the perspective of a person of 09:31
`9 ordinary skill in the art as of 1981; isn't that 09:31
`10 correct? 09:32
`11 MR. MERKIN: Objection to form. 09:32
`12 THE WITNESS: Question again, please. 09:32
`13 BY MR. KLINE: 09:32
`14 Q. Your declaration does not report that you 09:32
`15 considered the perspective of a person of ordinary 09:32
`16 skill in the art as of the 1981 filing date; isn't 09:32
`17 that correct? 09:32
`18 MR. MERKIN: Objection to form. 09:32
`19 BY THE WITNESS: 09:32
`20 A. Not entirely. 09:32
`21 As I explain in Paragraph 80 on 09:33
`22 Page 36 of my declaration where I explain that, for 09:33
`23 the reasons explained below, the challenged claims of 09:33
`24 the '635 patent are not supported by the written 09:33
`25 description in the '490 patent; and are, therefore, 09:33
`Page 16
`
`1 the '635 challenged claims are entitled to an '81 09:30
`2 priority date. 09:30
`3 You understand that; right? 09:30
`4 A. Yes. 09:30
`5 Q. Right. And the '81 filing date -- well, 09:30
`6 strike that. 09:30
`7 So you understand that -- strike 09:30
`8 that. 09:30
`9 So you reached the conclusion that 09:30
`10 the challenged claims of the '635 patent are entitled 09:30
`11 only to the benefit of the 1987 filing date; correct? 09:30
`12 A. Correct. 09:30
`13 Q. You concluded that the challenged claims 09:30
`14 of the '635 patent are not entitled to the benefit of 09:30
`15 PMC's 1981 filing date; correct? 09:30
`16 A. Yes. 09:30
`17 Q. And you understand that that 1981 filing 09:30
`18 date is based on a specification that PMC filed that 09:30
`19 issued as the '490 patent; right? 09:31
`20 A. Yes. 09:31
`21 Q. And in 1987 PMC filed a continuation-in- 09:31
`22 part application claiming benefit of the application 09:31
`23 that led to issuance of the '490 patent; correct? 09:31
`24 A. That's my understanding, yes. 09:31
`25 Q. All right. So for purposes of assessing 09:31
`Page 15
`
`1 not entitled to a priority date earlier than 09:33
`2 September 11 '87, the filing date of the 09:33
`3 continuation-in-part application. 09:33
`4 And so in analyzing whether the 09:33
`5 claims are -- were or were not supported by the 09:33
`6 written description of the '490 patent, I would have 09:33
`7 also examined them in light of that earlier patent 09:33
`8 and what one of ordinary skill in the art would think 09:33
`9 in the earlier date. 09:34
`10 Q. Could you look at Paragraph 8 of your 09:34
`11 declaration, please. It's at Page 6 of the exhibit. 09:34
`12 Do you have that? 09:34
`13 A. Page 2, Paragraph 8, yes. 09:34
`14 Q. You wrote "In forming the opinions 09:34
`15 expressed in this declaration, I relied upon my 09:34
`16 education, training, knowledge, and experience in the 09:34
`17 relevant field of the art and have considered the 09:34
`18 viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the 09:34
`19 art" -- in the relevant art -- "as of September 11, 09:34
`20 1987." 09:34
`21 Did I read that correctly? 09:34
`22 A. Yes. 09:34
`23 Q. All right. You never said in your 09:34
`24 declaration that you considered the viewpoint of a 09:34
`25 person having ordinary skill in the relevant art as 09:34
`Page 17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2020
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 5
`
`

`

`ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`1 of 1981; isn't that correct? 09:34
`2 A. This paragraph doesn't -- doesn't mention 09:34
`3 that. 09:34
`4 Q. In fact, nowhere do you say that you 09:34
`5 considered the perspective of a person having 09:34
`6 ordinary skill in the art as of 1981; do you? 09:34
`7 A. Well, I just testified that one would 09:35
`8 need to in order to understand the '490 patent. 09:35
`9 Q. Well, I agree one would need to. 09:35
`10 But your declaration doesn't say 09:35
`11 that you did. It says that you considered the 09:35
`12 perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the 09:35
`13 relevant art as of September 11, 1987; isn't that 09:35
`14 right?
`15 A. I certainly did that. 09:35
`16 Q. Right. 09:35
`17 A. But, in fairness, I also did that for 09:35
`18 understanding the '490 patent. 09:35
`19 Q. Well, you say, "in fairness." 09:35
`20 In fairness all I have to go on is 09:35
`21 what you wrote in your declaration, so that's what 09:35
`22 I'd like to understand. 09:35
`23 Your declaration does not say that 09:35
`24 you considered the perspective of a person of 09:35
`25 ordinary skill in the art in 1991; isn't that 09:35
`Page 18
`
`1 answer. 09:37
`2 BY MR. KLINE:
`3 Q. So --
`4 MR. MERKIN: He wasn't -- 09:37
`5 THE WITNESS: I wasn't done. 09:37
`6 BY THE WITNESS:
`7 A. (Continuing.) -- I just wanted to 09:37
`8 punctuate that answer by saying I can tell you I did. 09:37
`9 BY MR. KLINE: 09:37
`10 Q. Okay. Well, what I'd like to understand 09:37
`11 is what your declaration disclosed to us in fairness 09:37
`12 rather than things that you claim now to have done 09:37
`13 but did not disclose. 09:37
`14 So when I ask what your declaration 09:37
`15 reports, that's the focus of my question, not what 09:37
`16 you might come here today to say that you did that is 09:37
`17 extra to your declaration. 09:37
`18 Do you understand my perspective? 09:37
`19 MR. MERKIN: Objection. Form. 09:37
`20 BY THE WITNESS: 09:37
`21 A. I understand your perspective. 09:37
`22 BY MR. KLINE:
`23 Q. Okay. Thank you. 09:37
`24 So claim construction -- so you 09:37
`25 mention in an earlier answer that you were provided 09:37
`Page 20
`
`1 correct? 09:35
`2 MR. MERKIN: Objection. Form. 09:35
`3 BY THE WITNESS: 09:35
`4 A. Well, let me go back and look at what I 09:35
`5 was looking at earlier. Perhaps it does elaborate. 09:35
`6 It certainly does not in 09:36
`7 Paragraph 8, but I'm not going to... 09:36
`8 Well, what I can tell you sitting 09:36
`9 here today is that in order to fully understand a 09:36
`10 claim element through the lens of the '490 patent one 09:36
`11 would have to look at that as an earlier date. You 09:36
`12 just have to. 09:36
`13 BY MR. KLINE: 09:36
`14 Q. I agree you have to. But from reading 09:36
`15 your declaration it seems to suggest you did not 09:36
`16 because you said you did it from the perspective of 09:36
`17 1987. 09:36
`18 A. Well -- 09:36
`19 Q. Isn't that right? 09:36
`20 MR. MERKIN: Objection. Form. 09:36
`21 BY THE WITNESS: 09:36
`22 A. That's what Paragraph 2 says. I -- 09:36
`23 BY MR. KLINE: 09:37
`24 Q. Thank you. Thank you. 09:37
`25 MR. MERKIN: Counsel, you interrupted his 09:37
`Page 19
`
`1 with certain claim constructions. 09:37
`2 Do I have that -- do I recall that 09:37
`3 correctly? 09:37
`4 A. I think I said that I was asked to assume 09:38
`5 certain constructions. 09:38
`6 Q. Fair enough. Thank you. 09:38
`7 A. That I personally was not asked to 09:38
`8 participate in forming opinions on claim 09:38
`9 construction. 09:38
`10 Q. So there are places where you say -- 09:38
`11 where you make reference to PMC's construction or 09:38
`12 arguments PMC has made about construction. 09:38
`13 You recall in places in your 09:38
`14 declaration you do that; right? 09:38
`15 A. There are places in my declaration which 09:38
`16 mention PMC proposed constructions. 09:38
`17 Q. Right. 09:38
`18 And there were places in your 09:38
`19 declaration where you mention Apple's construction. 09:38
`20 Do you recall that? 09:38
`21 A. I do. 09:38
`22 Q. How did you decide when to use PMC's 09:38
`23 proposed construction and when to use Apple's 09:38
`24 proposed construction? 09:38
`25 A. I don't understand the -- when you say 09:38
`
`Page 21
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`PMC Exhibit 2020
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 6
`
`

`

`ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`1 when -- what -- that I used, what do you mean? 09:38
`2 Q. Well, you understand to, for example, 09:38
`3 determine priority, a first step would be to 09:38
`4 understand what -- how claim terms would be construed 09:39
`5 in the relevant timeframe; correct? 09:39
`6 A. Correct. 09:39
`7 Q. And, for example, to assess validity, a 09:39
`8 first step in that exercise would be to make a 09:39
`9 judgment concerning how claim terms would be 09:39
`10 construed in the relevant time period; correct? 09:39
`11 A. Yes. 09:39
`12 Q. But sometimes you use for your analysis 09:39
`13 PMC's claim construction and other times you use for 09:39
`14 your analysis Apple's construction; isn't that 09:39
`15 correct? 09:39
`16 A. Well, again, I don't understand used. 09:39