SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`GOOGLE INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, U.S.A., INC.,
` LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.A.A., INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`v.
`RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01522
`Patent Number: 6,151,493
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 1
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`May 17, 2017
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`GOOGLE INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, U.S.A., INC.,
` LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.A.A., INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`v.
`RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01522
`Patent Number: 6,151,493
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 1
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`2
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`For the Patent Owner
` NELSON BUMGARDNER
` BY: TOM C. CECIL
` Attorney at Law
` 3131 West 7th
` Suite 300
` Fort Worth, Texas 76107
` tom@nelbum.com
`
`For the Petitioners
` ROPES & GRAY LLP
` BY: KATHRYN N. HONG
` Attorney at Law
` 1900 University Avenue, 6th floor
` East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
` kathryn.hong@ropesgray.com
`
`/////
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 2
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`3
`
` INDEX
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
` Examination by: Page
` MR. CECIL 4, 75
` MS. HONG 73
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`Number Description Page
`
`Exhibit 1001 '493 patent 20
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Dr. 37
` Quackenbush
`Exhibit 1004 Yamamoto reference 44
`Exhibit 1006 Takeuchi document 62
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 3
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.,
` called as a witness, having been first
` duly sworn by Jeffrey Benz, a Notary
` Public within and for the State of New
` York, was examined and testified as
` follows:
`EXAMINATION BY MR. CECIL:
` Q. Dr. Quackenbush, would you please state
`your full name for the record.
` A. I am Schuyler Quackenbush.
` Q. And have you been deposed before?
` A. I have.
` Q. About how many times?
` A. More than ten.
` Q. All as an expert in patent litigation?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. You understand that your testimony today is
`under oath?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there anything, such as an illness or
`medication, that would prevent you from providing
`full and accurate testimony today?
` A. There is not.
` Q. Who retained you in this case?
` A. Ropes & Gray.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 4
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. And are you working for Google?
` A. So in terms of follow the money, I'm
`getting paid by Google, but I interact with Ropes &
`Gray.
` Q. Are you -- are you also represented -- or
`being paid by LG?
` A. No.
` Q. Are there other entities, other than Google
`and Ropes & Gray, that are involved in the follow the
`money that you describe?
` A. No.
` Q. Who did you speak with -- strike that.
` Did you speak with anyone to prepare for
`your testimony today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Other than attorneys for Google and Ropes &
`Gray, have you spoken with anyone in preparation for
`today?
` A. No.
` Q. It's Dr. Quackenbush; is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And what did you earn your Ph.D. in?
` A. Electrical engineering.
` Q. And where did you earn that?
` A. Georgia Tech.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 5
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Did you write a dissertation?
` A. I did.
` Q. And what was your dissertation in?
` A. Objective measures of speech quality.
` Q. Have you ever been involved in radio system
`design?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How have you been involved in radio system
`design?
` A. So when I was at Bell Labs, I participated
`in a digital audio broadcast project. I worked on
`the audio coding subsystem, but I was on the team and
`aware of all teamwork, that was audio subsystem,
`modem, radio transmitter, and receivers. And that
`was a hardware real time system.
` Q. Have you ever designed an entire radio
`system? Let me strike that. That's a bad question.
`Let me strike that.
` Have you ever designed an entire radio
`device?
` A. I am aware of how that works based on, for
`example, this project, but it was not my duty to
`design those components.
` Q. If asked, could you design a portable
`radio?
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 6
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. I think so.
` Q. Could you design a system as claimed in the
`Sasakura patent?
` A. Yes, I could.
` Q. How do you refer to the patent? Do you
`call it the '493 or Sasakura or what?
` A. I've been calling it the '493.
` Q. Let's use '493 just to -- there's another
`one called Sakakura, and I don't want to get --
` A. Yes, indeed, so '493 is good.
` Q. Would you consider the '493 a two-way radio
`system?
` A. So my understanding of '493 is first and
`foremost it's a system for preventing the theft of a
`portable device, for example, a phone.
` Q. And does the '493 disclose having two
`devices which communicate with one another?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. So '493 in its Claim 1 discloses device and
`electronic device. That's two.
` Q. And do those two devices communicate with
`one another?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. So, yes, they do.
` Q. Would you call that a two-way radio system?
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 7
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. The communication I spoke of in the brief
`as reply is not radio, by my understanding.
` Q. What is it? What is it?
` A. My understanding is that in one of the
`claims of '493, it's spoken that the device transmits
`to the electronic device, and that could encompass a
`wire.
` Q. How would you characterize the system of
`the '493 patent in Claim 1 in terms of its
`communication capabilities?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. If you want to put it in front of me, I can
`go through Claim 1, and we can review that.
` Q. But you don't want to characterize it
`without it in front of you?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. I said, how would you characterize the
`system of the '493 patent in Claim 1 in terms of its
`communication capabilities?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. Okay. So, I mean, there's many
`communication capabilities in this theft protection
`system. It discloses that there are in some
`embodiments FM radio transmission. There's
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 8
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`communication that is an alarm, auditory alarm or a
`light, I believe, to a person. So there's many
`levels of communication. There's the -- I mean,
`implicitly, there's cell phone communication,
`although that's not front and center.
` Q. Have you ever designed a two-way radio
`system where you have one device with a transmitter
`and receiver and another device with a transmitter
`and receiver, and they communicate with one another?
` A. So I have not -- all of my work has been
`involved in broadcast systems, and so either --
` MR. CECIL: If we go off the record for a
`moment.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` Q. Have you ever designed a two-way radio
`system where you have one device with a transmitter
`and receiver and another device with a transmitter
`and receiver, and they communicate with one another?
` A. All of my work has been with broadcast
`radio systems with a receiver, the other device has a
`transmitter.
` Q. Do you know how to design a two-way radio
`system?
` A. Yes, I think that it is merely the
`duplication of the one-way functionality in both
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 9
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`systems.
` Q. In the design of a two-way radio system, is
`transmitter strength an important design
`consideration?
` A. Well, for example, in my work on digital
`audio broadcast, transmitter strength directly
`corresponds to region of coverage. So it's important
`in terms of market share and coverage, and that
`corresponds to number of listeners. So it has an
`importance in considering commercial viability or
`commercial marketing of a service.
` Q. And in that regard, that answer you just
`gave, you're referring to broadcast systems?
` A. That's a radio system.
` Q. But it's not a two-way radio system?
` A. It's immaterial. It's a transmitter and a
`receiver, so it's immaterial whether it's one-way or
`two-way.
` Q. Is form factor an important design
`consideration in designing a two-way radio system?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. It could be in certain product
`applications.
` Q. How so?
` A. Well -- I'm sorry, could you repeat the
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 10
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`question?
` Q. I asked if form factor was an important
`design consideration in designing a two-way radio
`system?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. So going back to the example of digital
`audio broadcast, form factor and transmitter is
`typically not a factor. I mean, it can't be an
`entire building but it can be an entire room.
` And we know that with radio receivers in
`the FM band, for example, there may be home
`appliances, car appliances, and portable appliances,
`all of which may have different form factor needs
`imposed. So it is an issue in certain products.
` Q. In portable radio systems, is battery life
`an important design consideration?
` A. It may be.
` Q. Why may it be?
` A. Well, it depends how the user will use the
`device. So if a battery lasts one day, maybe that's
`perfectly sufficient. There may be other cases where
`the expectation is that the battery lasts years.
` Q. What's a situation in which there's an
`expectation that a battery lasts years?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. Scope.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 11
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Well, my garage door opener, I don't have
`an expectation that that radio transmitter needs to
`have its batteries serviced on a daily basis.
` Q. Is reliability an important design factor
`in -- strike that.
` Is reliability an important design
`consideration in the design of a two-way radio
`system?
` A. Generally reliability is an important
`consideration in all system designs, including this
`radio broadcast application.
` Q. Is designing for radio broadcast
`applications different from designing for two
`portable radios?
` A. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
` Q. Is designing for radio broadcast
`applications different from designing for two
`portable radios?
` A. So my understanding is, if I'm considering
`radio broadcast, there may be hundreds, thousands,
`millions of portable radios I wish to reach, not just
`two.
` Q. And how is that different from designing
`for two portable devices that are communicating with
`one another?
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 12
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. I guess I fail to see in -- there's a
`portable radio which is a receiver, it may have
`certain constraints imposed. I think they're the
`same in broadcast with the receiver.
` So can you clarify these two radios? I
`want to kind of get a sense of what you're asking
`there.
` Q. Let's get on the same page. Let's say I
`have a device, and it's got a transmitter and
`receiver. Okay? Just in isolation.
` A. Acknowledged.
` Q. What would you call that device?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. Scope.
` A. I don't know. What do we want to call it?
` Q. What do you typically call a device with a
`transmitter and receiver?
` A. It might be called a transceiver.
` Q. Transceiver. Okay.
` Now let's introduce into that system
`another device with a radio -- or with a transmitter
`and receiver.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So that would be the second transceiver, is
`that a fair terminology to use right now?
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 13
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. And we'll -- if you have two transceivers
`and they communicate with one another, how would you
`characterize -- is there a term that you use to
`characterize that system generally?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. Scope.
` A. An example might be walkie-talkie.
` Q. Now that's an example?
` A. That's what I said.
` Q. Is there a generic term, other than
`walkie-talkie?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. Well, I told you there was a -- the
`transceiver term --
` Q. How would I describe two transceivers which
`communicate with one another?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. I don't know that there's an overarching
`word that says, and here is the category. I talked
`about a transceiver. We can look at walkie-talkie as
`an example. Now, it's not clear to me that cell
`phones are an example, because there's an
`intermediary -- possibly an intermediary network.
` Q. All right. Well, let's talk about two
`transceivers in communication with one another.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 14
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Okay? How are two transceivers communicating with
`one another different from a broadcast system?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. Each device has both a broadcast -- a
`transmitter and a receiver.
` Q. In the two transceiver system?
` A. Well, each device is a transceiver, and
`hence has a transmitter and a receiver.
` Q. But in the broadcast system, each device
`does not have a transmitter and receiver?
` A. Well, the broadcast system consists of a
`transmitter and receiver. The portable device has
`the receiver, but the -- the notion of broadcast is
`still well understood.
` Q. What is TDMA?
` A. Time division multiple access.
` Q. How does TDMA work?
` A. So an example of TDMA may be best way to
`motivate how it works. So in a TDMA system,
`communication between, let's say, entities is
`assigned a time slot. And there may be multiple time
`slots in a TDMA system, permitting multiple pairs
`of -- of entities to communicate.
` Q. You said multiple pairs of entities?
` A. It could be one entity is the same, but
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 15
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`that's what I said, it's also in most general cases
`multiple pairs.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` Q. In the TDMA system you said entities are
`each assigned a time slot?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And do they then communicate on those time
`slots?
` A. They communicate during that time slot.
` Q. If there was a frame, is it then divided
`into -- let's say there's two entities. There's a
`frame, and it's divided into slots A and B. Is it
`correct that device -- sorry, entity A would
`communicate during slot A and entity B would
`communicate during slot B?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. Do you mean to imply that entity A and B
`communicate with each other?
` Q. Not necessarily with one another. That
`they're communicating, they're assigned a time slot,
`right?
` A. So let me repeat. Entities can be assigned
`time slots, and those entities that -- typically two
`entities are assigned a single time slot, and in that
`slot they communicate.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 16
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. So entity A has been assigned time
`slot A. Can we make that assumption?
` A. Okay.
` Q. And then entity B has been assigned time
`slot B.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And a frame comprises time slot A and then
`time slot B.
` A. Understood.
` Q. So does entity A communicate during time
`slot A?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. Scope.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And does entity A transmit in each instance
`of time slot A?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. Scope.
` A. Not -- not -- first of all, we haven't made
`the assumption that entity A either transmits or
`receives, so we can make that further assumption.
`And in general, it doesn't have to transmit
`information in every time slot.
` Q. Dr. Quackenbush, do you understand the '493
`patent?
` A. I do.
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 17
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Do you understand the claims?
` A. I have reviewed the claims.
` Q. What's claimed in Claim 1 of the '493
`patent?
` A. Can you -- can I see the '493 so we can
`discuss that?
` Q. I just want to know what's claimed in
`the -- in Claim 1.
` A. I think if we're going to discuss
`specifics, I would like to have it in front of me.
` Q. So sitting here today, you can't tell me
`what's claimed in Claim 1 of the '493 patent?
` A. So I go by my previous statement that
`Claim 1 concerns a system for preventing or alerting
`to the theft of a portable electronic device, theft
`or loss of a portable electronic device.
` Q. What are the key aspects of that system?
` MS. HONG: Counsel, Dr. Quackenbush has
`requested to see the '493. Are you able to provide
`it to him?
` MR. CECIL: I just want to ask him what are
`the key aspects of the system. I don't know if this
`requires having the claim in front of him right now.
` A. I did request, so can you comply?
` Q. I'm not going to give you the patent right
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 18
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`now. I want you to tell me what are the key aspects
`of the '493 patent, Claim 1?
` A. I will repeat. It's a system for
`preventing the theft or alerting to the loss of a
`portable electronic device, for example, a cell
`phone.
` Q. How does it do that?
` A. It has -- it claims, let us say, technology
`such that the system can discern when a card, let's
`say, that the user might have in their shirt pocket
`is more than a distance away from another module,
`which might be -- which is associated with the
`portable electronic device.
` And so when those two components, the card
`in my shirt pocket, let's say, and the component
`associated with the portal electronic device are
`separated by more than some distance, an alarm is
`activated in both -- on both of these -- in both of
`these modules. It's not clear where it is either in
`the module or the portable electronic device and in
`the card in my shirt pocket.
` Q. So there are two signals that are -- are
`communicated between the portable electronic device
`and the module, right?
` A. Certainly signals go back and forth.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 19
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. And they're two claimed signals?
` A. That's my recollection.
` Q. So for this -- I think there's an
`identification code signal; is that right?
` A. Let's say it's an identification signal,
`because I don't have the patent in front of me so I
`don't want -- I don't have the wording.
` Q. I don't want to get hung up on this. I'm
`not trying to trip you up on anything. Here is
`what's been previously marked as Exhibit 1001.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. I do.
` Q. What is this document?
` A. This is the patent in suit which we would
`call the '493 patent.
` Q. Okay. And let's take a look at Column 9.
` You see that Claim 1 starts at line 31?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. So do you see on line 35 it says,
`Identification code signal. 34, 35.
` A. I do see that.
` Q. And then below that, around line 41 to 42,
`there's a confirmation signal. Do you see that?
` A. I do.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 20
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. So would you agree that Claim 1 has
`both an identification code signal and a confirmation
`signal?
` A. Those two signals are components of
`Claim 1.
` Q. And are those used to prevent theft in this
`system?
` A. So they are certainly components of the
`system for, let us say, theft prevention or loss
`prevention.
` Q. How was the identification code used within
`this system? Strike that. I'm sorry. That was a
`bad question.
` How is the identification code signal used
`within the system?
` A. So in this system it's recited that the
`first transmitter transmits the identification code
`signal. The second receiver receives the
`identification code signal. And while the received
`identification code signal is above -- while the
`received identification code signal is above a
`predetermined value, the electronic device is
`maintained as operational. And should it fall below
`that value, the electronic device is at least
`partially disabled.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 21
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. So you've got an electronic device
`which has a transmitter that sends the identification
`code signal, right?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. What do we have?
` You're right. Pardon me. I should say, we
`have a device that contains an identification code
`signal, correct?
` I'm sorry. One more time. Let me try to
`say it the right way. We have a device which
`contains a transmitter for transmitting an
`identification code signal; is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you keeping
`me honest.
` There's a use prohibition canceling unit
`which has a receiver; is that correct?
` A. That is correct. A so-called second
`receiver.
` Q. And the second receiver receives that
`identification code signal?
` A. That is what that limitation recites.
` Q. Okay. So when that signal is above a
`predetermined value, the -- the electronic device is
`maintained in an operational state; is that right?
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 22
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. That is correct. That's the last
`limitation.
` Q. And if it falls below that predetermined
`value, the received strength falls below that
`predetermined value, it will then disable the
`electronic device; is that right?
` MS. HONG: Objection to form.
` A. So I'm getting that part. Can you repeat?
`Because it's complicated. I want to get the wording
`correct.
` Q. Sure. Sure.
` So when the received identification code
`signal is below the predetermined value, the
`electronic device is at least partially disabled; is
`that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. So is the identification code signal used
`in this theft detention -- theft detention, pardon
`me, theft prevention system?
` A. Yes, it plays a role in the whole system
`functionality.
` Q. And in order for this system to prevent
`theft, how often does that -- that identification
`code signal need to be sent?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 23
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Let me read the claim to get the right
`answer.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. I think that is unstated.
` Q. If you were designing a system that was
`meant to prevent theft of this sort, how often would
`you require the signal to be sent?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. That's a design choice. I think that art
`that is brought forward in my declaration mentions
`anything from very frequently to a second to five
`minutes.
` Q. When you say "very frequently," could you
`give me a sense of the time scale you're talking
`about?
` A. Well, let's say for human judgment it could
`be continuously.
` Q. If you designed a system where it
`transmitted only once every 45 minutes, would that be
`effective at preventing theft?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. Scope.
` A. So remember that -- let's see what the
`abstract says.
` (The record was read back.)
` A. So my recollection, and I stated this
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 24
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`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
`
`previously, the system in the '493 patent is used to
`prevent theft or loss. So it's -- it's -- it's a
`kind of a sense of, at what point do you want to
`signal loss? And 45 minutes might be fine.
` Q. Do you think a month would be effective at
`signaling loss?
` MS. HONG: Same objection.
` A. Probably not. I think I would find out
`that it was gone prior to a month elapsing, without
`the need for this invention.
` Q. So earlier you said you thought you could
`design a system like the '493 patent. Do you
`remember that?
` A. I don't. Can you read it back? Because I
`know we discussed designing radios and such, and I
`just want to see what it is that you recollect. What
`was my statement?
` Q. I kind of want to know that, too.
` I said, Could you design a system as
`claimed in the Sasakura patent? And you said, Yes, I
`could. Do you recall that?
` A. I don't recall that, but we had a lot of
`discussion even so far today.
` Q. Do you still believe that you could design
`a system as claimed in the Sasakura patent?
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 25
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. If you designed such a system, what time
`interval would you require for the identification
`code signals to be transmitted?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form. And scope.
` A. So I -- in my declaration, which this
`deposition is all about, I don't offer any opinions
`concerning your question. So I don't have -- I did
`not address in my declaration the answer to that
`question. And while I maintain that I am able to do
`so, I would rather not offer an opinion on that at
`this time.
` Q. Do you think a -- strike that.
` Did you allege that any of the references
`you reviewed anticipated the '493 patent?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Form.
` A. I -- I think it would be best to review the
`declaration.
` Q. You don't recall if you --
` A. But from memory, it is not the case that
`the art I brought forward is cited for anticipating.
` Q. So one of the references that you referred
`to in your declaration is the Yamamoto reference. Do
`you recall that reference?
` A. I do.
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICES
`972-719-5000
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL. v. RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2004 - 26
`Quackenbush Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01522
`
`
`
`SCHUYLER QUACKENBUSH, Ph.D.
`May 17, 2017
`
`27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Did you assert that the Yamamoto reference
`anticipated the '493 patent?
` A. I recollect that everything brought forward
`was under the umbrella of obviousness.
` Q. Why wouldn't you say that the Yamamoto
`reference anticipates the '493 patent?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Scope.
` A. My understanding is that if a reference,
`plus what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand, discloses every limitation of a claim,
`that is nevertheless an obviousness situation, and
`now we're kind of talking legal terms, so, you know,
`obvious is some number and some loss, let's just call
`it obviousness.
` Q. Okay. Well, before we get to obviousness,
`I want to know what elements you thought you were
`missing from the Yamamoto reference such that you say
`it didn't anticipate?
` MS. HONG: Objection. Scope.
` A. I think that's amply laid out in my
`declaration. I would like to see that so that I can
`answer the question truthfully, because I did not
`memorize my declaration.
` MS. HONG: Counsel, are you going to
`provide Dr. Quackenbush with a copy of his
`
`CSI GLOBAL DEPOSITION SERVICE
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
