`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · ·_____________
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · ·SONY CORPORATION,
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · ·_____________
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-01639
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · ·_____________
`
`16· · · · · · · · · Patent No. 9,282,396 B2
`
`17· · · · · · · · Issue Date: March 8, 2016
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`19
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF JOHN MORING
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · May 24, 2017
`
`22· · · · · · · · · ·New York, New York
`
`23
`
`24· ·Reported by:
`· · ·Eileen Mulvenna, CSR/RMR/CRR
`25· ·Job No. 10033304
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 1
`
`One-E-Way Ex. 2006
`Sony Corporation v. One-E-Way, Inc.
`IPR2016-1639
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · One Broadway
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · New York, New York
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · May 24, 2017
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:00 a.m.
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION of JOHN MORING
`
`·6· ·in the above-titled action, held at the above time
`
`·7· ·and place, before Eileen Mulvenna, CSR/RMR/CRR,
`
`·8· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered Merit
`
`·9· ·Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary
`
`10· ·Public of the State of New York.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·2
`
`·3
`· · · · · KNOBBE MARTENS
`·4· · · · Attorneys for the Patent Owner
`· · · · · · · · 2040 Main Street
`·5· · · · · · · 14th Floor
`· · · · · · · · Irvine, California· 92614
`·6· · · · BY:· ·DOUG MUEHLHAUSER, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · dgm@kmob.com
`·7· · · · · · · PAYSON LE MEILLEUR, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · pjl@kmob.com
`·8
`
`·9
`· · · · · ANDREWS KURTH KENYON
`10· · · · Attorneys for Petitioner
`· · · · · · · · One Broadway
`11· · · · · · · New York, New York· 10004-1007
`· · · · · BY:· ·PAUL T. QUALEY, ESQ.
`12· · · · · · · pqualey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`· · · · · · · · KSENIA TAKHISTOVA, ESQ.
`13· · · · · · · ktakhistova@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`·2· ·WITNESS· · · · EXAMINATION BY· · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3
`· · ·JOHN MORING
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · ·MR. MUEHLHAUSER - CROSS· · · · ·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY - REDIRECT· · · · · 94
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·9
`
`10· ·Exhibit 2005· Notice of Deposition· · · · · 7
`
`11· ·Exhibit 1013· Declaration of John Moring· · 7
`
`12· ·Exhibit 1006· US Patent 6,563,892· · · · · ·9
`
`13· ·Exhibit 1007· Haartsen Paper· · · · · · · · 9
`
`14· ·Exhibit 1009· Giannakis paper· · · · · · · 40
`
`15· ·Exhibit 1001· US Patent 8,382,396· · · · · 89
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 4
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·JOHN MORING,
`
`·2· · · having been duly sworn by Eileen Mulvenna,
`
`·3· · · a Notary Public of the State of New York,
`
`·4· · · was examined and testified as follows:
`
`·5· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`·6· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·7· · · · · Q.· · ·State your name and address for the
`
`·8· ·record, please.
`
`·9· · · · · A.· · ·John Moring.· 107 Woodshadow Lane,
`
`10· ·Encinitas, California 92024.
`
`11· · · · · Q.· · ·Good morning, Mr. Moring.
`
`12· · · · · A.· · ·Good morning.
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Can I make my appearance?
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·MR. MUEHLHAUSER:· I'm sorry.· Yes.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Paul Qualey from Andrews
`
`16· · · · · Kurth Kenyon for Sony Corporation and the
`
`17· · · · · witness.· And with me is Ksenia Takhistova.
`
`18· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`19· · · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· We'll start.
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·So my name is Doug Muehlhauser.· I'm
`
`21· ·an attorney with Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear.· And
`
`22· ·Payson LeMeilleur, my colleague, is with me.· And
`
`23· ·we're representing the patent owner in the inter
`
`24· ·partes review, 1639.
`
`25· · · · · · · · ·Have you had your deposition taken
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 5
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·before?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·Once.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·One time.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·What was that matter?
`
`·5· · · · · A.· · ·The matter was before the US Patent
`
`·6· ·Office.· So I was deposed at the Patent Office in
`
`·7· ·technology related to networking equipment.
`
`·8· · · · · Q.· · ·Was that an inter partes review
`
`·9· ·matter?
`
`10· · · · · A.· · ·No, it was not.
`
`11· · · · · Q.· · ·What kind of matter was it?
`
`12· · · · · A.· · ·I'm not sure if I can describe the
`
`13· ·legalities of it, but essentially my client was --
`
`14· ·had brought suit against the Patent Office toward
`
`15· ·getting a patent -- an application reconsidered.
`
`16· · · · · Q.· · ·I see.· Okay.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·Did that in any way involve Bluetooth?
`
`18· · · · · A.· · ·No.
`
`19· · · · · Q.· · ·As we go forward today in the
`
`20· ·questioning, I may at times refer to a person of
`
`21· ·ordinary skill in the art.· I just want to be clear
`
`22· ·with you that when I do that, if I do that, I'll be
`
`23· ·referring to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`24· ·as you have defined a person of ordinary skill in
`
`25· ·the art in paragraph 12 of your declaration.
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 6
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · Is that fair?
`
`·2· ·A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · · MR. MUEHLHAUSER:· I'd like to just
`
`·4· ·introduce quickly an exhibit that we marked
`
`·5· ·2005.· It's just the notice of the deposition
`
`·6· ·today.
`
`·7· · · · · (Exhibit 2005, Notice of Deposition,
`
`·8· ·marked for identification.)
`
`·9· · · · · MR. MUEHLHAUSER:· And then next I'll
`
`10· ·just hand you what's already been marked as
`
`11· ·Exhibit 1013, which is a copy of your
`
`12· ·declaration in the 01639 IPR.
`
`13· · · · · (Exhibit 1013, Declaration of John
`
`14· ·Moring, marked for identification.)
`
`15· · · · · MR. QUALEY:· If I can just interrupt
`
`16· ·you for a second.
`
`17· · · · · For the witness' convenience and maybe
`
`18· ·even yours, we actually put together a table
`
`19· ·of contents.· We can mark this as an exhibit.
`
`20· ·It's just the headings from his declaration.
`
`21· · · · · MR. MUEHLHAUSER:· Okay.· That's fine.
`
`22· ·Just for the record, it's not part of the
`
`23· ·declaration?
`
`24· · · · · MR. QUALEY:· Correct.· It just
`
`25· ·hopefully makes it a little easier to
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 7
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · navigate the document today.
`
`·2· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·Mr. Moring, do you think that the
`
`·4· ·table of contents will help you better navigate your
`
`·5· ·declaration today?
`
`·6· · · · · A.· · ·It couldn't hurt.
`
`·7· · · · · Q.· · ·And in questioning, if I want to refer
`
`·8· ·to Exhibit 1013, I'm going to refer to it as your
`
`·9· ·declaration.
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·Will you be clear on that?· Is that
`
`11· ·okay?
`
`12· · · · · A.· · ·Okay.· I do have a few declarations,
`
`13· ·but this will be the declaration.
`
`14· · · · · Q.· · ·For this deposition, right.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·This deposition, I think as we've
`
`16· ·announced it on the record, is for the 01639 IPR.
`
`17· ·There's also another IPR, inter partes review,
`
`18· ·01638, but this is for the 01639.
`
`19· · · · · · · · ·This was your declaration that was
`
`20· ·submitted in support of a petition in that inter
`
`21· ·partes review.
`
`22· · · · · A.· · ·Understand.
`
`23· · · · · Q.· · ·While we're handing exhibits out, I'd
`
`24· ·like to hand you a copy of Exhibit 1006, which is a
`
`25· ·copy of US Patent 6,563,892 with the named inventor
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 8
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·Jacobus Haartsen, and the other named inventor, Paul
`
`·2· ·Dent.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1006, US Patent 6,563,892,
`
`·4· · · · · marked for identification.)
`
`·5· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·6· · · · · Q.· · ·Do you recall reviewing the '892
`
`·7· ·patent in preparation of your declaration?
`
`·8· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·9· · · · · Q.· · ·I will also hand you a copy of
`
`10· ·Exhibit 1007.· Exhibit 1007 is a copy of what we'll
`
`11· ·call the Haartsen paper, if that's okay with you.
`
`12· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1007, Haartsen Paper, marked
`
`14· · · · · for identification.)
`
`15· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`16· · · · · Q.· · ·I think that the Haartsen paper might
`
`17· ·note the name Jaap Haartsen as an author.· And do
`
`18· ·you recognize that Jaap Haartsen is the same as
`
`19· ·Jacobus Haartsen, who's the named inventer on the
`
`20· ·'892 patent?
`
`21· · · · · A.· · ·I understand those are both the same
`
`22· ·person.
`
`23· · · · · Q.· · ·So considering the '892 patent just
`
`24· ·generally and having reviewed it, how would you, in
`
`25· ·your own words, characterize the invention of that
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 9
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·patent?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·The patent describes improvements in
`
`·3· ·signal processing that can be related to
`
`·4· ·communication systems.
`
`·5· · · · · Q.· · ·Does the improvement that you're
`
`·6· ·referring to include an FIR filter?
`
`·7· · · · · A.· · ·Yes, it does.
`
`·8· · · · · Q.· · ·Does it include a Viterbi decoder?
`
`·9· · · · · A.· · ·Yes, it does.
`
`10· · · · · Q.· · ·Does it include anything else?
`
`11· · · · · A.· · ·Yes, it does.
`
`12· · · · · Q.· · ·What else?
`
`13· · · · · A.· · ·I would have to go through the
`
`14· ·document and pull out things for you.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Would you like me to do that?
`
`16· · · · · Q.· · ·No, we'll probably get to some of
`
`17· ·those things in a few minutes, so let's just
`
`18· ·continue on.
`
`19· · · · · · · · ·Is it right that it's your
`
`20· ·understanding that the Haartsen paper, Exhibit 1007,
`
`21· ·describes some of the characteristics of a 1998
`
`22· ·Bluetooth version?
`
`23· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · · Q.· · ·And do you recall that the '892 patent
`
`25· ·includes a statement in it incorporating, by
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 10
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·reference, the Haartsen paper?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·I'd like to have you take a look at
`
`·4· ·Figures 6 and 7 of the '892 patent.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·And my question will be, do you
`
`·6· ·understand that each of those figures depicts an
`
`·7· ·embodiment of the invention of the '892 patent?
`
`·8· · · · · A.· · ·I would have to look at the text of
`
`·9· ·the patent to agree or disagree with that.
`
`10· · · · · Q.· · ·Let's look at Column 3 of the '892
`
`11· ·patent, if you don't mind.
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·Do you see, toward the bottom of
`
`13· ·Column 3, there are descriptions of the figures?
`
`14· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.· And I see where they're both
`
`15· ·noted as exemplary embodiments.
`
`16· · · · · Q.· · ·Would that be sufficient for you to
`
`17· ·answer the prior question?
`
`18· · · · · A.· · ·Yes, I agree.
`
`19· · · · · Q.· · ·That Figure 6 and 7 each depict
`
`20· ·embodiments of the invention of the '892 patent?
`
`21· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · · Q.· · ·Looking at Figure 6, there is
`
`23· ·illustrated in Figure 6 an FIR filter, which is
`
`24· ·denoted by Item 60, and a Viterbi equalizer, denoted
`
`25· ·by Item 62.
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 11
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Those are components of the invention
`
`·2· ·of the '892 patent; correct?
`
`·3· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`·4· · · · · Q.· · ·And is there anything else -- as you
`
`·5· ·look at Figure 6 or think about the invention of the
`
`·6· ·'892 patent, is there anything else you would need
`
`·7· ·to add to what's disclosed in Figure 6 to fully
`
`·8· ·describe the invention that was disclosed in the
`
`·9· ·'892 patent?
`
`10· · · · · A.· · ·Well, you would need details on what's
`
`11· ·accomplished within those blocks, but as far as
`
`12· ·components of the invention, this is -- essentially
`
`13· ·since this is noted as an embodiment, I conclude
`
`14· ·that this comprises the whole of the invention.
`
`15· · · · · Q.· · ·So if you consider the Haartsen paper,
`
`16· ·Exhibit 1007, is it right that there's nothing in
`
`17· ·the Haartsen paper that a person of ordinary skill
`
`18· ·would need to know in order to understand how to
`
`19· ·make the invention of Figure 6?
`
`20· · · · · A.· · ·Could you ask the question again,
`
`21· ·please.
`
`22· · · · · Q.· · ·Sure.
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·As you think about Exhibit 1007, which
`
`24· ·is the Haartsen paper, my question is, is there --
`
`25· ·is it right that there's nothing in the Haartsen
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 12
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·paper that a person of ordinary skill would need to
`
`·2· ·know in order to make and use the invention that's
`
`·3· ·illustrated in Figure 6?
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I apologize.· Could you
`
`·6· · · · · restate that one more time for me.
`
`·7· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·8· · · · · Q.· · ·Sure.· I'll try to break it up a
`
`·9· ·little bit maybe.
`
`10· · · · · A.· · ·Okay.
`
`11· · · · · Q.· · ·I think we had covered that
`
`12· ·Exhibit 1007 is the Haartsen paper?
`
`13· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`14· · · · · Q.· · ·And we had covered that it discloses
`
`15· ·characteristics of a 1998 Bluetooth version --
`
`16· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`17· · · · · Q.· · ·-- correct?
`
`18· · · · · · · · ·And we also covered that the '892
`
`19· ·patent has a statement in it that incorporates the
`
`20· ·Haartsen paper, by reference?
`
`21· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`22· · · · · Q.· · ·So we covered the invention that's
`
`23· ·being illustrated by Figure 6 as having two
`
`24· ·components; right?
`
`25· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 13
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · Q.· · ·So my question is, is it right that,
`
`·2· ·from the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill,
`
`·3· ·there's nothing that the person of ordinary skill
`
`·4· ·would need to know from the Haartsen paper in order
`
`·5· ·to make and use the invention shown in Figure 6?
`
`·6· · · · · A.· · ·That seems a reasonable conclusion.
`
`·7· · · · · Q.· · ·So you agree that's a yes?
`
`·8· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·9· · · · · Q.· · ·As far as the Haartsen paper is
`
`10· ·concerned, there's nothing in the Haartsen paper
`
`11· ·that the '892 patent relies on as a component part
`
`12· ·of any of the disclosed embodiments?
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I agree with that.
`
`15· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`16· · · · · Q.· · ·As you think about the Haartsen paper,
`
`17· ·Exhibit 1007, there's nothing in the Haartsen paper
`
`18· ·that refers to the invention of the '892 patent;
`
`19· ·correct?
`
`20· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`21· · · · · Q.· · ·And would you agree that the '892
`
`22· ·patent never references the Haartsen paper for any
`
`23· ·technical knowledge that's needed to make or use the
`
`24· ·inventions disclosed in the '892 patent?
`
`25· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 14
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The '892 patent could be
`
`·2· · · · · implemented without knowledge of the Haartsen
`
`·3· · · · · paper.
`
`·4· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·5· · · · · Q.· · ·So you're agreeing with my -- you were
`
`·6· ·answering my question in the affirmative?
`
`·7· · · · · A.· · ·Well, I was -- ask the question again,
`
`·8· ·please.
`
`·9· · · · · Q.· · ·Sure.
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·MR. MUEHLHAUSER:· Could you read that
`
`11· · · · · back for me.
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·(Record read.)
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It does --
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Sorry.
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It does reference the
`
`17· · · · · Haartsen paper as a way in which this can be
`
`18· · · · · used, though it does not require knowledge of
`
`19· · · · · the Haartsen paper to implement some form of
`
`20· · · · · the invention.
`
`21· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`22· · · · · Q.· · ·And there are no components or
`
`23· ·circuits that are described in the Haartsen paper
`
`24· ·that are needed for any of the inventions in the
`
`25· ·'892 patent?
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 15
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · A.· · ·I'm not sure of that.
`
`·2· · · · · Q.· · ·So we covered in Figure 6 -- at least
`
`·3· ·in the embodiment shown in Figure 6, we had the
`
`·4· ·components of an FIR filter and a Viterbi equalizer.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·And so I'm trying to understand
`
`·6· ·whether it's your view that there's some other
`
`·7· ·component that's disclosed in the Haartsen paper
`
`·8· ·that you would need to add to any of the embodiments
`
`·9· ·in the '892 patent in order to simply make and use
`
`10· ·the inventions disclosed.
`
`11· · · · · A.· · ·Well, to make and use it, this
`
`12· ·invention resides in the context of a larger
`
`13· ·communication system, an example of which is
`
`14· ·described in the Haartsen paper.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·So building these two boxes here by
`
`16· ·themselves, they're not -- they're probably not
`
`17· ·useful for anything unless they're put inside of
`
`18· ·something else that will give them the signal input
`
`19· ·and accept a signal output that's shown here.
`
`20· · · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· I think I understand what
`
`21· ·you're saying.· I'm trying to just limit my
`
`22· ·questioning now to the components needed just for
`
`23· ·the invention of the '892 patent.· Right.
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·It's an invention that is designed to
`
`25· ·address slowly varying disturbances in signals;
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 16
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·right?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·And so in order to implement just the
`
`·4· ·invention that addresses those kinds of signals, as
`
`·5· ·disclosed, there's no component that needs to be
`
`·6· ·brought in from some other reference like the
`
`·7· ·Haartsen patent; is that fair?
`
`·8· · · · · A.· · ·Within --
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·Sorry.
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Within what's shown in
`
`12· · · · · Figure 6, were this implemented in the
`
`13· · · · · context of the Haartsen paper, some of the
`
`14· · · · · components may be shared among the functions
`
`15· · · · · described here -- here in the Haartsen paper
`
`16· · · · · and the functions described here in the '892
`
`17· · · · · patent.
`
`18· · · · · · · · ·But -- and as I say, a larger system
`
`19· · · · · is required for this to be useable that
`
`20· · · · · provides, for example, the input signal shown
`
`21· · · · · in Figure 6.
`
`22· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`23· · · · · Q.· · ·So is the invention disclosed in the
`
`24· ·'892 patent useful in radio communication systems
`
`25· ·like cellular systems that have cell phones and base
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 17
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·stations?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·As claimed by the inventor, yes.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·Is there anything that any of the
`
`·4· ·embodiments disclosed in the '892 patent need from a
`
`·5· ·cellular system in order to implement the inventions
`
`·6· ·of the '892 patent?
`
`·7· · · · · A.· · ·In order to implement it, no; in order
`
`·8· ·to use it, yes.
`
`·9· · · · · Q.· · ·Maybe another way to look at this is
`
`10· ·from the standpoint of is -- would you agree that
`
`11· ·there's nothing disclosed in the Haartsen paper that
`
`12· ·a person of ordinary skill would need as a
`
`13· ·prerequisite to implement the inventions in the '892
`
`14· ·patent?
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I agree with that.
`
`17· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`18· · · · · Q.· · ·Would you agree that the techniques
`
`19· ·and inventions described in the '892 patent are
`
`20· ·particularly well suited for detecting FSK modulated
`
`21· ·signals in the presence of disturbances?
`
`22· · · · · A.· · ·I believe that's one of the statements
`
`23· ·made by the inventor.
`
`24· · · · · Q.· · ·So you would agree?
`
`25· · · · · A.· · ·I -- I would take the inventor's word
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 18
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·for that.
`
`·2· · · · · Q.· · ·It sounds like you disagree.· Am I
`
`·3· ·getting --
`
`·4· · · · · A.· · ·I do not disagree, but I would like to
`
`·5· ·see that -- see what's said about that in the patent
`
`·6· ·itself before answering.
`
`·7· · · · · Q.· · ·So if you look at the '892 patent, in
`
`·8· ·Column 1 of the text.· And I think it's the last
`
`·9· ·sentence in the first paragraph, starts at about
`
`10· ·line 13.· And it reads -- I'll just read it.
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·"The techniques described herein are
`
`12· ·particularly well suited for the detection of binary
`
`13· ·FM or binary FSK modulated signals in the presence
`
`14· ·of such disturbing signals, but can also be used in
`
`15· ·conjunction with other types of modulation."
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·Do you agree with that statement?
`
`17· · · · · A.· · ·I agree that that statement is there.
`
`18· ·I have no reason to technically disagree with that.
`
`19· · · · · Q.· · ·If we look at -- I want to go back to
`
`20· ·the reference to cellular communication systems.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·If we look at Figure 1 in the '892
`
`22· ·patent, if you don't mind.· I think it's the second
`
`23· ·page of the patent.· Figure 1(a).
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·Would you agree this is an example of
`
`25· ·a radio communication system in which the invention
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 19
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·of the '892 patent can be used?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·And the invention that's disclosed in
`
`·4· ·the '892 patent, would you agree that that is not an
`
`·5· ·embodiment of a Bluetooth system?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Ask the question again,
`
`·8· · · · · please.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`10· · · · · Q.· · ·Would you agree that the invention
`
`11· ·that's disclosed in the '892 patent is not an
`
`12· ·embodiment of the Bluetooth standard?
`
`13· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`14· · · · · Q.· · ·So maybe another way to look at it is
`
`15· ·if we consider the '892 patent and we omit the
`
`16· ·incorporation of the Haartsen paper, then what's
`
`17· ·left would describe an invention that's useful to
`
`18· ·detect binary information in the presence of slowly
`
`19· ·varying disturbances; correct?
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
`
`22· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`23· · · · · Q.· · ·Along those same lines, if we consider
`
`24· ·the '892 patent and we omit the incorporation of the
`
`25· ·Haartsen paper, then what's left would be an
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 20
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·invention that's useful in radio communication
`
`·2· ·systems used for cellular communications?
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Among other things.· So
`
`·5· · · · · it's not limited to cellular systems.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·7· · · · · Q.· · ·But you would agree it's useful there?
`
`·8· · · · · A.· · ·Useful to cellular systems, correct.
`
`·9· · · · · Q.· · ·If we consider the '892 patent and we
`
`10· ·omit the incorporation of the Haartsen paper, then
`
`11· ·what's left would not disclose any embodiment of a
`
`12· ·Bluetooth system --
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`14· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`15· · · · · Q.· · ·-- correct?
`
`16· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`17· · · · · Q.· · ·And if we consider the '892 patent and
`
`18· ·we omit the incorporation of the Haartsen paper,
`
`19· ·then what's left would not inform a person of
`
`20· ·ordinary skill in the art how to make and use a
`
`21· ·Bluetooth embodiment --
`
`22· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`23· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`24· · · · · Q.· · ·-- correct?
`
`25· · · · · A.· · ·I disagree with that.· The '892 patent
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 21
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·describes a general method for improving performance
`
`·2· ·in -- in certain classes of communication systems,
`
`·3· ·of which classes include Bluetooth as well as
`
`·4· ·cellular, even if the explicit reference to
`
`·5· ·Bluetooth is omitted.
`
`·6· · · · · Q.· · ·I want to ask my question again just
`
`·7· ·to make sure you had it fully in mind when you
`
`·8· ·answered.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·So if we consider the '892 patent and
`
`10· ·we omit the incorporation of the Haartsen paper,
`
`11· ·isn't it right that what's left would not inform a
`
`12· ·person of ordinary skill how to make and use a
`
`13· ·Bluetooth embodiment?
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Object to form.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It would not be needed
`
`16· · · · · for someone of skill to implement a Bluetooth
`
`17· · · · · system, but it would inform them how that
`
`18· · · · · system can be improved.
`
`19· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`20· · · · · Q.· · ·If we consider the '892 patent
`
`21· ·completely apart from the Haartsen paper, what
`
`22· ·information is in the '892 patent that would suffice
`
`23· ·to instruct somebody of ordinary skill how to make a
`
`24· ·Bluetooth embodiment?
`
`25· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Object to the form.
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 22
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The methods described in
`
`·2· · · · · the '892 patent could be used by the
`
`·3· · · · · designers of the receiver of the Bluetooth
`
`·4· · · · · system in making their choices of what
`
`·5· · · · · components and algorithms to incorporate in
`
`·6· · · · · their receivers to -- to provide good
`
`·7· · · · · performance.
`
`·8· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`·9· · · · · Q.· · ·I'm focusing mainly on a Bluetooth
`
`10· ·embodiment, something that is using the components
`
`11· ·and processes described in the Haartsen paper.
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·Do you think that there is material in
`
`13· ·the '892 patent, apart from the paper, that would
`
`14· ·teach somebody how to make a Bluetooth embodiment?
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It would -- it would not
`
`17· · · · · be sufficient -- it would not -- neither be
`
`18· · · · · necessary, nor sufficient for someone to make
`
`19· · · · · Bluetooth, but it could be used by a
`
`20· · · · · Bluetooth designer to improve their design.
`
`21· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`22· · · · · Q.· · ·So are you telling me that your
`
`23· ·understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`24· ·art as of around, say, 1998 or 1999, that they all
`
`25· ·knew how to make Bluetooth embodiments?
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 23
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · A.· · ·They did not all know how to make
`
`·2· ·Bluetooth embodiments, no.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·So what in the '892 patent would have
`
`·4· ·taught them how to do that, apart from the Haartsen
`
`·5· ·paper?
`
`·6· · · · · A.· · ·As I say, the '892 patent would not be
`
`·7· ·necessary or sufficient by itself to teach someone
`
`·8· ·to make Bluetooth.· Other materials would be needed,
`
`·9· ·for example, the Haartsen paper, the Bluetooth
`
`10· ·standard.· But the material in the '892 patent could
`
`11· ·be used by that designer in developing their
`
`12· ·Bluetooth design.
`
`13· · · · · Q.· · ·And adding the invention of the '892
`
`14· ·patent to a Bluetooth embodiment?
`
`15· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · · Q.· · ·So thinking again still about the '892
`
`17· ·patent, one of the purposes of the invention in the
`
`18· ·'892 patent is to address DC offset-type
`
`19· ·disturbances; right?
`
`20· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · · Q.· · ·The '892 patent discloses as one
`
`22· ·possible source of DC offset disturbance a homodyne,
`
`23· ·H-O-M-O-D-Y-N-E, receiver; is that right?
`
`24· · · · · A.· · ·I believe that's correct.
`
`25· · · · · Q.· · ·And is it your opinion that a homodyne
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 24
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·receiver is the same thing as a direct conversion
`
`·2· ·receiver?
`
`·3· · · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · · Q.· · ·From reading the '892 patent, isn't it
`
`·5· ·true that the only reason that the '892 patent
`
`·6· ·mentions a homodyne receiver is simply to provide an
`
`·7· ·example of a source of DC offset disturbances?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· As I recall, that's the
`
`10· · · · · context in which the homodyne receiver is
`
`11· · · · · mentioned here.
`
`12· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`13· · · · · Q.· · ·Let's go to Column 2 of the text of
`
`14· ·the '892 patent, please.· So if I could direct you
`
`15· ·to line 36 of Column 2.· And I'll just read so we
`
`16· ·can have the material in mind.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·"Such disturbances can have several
`
`18· ·origins.· In many instances, the disturbance cannot
`
`19· ·be filtered out when the desired signal itself has
`
`20· ·low-frequency components.· Examples of such
`
`21· ·disturbances include DC offset in homodyne
`
`22· ·receivers."
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·So that would be an example of
`
`24· ·introducing the idea of a homodyne receiver as an
`
`25· ·example of a source of offset -- DC offset
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 25
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·disturbance; right?
`
`·2· · · · · A.· · ·Correct.
`
`·3· · · · · Q.· · ·Isn't it right that -- isn't it right
`
`·4· ·that there's nothing in the '892 patent that links
`
`·5· ·this mention of a homodyne receiver to anything in
`
`·6· ·the Haartsen paper?
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·MR. QUALEY:· Objection to form.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, there is not an
`
`·9· · · · · explicit link, but the two concepts show up
`
`10· · · · · in some paragraphs directly next to each
`
`11· · · · · other.· So it's apparent that they're both
`
`12· · · · · part of the context of this invention.
`
`13· ·BY MR. MUEHLHAUSER:
`
`14· · · · · Q.· · ·When you say "this invention," what
`
`15· ·are you referring to?
`
`16· · · · · A.· · ·To the '892 patent invention.
`
`17· · · · · Q.· · ·Let's go up one paragraph, toward the
`
`18· ·end of it.· Let's see.· Let's start at Column 2,
`
`19· ·line 29, since you're referring to these paragraphs
`
`20· ·being next to each other.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·I'll just start reading there at the
`
`22· ·sentence that begins at line 29.
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·"Of particular interest for this
`
`24· ·discussion is the fact that channel effects
`
`25· ·associated with the Bluetooth air interface may not
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`John Moring
`
`Sony Corp. vs. One-E-Way, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 26
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`·1· ·be the dominant disturbance to transmitted signals
`
`·2· ·in such systems, due to the short-range nature of
`
`·3· ·the air interface links.· Accordingly, other slowly
`
`·4· ·varying disturbances may be more problematic than
`
`·5· ·channel effects in such systems."
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·And so would you agree that the
`
`·7· ·reference to "Bluetooth" here is to identify an
`
`·8· ·example of a system that has or potentially has
`
`·9· ·slowly varying disturbances that could be more
`
`10· ·problematic than channel