·1· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·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
`
`
`
`·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
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
