`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., )
` LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS )
` AMERICA, INC., and LG )
` ELECTRONICS, INC., ) Case: Unassigned
` ) Patent No. 9,189,437
` Petitioners, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
` PAPST LICENSING GmbH & )
` Co., KG, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` The deposition of PAUL F. REYNOLDS, Ph.D.,
`taken before Jennifer L. Bernier, Certified Shorthand
`Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified
`Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public, at Drinker Biddle
`& Reath, LLP, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700,
`Chicago, Illinois, commencing at 9:04 a.m. on
`May 3, 2017.
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.1
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
` DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
` NICK COLIC, ESQUIRE
` CARRIE A. BEYER, ESQUIRE
` 191 North Wacker Drive
` Suite 3700
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` Phone: (312) 569-1487
` E-Mail: nick.colic@dbr.com
` carrie.beyer@dbr.com
` On behalf of Petitioners Samsung
` Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
` America, INC.;
` FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
` PAUL B. HENKELMANN, ESQUIRE
` 120 South LaSalle Street
` Suite 1600
` Chicago, Illinois 60603
` Phone: (312) 577-7000
` E-Mail: phenkelmann@fitcheven.com
` On behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
` * * * * * *
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.2
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` TRANSCRIPT INDEX
`
` EXAMINATION OF RICHARD PAGE
` PAUL F. REYNOLDS, Ph.D.
` By Mr. Henkelmann............................ 4
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
` (Retained by Court Reporter.)
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED
`Exhibit 1 Declaration.................... 7
`Exhibit 2 '437 patent.................... 7
`Exhibit 3 '081 patent.................... 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
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.3
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` (Witness sworn.)
` WHEREUPON:
` PAUL F. REYNOLDS, Ph.D.,
` called as a witness herein, having been first duly
` sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Reynolds.
` A. Good morning, sir.
` Q. We've met before, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In connection with another IPR filed by
` different petitioners against Papst Licensing patents?
` A. That's what I recall.
` Q. Yeah. Okay. You've had your deposition taken
` before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Is there any reason you can't give accurate
` testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Have you ever been retained as an
` expert by a patent owner in an IPR proceeding?
` A. I've been asked a couple of times; but, no, I
` have not.
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.4
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. Okay. Can you say how many IPRs --
` A. I would like to reconsider that answer. I
` have been retained by entities that have certainly owned
` many patents, yes.
` Q. Have you ever submitted a declaration in
` support of the patentability of a patent?
` A. No. I mean, in particular, my -- maybe I
` might have misunderstood your question. I have
` supported declarations, such as the one that I've
` submitted in this case.
` Q. Right. And your declaration, in this case, is
` in support of Samsung's petition that argues that the
` Tasler patent in unpatentable?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. That it's an invalid patent, yes.
` Q. Okay. Can you say how many inter partes
` reviews you've been involved with, roughly?
` A. I don't have an exact count. I'm going to say
` it's on the order of a dozen to 15.
` Q. Can you recall the names of the petitioners
` that have retained you in connection with arguing that
` the various Tasler patents are unpatentable?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. Would you reask that question, please?
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.5
`
`
`
`Page 6
` Q. So the petitioners, in this case, are Samsung
` Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, and LG is now
` involved in this case.
` Do you recall the names of the other
` petitioners that have retained you in connection with
` the Tasler patents owned by Papst Licensing?
` A. I believe I can, yes.
` Q. Could you tell me those names?
` A. I'm not going to have their exact corporate
` names; but it would be Fuji, Canon, Olympus, Nikon,
` Samsung, JVC, and Panasonic.
` Q. Are there any others that you're aware of?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you prepare at all for today's deposition?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Can you tell me how long you prepared for it?
` A. I'm going to say on the order of 20 to 25
` hours.
` Q. And did you prepare with anyone else?
` A. I've consulted with lawyers, but I did my own
` preparation.
` Q. Which lawyers did you consult with?
` A. Nick and Carrie.
` Q. The lawyers in this room right now?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.6
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
` A. The lawyers in this room.
` Q. Other than me. Okay.
` Let's get started. I'm going to hand to you
` what I'm going to mark as Exhibit No. 1, which is your
` declaration submitted in this case.
` (Reynolds' Deposition Exhibit 1,
` Declaration, was marked for
` identification.)
` Q. Do you recognize this document as your
` declaration?
` A. I believe that it is, yes.
` Q. Let's just go ahead and mark a couple more
` documents. As Exhibit 2, I'm going to mark U.S. Patent
` 9,189,437 to Tasler.
` (Reynolds' Deposition Exhibit 2, '437
` patent, was marked for purposes of
` identification.)
` Q. And, in addition, I'm going to mark U.S.
` Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac, A-y-t-a-c, as Exhibit 3.
` (Reynolds' Deposition Exhibit 3, '081
` patent, was marked for
` identification.)
` Q. And, Dr. Reynolds, do you recognize the '437
` patent as the patent at issue in this inter partes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.7
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
` review?
` A. I believe that it is, yes.
` Q. And do you recognize the '081 Aytac patent as
` one of the references asserted against the Tasler
` patent?
` A. Yes, I believe that it is.
` Q. Okay. Do you have an understanding of the
` meaning of the term end user as it is used in the '437
` patent?
` A. I would note that Tasler offers no insight,
` whatsoever, in his patent, as to what user or end user
` means. I interpret end user as an ultimate user.
` Q. So there is nothing in the Tasler patent that
` gives you an idea of what end user could mean?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I don't recall any discussion in the
` specification, in particular, or in the claims, that
` offers a definition of end user.
` Q. Is there anything in the Tasler patent that
` might suggest the meaning of it without an explicit
` definition? And I mean the term end user or user.
` A. So you mean both of them?
` Q. Yeah.
` A. Not that I recall.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.8
`
`
`
`Page 9
` Q. So I believe you said that your understanding
` of the meaning of end user was the ultimate user?
` A. An ultimate user.
` Q. An ultimate user.
` Could we look at paragraph 39 of your
` declaration? Do you see, in paragraph 39, where you
` say, The end users of a computer are people who use as
` opposed to design or program computers and computer
` applications?
` A. I see that sentence, yes.
` Q. So is that your understanding of what the term
` end user means?
` A. It's consistent with saying that it's an
` ultimate user, yes.
` Q. Does that definition say ultimate user?
` A. It does not use the word ultimate, no. It's
` suggesting that.
` Q. And you also say, in this paragraph, that an
` end user is to be contrasted with the system
` administrator, a technician knowledgeable about the
` hardware and operating system of the computer; is that
` correct?
` A. I see that sentence, yes.
` Q. So is it your opinion that a system
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.9
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
` administrator cannot be an end user?
` A. No, I have not said that.
` Q. Would you say that now?
` A. That -- if I'm being asked can a system
` administrator never be an end user, the answer to that
` question is, no.
` Q. So a system administrator can be an end user?
` A. Could be.
` Q. Could be.
` So you define a system administrator as a
` person responsible for administering use of a multiuser
` computer system, communication system, or both, in
` paragraph 39; is that correct?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I have said the system administrator is the
` person responsible for administering use of a multiuser
` computer system, communications system, or both. A
` system administrator performs such duties as assigning
` user accounts and passwords, establishing security
` access levels, and allocating storage space. That's a
` quote.
` Q. That's a quote from the Microsoft computer
` dictionary?
` A. That is correct.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.10
`
`
`
`Page 11
` Q. And then you also say, Thus, an end user is to
` a system administrator as the driver of a car is to the
` car's mechanic, right?
` A. I have said that.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Yes. I believe that.
` Q. In your opinion, can a mechanic drive a car?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So a system administrator and an end
` user are not mutually exclusive?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. A system administrator is not necessarily an
` end user, but could be.
` Q. And what does that depend on?
` A. Their function.
` Q. Does it depend on how much knowledge they
` have, their skills?
` A. I don't understand your question.
` Q. If a person becomes skilled in hardware and
` the operating system of a computer, does that exclude
` them from being an end user?
` A. No.
` Q. Does it depend on their job title, whether
` someone is an end user or not?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.11
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
` A. No.
` Q. How about whether someone is a user?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I need to understand your use of user.
` Q. I mean user as it's used in the '437 patent.
` Does the level of skill one has define whether someone
` is a user?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. Level -- yeah. I'm having trouble with that
` question.
` Q. If someone is knowledgeable about hardware and
` the operating system of a computer, does that exclude
` them from being a user as it is used in the '437 patent?
` A. No, it does not.
` Q. You say, in paragraph 39, that the term end
` user does not appear in the specifications of the '437
` patent; is that correct?
` A. That is my second sentence in paragraph 39,
` yes.
` Q. Does the term end user appear in the claims of
` the '437 patent?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. Okay. And you're aware that claims are part
` of the specification of the patent?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.12
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. That may be a legal distinction I wasn't aware
` of.
` Q. Okay. So the '437 patent does use the term
` user, within the written description, before the claims.
` So the specification excluding the claims uses the term
` user?
` A. My recollection is, not very often.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I would have to go back and look at the Tasler
` patent.
` Q. Do the claims use both the terms user and end
` user?
` A. Which claims?
` Q. For example, Claim 1.
` A. So I understand your question to be, does
` Claim 1 use both user and end user?
` Q. Correct.
` A. I will have to study Claim 1.
` Q. For example, you could look at Column 12,
` line 17.
` A. Well, at that point, Column 12, line 17, I see
` a reference to end user, and line -- is that 19? 19.
` So that's a second instance of end user, in Claim 1,
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.13
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
` that I've seen so far.
` Q. If you look at line 41?
` A. I see a reference to user.
` Q. So would you agree that Claim 1 uses both end
` user and user?
` A. I see.
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. Sorry. I see that Claim 1 has used end user
` and it has used user.
` Q. In your opinion, is the claim meaning
` different things by end user and user in this claim?
` MR. COLIC: Objection. Form.
` A. I don't know, because Tasler has provided me
` no reason -- no insight into his use of his terms.
` Q. So you can't figure out, from reading the
` claim, whether he means different things by end user and
` user in Claim 1?
` MR. COLIC: Objection. Form.
` A. On the surface, he appears to be using them
` interchangeably; but it's curious to me that he
` references end user and he references user. That's all
` I can say about that.
` Q. So you're saying they could be
` interchangeable?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.14
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
` A. They could be interchangeable.
` Q. Did you ascribe different meanings to the
` terms end user and user in Claim 1?
` A. I didn't need to.
` Q. And why is that?
` A. I saw the use of user and end user without
` attempting to distinguish them or not as being examples
` of descriptions of someone I'm going to have to say
` using a computer who would be an ultimate user. That
` doesn't mean they're not distinct. I don't know if they
` are or not. I have been given no clue by Tasler.
` Q. So did you treat the limitation of Claim 1,
` without requiring any user to load any software onto the
` computer at any time, did you treat that differently
` than the limitation without requiring any user-loaded,
` file-transferring, enabling software to be loaded or
` installed on the computer at any time?
` A. Consistent with the answer I just gave you, I
` did not feel a need to distinguish between Tasler's use
` of user and end user, because, in my mind, they both
` qualified as ultimate user. Whether he means a further
` distinction between the two or not, I've been given no
` insight, whatsoever, on this patent.
` Q. So if we look at Claim 39, in Column 15, do
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.15
`
`
`
`Page 16
` you see line 56, Column 15, Without requiring the users
` to load the customary device driver?
` A. I see that line.
` Q. Okay. And then there is another limitation in
` line 63, 64, Without requiring the user to load enabling
` software; do you see that?
` A. No. This is Column 15?
` Q. Column 15, the last two lines of Claim 39.
` A. I understood you to say line 53.
` Q. Sorry.
` A. I, perhaps, misheard you.
` Q. I'm sorry. Do you see where it says, Without
` requiring user to load enabling software?
` A. I see that.
` Q. Okay. So when you were analyzing Claim 39,
` did you treat the term user different than the term end
` user in Claim 1?
` A. My answer is consistent with the answer I gave
` you for Claim 1. I felt no need to distinguish between
` the two. I saw Tasler's use of user and end user with
` no further insight into what he meant as ultimate users.
` Q. So they're interchangeable?
` A. I didn't say that.
` Q. But you treated them the same way, right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.16
`
`
`
`Page 17
` A. For the purpose of analyzing these claims,
` with respect to the sort of person who would touch a
` computer, I treated them interchangeably. In the sense
` that, for evaluating what the limitations meant, I
` treated them interchangeably. Whether or not they're
` interchangeable, under all circumstances, I don't have
` enough information from the patent to make that
` determination.
` Q. So are you saying that you cannot tell whether
` user and end user mean the same things as used in the
` '437 patent?
` A. For the purposes of my analysis of the patent,
` as I said a moment ago, I treated them as
` interchangeable. Whether Tasler meant them to be
` interchangeable or not is not at all made clear.
` Q. In your opinion, is it necessary to determine
` the meaning of end user and user, in the '437 patent, to
` determine whether the claims are patentable?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. It may be, but I have stated, in my
` declaration, that the device drivers of Aytac, CATSYNC
` and CATCAS and CATSER, do not need to be used in order
` for Aytac -- do not need to be used. They're installed
` on the whole system -- in order for Aytac to read on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.17
`
`
`
`Page 18
` claims of Tasler. And given the argument that those do
` not need to be installed, that means that one doesn't
` need to worry about what end user versus user means.
` Q. Just so I understand, is it your testimony
` that the meaning of user and end user is not important
` to determining whether software is needed to be
` installed in Aytac's system disclosed in the Aytac
` patent?
` A. Would you state that question again, please?
` I want to try to understand it.
` Q. I'll try.
` Is it your testimony that the meaning of the
` terms user and end user, as they're used in the '437
` patent, are not important to your determination whether
` software is needed to be installed on a host computer as
` it's disclosed in Aytac?
` A. In the following way: As I said a moment ago,
` I believe I have written, in my declaration, that
` CATSYNC, in particular, and CATSER and CATCAS do not
` need to be installed on a host system in order for Aytac
` to read on the Tasler claims. End user and user don't
` come into play in that analysis.
` Q. Do you recall where, in your declaration, you
` discuss the CATCAS or CATSER programs?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.18
`
`
`
`Page 19
` A. No, I do not. I do remember where I discuss
` CATSYNC.
` Q. Mm-hmm. I think you talk about CATSYNC in
` paragraph 101?
` A. That's where I'm headed for. So, yes, I do
` remember.
` Q. So in paragraph 101, do you discuss CATSER,
` C-A-T-S-E-R, or CATCAS, C-A-T-C-A-S?
` A. They are not discussed in paragraph 101.
` Those are device drivers that are specific to
` interacting with faxing and modems. CATSYNC is, as
` Aytac discloses, related to the CAT disc.
` Q. So you don't discuss CATCAS or CATSER in
` paragraph 101, correct?
` A. They are not discussed directly in this
` paragraph.
` Q. Are you aware of anywhere else in your
` declaration where you discuss those two programs?
` A. I do not recall.
` Q. Is it true that you do not actually discuss
` those programs in your declaration?
` A. I can't say that. In a brief review of where
` I thought I might have discussed them, I do not see that
` I have. That is not to say that they're not discussed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.19
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
` anywhere, but I don't see them in my background
` description of the Aytac patent.
` Q. What about in your discussion of the
` limitations without requiring user to load software onto
` a computer at any time? I'm just referring to that
` limitation generally.
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I have, in multiple places, referenced how
` Aytac can be used as a voice mail/answering machine kind
` of system. In that embodiment, CATSER and CATCAS, which
` are described to support host access to a modem and
` CATCAS' interaction with faxes, would simply not apply
` to voice mail. The only one of these three that would
` come into question is CATSYNC, and that would not be
` required, as I have said in paragraph 101.
` If, one, for some reason, I don't foresee,
` decided it would not be required, I have also attested,
` in paragraph 101, that CATSYNC could have been carried
` out on the CaTbox. In the voice mail embodiment of
` Aytac, you would have information flowing into the
` CaTbox. You would have a recorded voice in the CaTbox,
` which would be passed along to the host computer.
` That would be a producer-consumer, or what's
` known as a bounded buffer setup, where CATCAS, CATSER,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.20
`
`
`
`Page 21
` and CATSYNC would not be required. The CATSER and
` CATCAS are obvious exclusions to me because they only
` have to do with faxing and host direct access to a
` modem.
` Q. So back to my question of whether you discuss
` CATSER or CATCAS in your declaration, is it true you're
` not able to find where you discuss those --
` A. I was not --
` Q. -- programs?
` A. -- able to locate where they are discussed in
` my declaration.
` Q. Okay. So you talked a little bit about the
` CATSYNC driver. Is that a virtual device driver?
` A. By the nature of the fact that it has a VXD
` extension, it is a virtual driver, virtual device
` driver, in Microsoft terminology.
` Q. So the .VXD file extension, was that
` particular to Windows operating systems?
` A. For .VXD, I believe that it is, yes. That
` doesn't suggest that the function is particular to a
` Microsoft operating system.
` Q. Is the CATSYNC driver customary software?
` MR. COLIC: Objection.
` Q. I mean customary as it's used in the '437
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.21
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` patent?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I'm going to interpret your question in the
` following way: Would I expect it to be widely
` distributed on a broad set of computers coming from the
` manufacturer? No.
` Q. Okay. So it wouldn't likely to be
` pre-installed on a PC in 1997?
` A. It certainly could have been. I will agree
` with your statement. It was more unlikely than likely
` that it would be.
` Q. So if I ordered a computer from Dell in 1997,
` would it be likely that it would have the CATSYNC driver
` already installed?
` A. I would say it depended on what I ordered from
` Dell. Most likely not.
` Q. Do you know if CATSYNC was offered as an
` option when buying PCs in '97?
` A. No. I do know the manufacturers offered to
` install certain types of software in 1997. I don't know
` that CATSYNC, in particular, was offered.
` Q. Had you heard of the CATSYNC.VXD driver before
` reading the Aytac patent for the first time?
` A. No, I had not.
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.22
`
`
`
`Page 23
` Q. Had you heard of Aytac's CaTbox before reading
` the Aytac patent?
` A. Well, the literal answer to your question is,
` yes.
` Q. Had you heard of Aytac's CaTbox invention
` before you had read the Aytac patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you're saying you had heard of his device
` disclosed in, say, Figure 1 of the '081 patent,
` Reference 102?
` A. Had I heard of this device before I saw the
` patent? Yes.
` Q. Where did you hear of it?
` A. I heard it from clients and lawyers that I'm
` working with.
` Q. Oh, so in connection with an IPR proceeding
` against Papst Licensing patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And when was that?
` A. Oh, last May; almost a year ago.
` Q. Okay. So it wasn't in 1997?
` A. No.
` Q. It wasn't before that?
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.23
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
` A. No. I'm sorry. Yes. No.
` Q. The CATSER.VXD driver and CATCAS.EXE program
` disclosed in Aytac, were those customary software in
` 1997?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I'm going to interpret your question, would
` they have been installed, typically installed, on a
` computer and delivered from a manufacturer? The answer
` is, most likely not.
` Q. So in that sense, they're not customary?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. I don't know if they're customary or not. It
` depends on the audience you're talking about.
` Q. Under the definition you provide -- I mean,
` you just provided?
` A. Well, as I -- I believe I gave you an answer
` to that a moment ago. I would not have expected them
` routinely to be installed on computers delivered from a
` manufacturer.
` Q. Are the CATSER and CATCAS programs particular
` to the CaTbox?
` A. As they are designed in the Aytac patent, they
` work with the CaTbox. Does that mean they couldn't work
` with anything else? No, certainly not.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.24
`
`
`
`Page 25
` Q. And the CATSYNC driver, was that disclosed in
` Aytac as being for use with the CaTbox, in particular?
` A. Again, it's disclosed, primarily, in
` Columns 10 and 11 of the Aytac patent, as working with
` the CaTbox. Does that mean it couldn't work with
` anything else? No.
` Q. Do you understand the CATSYNC, CATCAS, and
` CATSER programs to be invented by Mr. Aytac?
` MR. COLIC: Objection to form.
` A. They are presented, in this patent, as
` appearing to be his work.
` Q. And Mr. Aytac submitted some source code along
` with his patent application. Do you understand that to
` be correct?
` A. I'm aware of that source code.
` Q. Did he provide any of those drivers or
` programs -- CATSYNC, CATCAS, or CATSER -- in his source
` code?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. Do you recall if he provided the ASPIDOS,
` A-S-P-I-D-O-S, driver in this source code?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. I'm sorry. I meant the, A-S-P-I-2-D-O-S
` driver. Do you recall if that was included in his
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.25
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` source code?
` A. I do not recall.
` Q. What about the ASPIDISK, A-S-P-I-D-I-S-K,
` driver; do you know if that was included in his source
` code?
` A. I do not recall.
` Q. So you testified that the CATSYNC driver is
` used for synchronization between the host PC and the
` interface device; is that correct?
` A. That's essentially what the first sentence of
` paragraph 101 says, yes, Intended only to provide
` synchronization and coordination among concurrent
` accesses to the CaTdisc by the host computer and the
` CaTbox. That's my sentence.
` Q. Does Aytac disclose, in his patent, that the
` CATSYNC driver is optional?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And where does he disclose that?
` A. He discloses it in an embodiment. He suggests
` what I discussed about 15 minutes ago where the CaTbox
` is used as an answering machine or voice mail system
` that would be implemented based on everything else that
` he has described how he implements as what I called a
` bounded buffer, or a producer-consumer setup, where the
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.26
`
`
`
`Page 27
` voice recording would be recorded to the CaTdisc by the
` CaTbox, and it would be fetched by the host processor.
` And, under those circumstances, the conditions he
` describes for needing CATSYNC are no longer present.
` Q. Does Aytac say explicitly anywhere that the
` CATSYNC driver should not be installed on the host PC?
` A. I do not recall that he said so explicitly. I
` believe that a POSITA would recognize very quickly what
` I just described to you. A suggested embodiment by
` Aytac of CATSYNC would not be required.
` Q. Do you recall where he discloses that
` embodiment you were just discussing about voice mail?
` A. Yes, I do. I would refer you to Column 11 of
` the Aytac patent.
` Q. Mm-hmm.
` A. Oh, no. It's not 11. Just a moment, please.
` Column 7.
` Q. Column 7.
` A. I'm about to read. Multiple modems may be
` installed -- may be installed on the CaTbox. This way
` CaTbox may be used as a multiline fax-back system, or
` multiple host PC communication tasks may be run
` simultaneously, each without a hardware interrupt from
` the host PC, or CaTbox may be used as a multiline
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2008, p.27
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
` telephone answering machine system.
` Q. So it's your opinion that, based on that
` disclosure in Aytac, that you would not need the CATSYNC
` driver on the host PC?
` A. It is my opinion that a POSITA motivated to do
` what was being done on the priority date of the Tasler
` patent, which was using PCs as answering machines, upon
` seeing the Aytac patent, would recognize that Aytac
` clearly described an embodiment in which the CaTbox was
` an answering machine voice mail system would recognize,
` from an undergraduate operating system course, that the
` voice mail system is a producer-consumer system that
` does not require the synchronization provided by
` CATSYNC.VXD.
` Q. In this embodiment, would the host PC be able
` to access a voice mail on the CaTbox?
` A. Yes. As I've described, the voice mail would
` arrive through the modems. On the CaTbox, it would be
` recorded, as Ayta