Page 1
`
` 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
`
`
`
` 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
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
