UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________________/
`
`NO. IPR2016-01737
`Patent No. 8,880,862
`NO. IPR2016-01738
`Patent No. 8,880,862
`
`DEPOSITION OF CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, PH.D.
`Palo Alto, California
`Wednesday, September 27, 2017
`
`Reported By:
`LINDA VACCAREZZA, RPR, CLR, CRP, CSR. NO. 10201
`JOB NO. 19630
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 1 of 52
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1
` I N D E X
`2 WITNESS: PAGE
`3
` CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, PH.D.
`4
`EXAMINATION BY:
`5
` MR. NOROOZI..........................5
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (No exhibits were marked.)
`
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
` September 27, 2017
` 9:49 a.m.
`
`
` Deposition of CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, PH.D.,
`held at Fish & Richardson, 500 Arguello Avenue,
`Redwood City, California, pursuant to Subpoena
`before Linda Vaccarezza, a Certified Shorthand
`Reporter of the State of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
`2
`Representing the Petitioner:
`3
` Fish & Richardon, P.C.
`4
` By: James Huguenin-Love, Esq.
`5
` Andrew Patrick, Esq.
`6
` 500 Arguello Avenue, Suite 500
`7
` Redwood City, California 94063
`8
` Huguenin-love@fr.com
`9
` Patrick@fr.com
`10
`Representing the Patent owner:
`11
` NOROOZI PC
`12
` By: Kayvan B. Noroozi, Esq.
`13
` 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450
`14
` Santa Monica, California 90401
`15
` Kayvan@noroozipc.com
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, PH.D.,
` having been duly sworn,
` By the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
` Was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Neuhauser. How did you
`prepare for today?
` A. I prepared for today? Well, leaving aside --
`this particular declaration is part of a larger chain
`of events. I think you know that. And just leaving
`that aside, let's see.
` I reviewed the patent. I reviewed the
`declarations that I've written previously, reviewed
`the declaration that I just wrote, of course, and then
`the art -- I looked over Zwiegincew.
` Let's see. What else did I do? I'm trying
`to think of the other things that I've looked at. It
`will probably come back to me. And then met with the
`attorneys here, and let's see what else. That's about
`it.
` Q. How long did you spend in total preparing for
`this deposition?
` A. Leaving aside anything before the submission
`of the declaration, from that point, maybe 15 hours,
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 2 of 52
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
`
`18 hours, something like that.
` Q. And is that all for prep for this deposition,
`or is it also partially for the work leading up to
`your declaration?
` A. No, no. That just includes from the time
`that the declaration was submitted. I think that's
`right.
` Q. So about two, two and a half days of work?
` A. It could have been more, but I would have to
`think about it a little bit more to get a more
`accurate idea.
` Q. Did you review anything not cited in your
`declaration?
` A. Let's -- is the declaration here some place?
` Q. I think it's in that stack of -- there are
`two of your declarations, I believe one for the 1737
`proceeding and one for the 1738.
` A. Does it have -- do you want a number or
`something?
` Q. So if you could just tell me --
` A. What it is?
` Q. -- which IPR proceeding's declaration you're
`looking at.
` One of them ends in --
` A. One of them should have a '37 or a '38.
`Page 7
`
`Page 8
`1
`declarations? Which packets and proceedings are they
`2
`in relation to?
`3
` A. I would have to look at them to tell you. I
`4 mean, they are all related to the same base patent.
`5
`I'm trying to remember. I believe they are all
`6
`related to the '862, with various subsets of claims.
`7
` Q. You're also familiar with '608 and '906
`8
`patents?
`9
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
`10
` THE WITNESS: '608 and '906? I believe those
`11
`are the numbers for the -- they have the same
`12
`specifications as the '862. So I'm familiar with them
`13
`in that sense. I used, actually, the '609 for a while
`14
`instead of the '862, just as a reference, so...
`15
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`16
` Q. All right. So did you take a look at Apple's
`17
`response to Realtime's motion to amend?
`18
` A. That does remind me of one other thing. I
`19
`looked at -- I can see the document. I looked at
`20
`Dr. Back's declarations, and I believe the Patent
`21
`Office's -- not the Patent Office, but the patent
`22
`owner's motion to amend -- and there were two of
`23
`those. And I think I probably looked at their Fish &
`24
`Richardson's -- I don't know what you call it,
`25
`response or whatever. I probably looked at that.
`Page 9
`
`1
` Q. Right.
`2
` A. I'll let you --
`3
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: I think if you look at
`4
`the bottom right there.
`5
` THE WITNESS: Oh, is that it? Okay.
`6
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: There's a numbering. It
`7
`says 17.
`8
` THE WITNESS: This is 38.
`9
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`10
` Q. So --
`11
` A. Let's look at the --
`12
` Q. You have a list of materials considered at
`13
`the -- in your declaration, right?
`14
` A. I do. Your question, did I review anything
`15
`other than what's on this list?
`16
` Q. Yes, that's right.
`17
` A. Well, I don't see Zwiegincew on this list,
`18
`but I did look at Zwiegincew, just to refresh my
`19 memory as to what it was.
`20
` Q. Anything else?
`21
` A. Well, I don't think this list lists the other
`22
`declarations that I submitted, but I already told you
`23
`that, right, that I looked at the previous three
`24
`declarations.
`25
` Q. And just to be clear, which are those three
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay.
` A. I don't remember for sure, but I probably
`did.
` Q. Now, you've submitted one declaration for the
`1737 IPR and another one for the 1738, right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Both of them are quite long. I think over
`100 pages, right?
` A. It seems that way, yes.
` Q. And --
` A. It so much nicer now that it's double-sided.
` Q. You understand there's no particular page
`limit on how long your declaration can be?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I have some vague understanding
`of that, but I don't really know what the rules are.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. In putting together your declaration, you
`didn't feel the need to leave certain opinions that
`you thought were important out because of a page limit
`constraint, right?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I never thought that I had a
`page limit constraint. Nobody ever told me I did. So
`I just wrote what I wrote.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 3 of 52
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10
`
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. And your goal for your declaration was to
`address what you thought was the closest prior art
`in response to the proposed amendments that
`Realtime has put forth?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I think that's generic
`goal. I think that's correct.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. In preparing your declaration, did you
`review or consider Apple's invalidity contentions
`in the district court litigation?
` A. I have no idea what they are. Their what?
`I'm sorry.
` Q. Invalidity --
` A. Invalidity?
` Q. -- contentions.
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. And it's fair to say that your declaration
`does not discuss all of the different prior art
`references that are listed in the approximately 29
`pages of prior art listed on the cover -- on the
`front of the '862 patent?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Do I discuss all of those?
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 12
`They certainly seemed appropriate to Dr. Back, I
`think his name is, and so those were the ones I
`looked at because I thought they were good art.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. You considered other art as a part of the
`analysis that led you to those two particular
`references?
` A. I considered other art. Prior to doing
`this, previous declarations, I probably thought
`about where other art might be found. I probably
`-- I don't think I took under -- undertook any
`systematic search. I was just kind of curious
`about mostly what a person of under -- ordinary
`skill would understand, what they might know. But
`I don't think I undertook any systematic look.
` Q. Did you, at any point in your work in
`relation to the common specification of the '862
`patent, the '608 patent, and I believe the '936
`patent, come across the Esfahani prior art
`reference?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection.
`Foundation.
` MR. NOROOZI: And please just keep your
`objections to form.
` THE WITNESS: Estafani?
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`I do not.
`2
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`3
` Q. Did you go about reviewing those
`4
`references, and trying to identify whether any of
`5
`them were relevant to the amendments sought in the
`6 motion to amend?
`7
` A. Did I review any of them or all of them?
`8 Or --
`9
` Q. Did you systematically go through the list
`10
`of the prior art cited in the '862 patent to see if
`11
`there were references other than Settsu and
`12
`Zwiegincew that you thought were relevant to the
`13
`amendments sought?
`14
` A. I did not.
`15
` Q. At some point, a process was undertaken,
`16 whether by you directly or in conjunction with
`17 Apple's lawyers, to identify what you and Apple
`18
`believe is the best and strongest and most relevant
`19
`prior art for demonstrating in your views the
`20
`unpatentability of the claims of the '862 patent,
`21
`right?
`22
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
`23
` THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what
`24 Apple has done with respect to that. The two
`25
`pieces of prior art I used seemed appropriate.
`
`1
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`2
` Q. I believe it's Esfahani.
`3
` A. Esfahani. I'm aware that there exists,
`4
`but from the previous declaration that I wrote. I
`5
`don't remember whether I looked at it depth or not.
`6
`I know it exists.
`7
` Q. You don't have any --
`8
` A. Dr. Back mentioned it, too, so...
`9
` Q. You don't have any opinion in the two
`10
`declarations that you submitted in response to
`11
`Realtime's motion to amend with respect to the
`12
`Esfahani reference, right?
`13
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
`14
` THE WITNESS: I think the best way to --
`15
`do you have "Estafani"?
`16
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`17
` Q. Esfahani.
`18
` A. Esfahani. Do you have it here?
`19
` Q. I do not.
`20
` A. Okay. I mean, I can't exclude the
`21
`possibility that I might have remembered something
`22
`from that that might have influenced me in some
`23 way, but I didn't look at it specifically to
`24
`produce this declaration. I would have put it in
`25
`front if I had.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 4 of 52
`
`

`

`Page 14
`1
` Q. In your list of materials considered, you
`2
`don't mention the Esfahani reference, right?
`3
` A. No, I don't.
`4
` Q. And when you came to prepare your
`5
`declarations that you submitted in response to the
`6 motions to amend that we are talking about today,
`7
`you did not rely on Esfahani as relevant prior art
`8
`that you thought demonstrated unpatentability with
`9
`respect to the requested amended claims. True?
`10
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
`11
` THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't think I
`12
`relied on Esfahani in preparing this declaration.
`13
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`14
` Q. You also did not rely on the Sukegawa
`15
`reference in preparing the declarations that you
`16
`submitted in response to the motions to amend.
`17
`True?
`18
` A. Yes. That's correct.
`19
` Q. You do not offer an opinion in your
`20
`declarations that the sought amended claims would
`21
`be unpatentable over Sukegawa, whether alone or in
`22
`combination with any other reference, right?
`23
` A. Sukegawa alone or in combination with any
`24
`other reference? I don't believe I made any use of
`25
`Sukegawa.
`
`Page 16
`
`1
` Q. And in your declaration, you do not
`2
`dispute that the amendments that Realtime is
`3
`seeking are responsive to the arguments and
`4
`assertions that Apple has put forth in the
`5
`underlying inter partes review proceedings; is that
`6
`right?
`7
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
`8
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand
`9
`the question.
`10
` Keep subdividing it, maybe. I'm not sure
`11
`I understand what you mean by "responsive to" and
`12
`so forth. So let me hear it again or break it
`13
`down.
`14
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`15
` Q. Well, it's fair to say that you don't have
`16
`an opinion in your declaration that the amendments
`17
`that Realtime is seeking are unrelated to anything
`18
`that is being discussed and debated in the
`19
`underlying inter partes Review Proceeding; is that
`20
`fair?
`21
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
`22
` THE WITNESS: Say it again. I don't
`23
`understand the question well enough to determine
`24 whether or not I have an opinion or no opinion
`25
`about it. That's the problem.
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. You also don't dispute in your
`declarations that the amendments that Realtime has
`sought are responsive to the grounds of
`unpatentability that are at issue in the underlying
`IPRs themselves, right?
` A. Well, you're going to have to give that
`back to me again. There's a lot kind of technical
`terms in there I might have to ask you about. So
`not my technology, yours. Just say it one more
`time or have it read back.
` Q. Let me break it down.
` A. Yeah, yeah. That will help a lot.
` Q. You understand that these motions to amend
`have been filed in the course of inter partes
`review proceedings?
` A. Yes, I understand that.
` Q. And you're aware that in the inter parte
`review proceedings, Apple has put forth grounds of
`unpatentability based on which it contends that the
`existing claims of the '862 patent are
`unpatentable?
` A. The existing claims; not the claims -- the
`amended claims, the existing claims?
` Q. Right.
` A. Yes, I believe I have that understanding.
`
`1
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`2
` Q. You understand the concept of someone
`3 making an argument and someone else making a
`4
`responsive argument, right?
`5
` A. I understand that.
`6
` Q. And you also understand the converse,
`7
`where someone makes an argument, and someone else
`8 makes an unresponsive kind of irrelevant response
`9
`to the argument, right?
`10
` A. I've seen that. Yes, I understand that.
`11
` Q. Now, in the underlying inter partes review
`12
`proceedings, there are questions as to whether the
`13
`prior art teaches the various limitations of the
`14
`'862 claims with respect to loading and the
`15
`appropriate type of memory and so forth, right?
`16
` A. Just say it again.
`17
` Q. Let me withdraw that and ask a different
`18
`one.
`19
` A. Or just read it back. When it gets long
`20
`like that, I kind of lose track of the beginning is
`21
`the problem.
`22
` Q. Let me withdraw.
`23
` A. Sure.
`24
` Q. You do not offer an opinion in your
`25
`declaration that a person of skill in the art would
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 5 of 52
`
`

`

`Page 18
`have been motivated, based on Sukegawa, to preload
`boot data into volatile memory on power on. Is
`that true?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: You're talking about these
`two declarations, '37 and '38?
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. Correct.
` A. I don't think I offered any opinion about
`Sukegawa.
` Q. In any of your declarations --
` A. These two.
` Q. In any declaration that you've submitted
`in connection with the common specification of the
`'862 patent, have you ever offered the opinion that
`a person of skill would be motivated to modify
`Sukegawa such that Sukegawa's approach would be
`used in volatile memory on a subsequent power on --
`withdrawn.
` In any of your declarations that you've
`submitted in connection with the common
`specification of the '862 patent, have you ever
`offered an opinion that a person of skill in the
`art would modify Sukegawa to use volatile memory?
` A. Which part of Sukegawa are you proposing
`Page 19
`to modify or think that I may have spoken about?
` Q. Well, I'm asking you as a general matter
`--
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- whether you've ever argued an opinion
`that a person of still would be motivated to
`implement Sukegawa's teachings in volatile memory?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: In any of my declarations?
`I think the best I can say is, I don't believe that
`I ever proposed a combination or implementation of
`Sukegawa where the -- I'm trying to remember
`Sukegawa here -- where the memory that holds the
`different elements, 10-A, 10-B, 10-C -- I don't
`remember what its number was -- in Sukegawa that's
`a non-volatile memory. I don't believe that I
`proposed in the previous declarations a combination
`with -- where that particular memory would be
`replaced with volatile memory.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. Or --
` A. Or.
` Q. Or any situation where volatile memory
`would also be added and used alongside the
`non-volatile memory or in any other 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
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Page 20
`1
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
`2
` THE WITNESS: Where volatile memory would
`3
`be added alongside or used in some other way?
`4 Without reviewing them, I would have to -- I would
`5
`have to go back and review them to answer that
`6
`question.
`7
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`8
` Q. You're not aware of having offered such an
`9
`opinion?
`10
` A. I don't have any clear recollection of it.
`11
`You know, that's such a broad question. I mean, in
`12
`any way, I may have said something one way or the
`13
`other about volatile memory. I just don't
`14
`remember.
`15
` Q. Sukegawa teaches performing the loading of
`16
`the boot data during a different power on cycle
`17
`than the one in which the boot device controller
`18
`receives a command to load that boot data, right?
`19
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection.
`20
`Foundation.
`21
` MR. NOROOZI: Please keep your objections
`22
`to form.
`23
` THE WITNESS: Well, is Sukegawa on the
`24
`table some place?
`25
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`
`Page 21
`
`1
` Q. You mean a printed copy of it?
`2
` A. Yeah.
`3
` Q. I don't have it with me, no. I assume
`4
`that given your extensive discussion of it and your
`5
`familiarity with it, you could hopefully answer
`6
`this question. But if you need a copy, we can
`7
`procure one?
`8
` A. Well, ask the question again, but I think
`9
`I'm probably going to need a copy.
`10
` Q. Sukegawa loads boot data into non-volatile
`11 memory, right?
`12
` A. You mean as I stated in my previous
`13
`declaration, yes, that's correct.
`14
` Q. And that boot data that is loaded into
`15
`non-volatile memory in Sukegawa is used as a part
`16
`of the boot process in the next power on cycle
`17
`compared to the one in which it was loaded into
`18 memory, right?
`19
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
`20
` THE WITNESS: Well, it also might be used
`21
`in the current cycle that it's loaded in.
`22
`Remember, there's several different -- again, I'm
`23
`going to have to -- pretty soon, I'm going to have
`24
`to look at the declarations and look at Sukegawa.
`25
`Say the part again. I think I understand what
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 6 of 52
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`you're asking.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. And I want to be clear that I'm asking
`about booting operating system data, not
`application data.
` A. Sure. Okay.
` Q. So Sukegawa's teaching is that the boot
`data that is loaded into non-volatile memory in one
`cycle is used for booting the operating system in
`the next power on cycle; is that right?
` A. Yes. I think that's generally correct.
` Q. All right. I want to talk about the
`obviousness theory that you've put forth in your
`two declarations in the 1737 and 1738 proceedings
`in response to the motions to amend. You have that
`topic in mind?
` A. Well, I will soon, I think.
` Q. Your theory relies on Settsu alone or else
`in combination with Zwiegincew; is that right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. The specific aspects of the proposed
`amended claims for which you rely on Zwiegincew are
`preloading and the boot data; is that right?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Say it again.
`
`Page 23
`
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. The specific aspects --
` A. Of?
` Q. -- for which you rely on Zwiegincew with
`respect to the proposed amended claims are the
`preloading limitation and the boot data list
`limitation; is that right?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I completely
`understand the question. You mean, do I rely on
`Zwiegincew for anything else, or only those two
`things or in any other way? Or --
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. Right. So my question is: To the extent
`that you contend that this Zwiegincew reference
`teaches some or all of the limitations of the
`proposed amended claims?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. The specific limitations that you contend
`Zwiegincew teaches are the preloading limitation
`and the boot data list limitation, including
`updating the boot data list. Is that right?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Let me try it this way. We
`have Zwiegincew here? I'm not sure I'm pronouncing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Page 24
`1
`this poor man's name right here. Is Zwiegincew in
`2
`this pile some place?
`3
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`4
` Q. I believe it is.
`5
` A. Okay.
`6
` Q. Although I'm specifically asking about the
`7
`opinions you put forth in your declaration.
`8
` A. I understand that. And the other thing is
`9
`-- I don't know what's in this pile. Do we have
`10
`the -- I don't know which document is the one that
`11
`has your amended claims in it?
`12
` Q. The amended claims are reflected in your
`13
`declaration.
`14
` A. I can do that, too. Yeah. The reason I'm
`15
`asking for the -- if we have the other document is
`16
`because the claim is all in one place in that
`17
`document, as opposed to in my declaration, it's on
`18
`this page and that page and another page. So I
`19
`just wanted to have the whole claim in front of me,
`20
`if that's possible. If it isn't, we'll do it as a
`21
`piece at a time.
`22
` Q. I don't have it printed out that way, but
`23 we also have a copy of Apple's response --
`24
` A. It's possible.
`25
` Q. -- where the gaps between each limitation
`Page 25
`
`1
`are less than in your declaration, so you're
`2 welcome to look at that, too.
`3
` A. I'll look at my declaration. Okay. Your
`4
`question was Zwiegincew and three things.
`5
`Preloading, updating boot list, I think you said in
`6
`the second question. And one other.
`7
` Q. The boot list itself. Boot data list and
`8
`including updating the boot data list.
`9
` A. And preloading.
`10
` Q. And preloading?
`11
` A. And your question is as I'm not using
`12
`Zwiegincew for anything else other than that?
`13
` Q. Correct.
`14
` A. I'm going to have to check. I mean, let
`15 me get and -- I'm trying to think of the most
`16
`efficient way to do this. Let me look.
`17
` Q. Why don't we go through it limitation by
`18
`limitation?
`19
` A. Maybe that will help, yeah, because I'm
`20
`going to have to do something like that. Because
`21
`you're asking me, did I use it for something else,
`22
`and I just don't remember.
`23
` Q. You agree that you do not offer an opinion
`24
`that Zwiegincew alone would render the proposed
`25
`amended claims obvious, right?
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 7 of 52
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Or anticipated, right?
` A. Or anticipated, that's correct.
` Q. And so you rely on Zwiegincew for only
`some of the limitations of the proposed amended
`claims as opposed to all of them, right?
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: We are going to have to look
`at the individual ones. If I mention it, you know,
`then it will be clear that I relied on it.
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
` Q. Okay. Well, I want to clarify that. So
`why don't we bring up your declaration in the 1737
`proceeding first.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And?
` A. Hold on. '37? This one.
` Q. Starting on Page 8, you discuss the
`preamble to Claim 118.
` A. That's correct. And you wanted to know
`about boot data list, updating and preloading, I
`think.
` Q. Well, let's do it a little differently.
`Let's just go through limitation by limitation.
`So?
`
`Page 27
`
`1
` A. That would be easier, yeah.
`2
` Q. With respect to Limitation 118.0, as you
`3
`call it, which is the preamble to Proposed Amended
`4
`Claim 118, your declaration has five paragraphs,
`5
`Paragraphs 18 through 21, right?
`6
` A. That's correct.
`7
` Q. And in Paragraphs 18 and 19, you only talk
`8
`about Settsu, right?
`9
` A. 18 and 19? Yes, that's correct.
`10
` Q. In Paragraph 20, you talk about
`11
`Zwiegincew's teaching with respect to scenario
`12
`files, right?
`13
` A. Let me just look this over a second. I
`14 mean, yes. It talks about that and they talk about
`15
`something else. Yes, that's correct.
`16
` Q. But you don't offer the opinion that
`17
`Zwiegincew itself teaches the entire preamble of
`18
`Claim 118, specifically, a method for providing
`19
`accelerated loading of an operating system in a
`20
`computer system; is that right?
`21
` A. That's correct.
`22
` Q. And in fact, Zwiegincew doesn't teach
`23
`that, right?
`24
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
`25
` THE WITNESS: It doesn't teach what?
`
`1 Accelerated loading?
`2
` MR. NOROOZI: Of an operating system in a
`3
`computer system.
`4
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I would agree
`5 with that statement. I didn't put it in here. But
`6
`teaches? I don't know whether there's a question
`7 mark at the end or not, but -- well, I didn't say
`8
`that here. But Zwiegincew does teach accelerated
`9
`operation of a system, right, through a number of
`10
`different approaches. It has a relationship to the
`11
`booting process. And I think one of ordinary skill
`12
`in the art would see that it has a relationship to
`13
`booting of operating systems, which I think is your
`14
`question. Right?
`15
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`16
` Q. Well, not exactly.
`17
` A. Oh, okay. Then let's hear it again.
`18
` Q. I think that you're drawing on the
`19
`distinction that I was trying to draw on, which is
`20
`that Zwiegincew may teach some things about
`21
`accelerating system processes, but it does not
`22
`specifically teach accelerated loading of an
`23
`operating system in a computer system. Is that
`24
`fair?
`25
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Object to form.
`Page 29
`1
` THE WITNESS: Well, I don't recall -- I
`2
`don't think the word "operating system" is in
`3
`Zwiegincew. You know, I don't recall. But I don't
`4
`understand that -- I don't really agree with your
`5
`statement. I mean, I could agree with the
`6
`statement that there's no explicit mention of
`7
`operating system, but it does talk about booting.
`8
` It does talk about applications. It does
`9
`talk about paging, and paging is part of operating
`10
`systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`11
`look at that and say, "Let's use it for operating
`12
`systems." There's no reason they wouldn't.
`13
`BY MR. NOROOZI:
`14
` Q. Well.
`15
` A. I mean, there's nothing in there that
`16
`says, "Don't use this for operating systems," you
`17
`know.
`18
` Q. You understand the distinction between a
`19
`prior art reference actually teaching something,
`20 whether explicitly or inherently, as opposed to not
`21
`teaching the concept, but the concept being obvious
`22
`in light of the teaching of the prior art
`23
`reference; is that right?
`24
` A. Yeah. I'm going to have to hear that
`25
`again, because now -- and I understand there's a
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Realtime 2024
`Page 8 of 52
`
`

`

`Page 30
`1
`difference between anticipation and obviousness.
`2
`I'm just an engineer here. I mean, I'm not an
`3
`attorney. So there are probably some shades of
`4
`gray in between.
`5
` You know, what I try to do here is I'm
`6
`trying to help the court out, and trying to put
`7 myself in the shoes of this person of ordinary
`8
`skill. And I'm trying to understand in my mind
`9 what their understanding would have been in that
`10
`point in time back, you know, you guys call it the
`11
`prior art date or something. I'm trying to
`12
`understand what they would have understood. And
`13
`that was what I was relating to in that previous
`14
`question.
`15
` I don't think that it says "operating
`16
`system." But the person of ordinary skill would
`17
`have understood from the teachings that Zwiegincew
`18
`applies equally to operating systems. I certainly
`19
`never thought to myself that it didn't, because
`20
`it's paging, right?
`21
` Q. You have opinions about how Zwiegincew's
`22
`teachings can be used within the teachings of
`23
`Settsu that are set forth in your two declaration,
`24
`right?
`25
` A. That's correct.
`
`Page 31
`1
` Q. And you understand the difference between
`2
`anticipation based on a prior art reference and
`3
`obviousness based on the same single reference,
`4
`right?
`5
` A. I have an understanding of that. Yes. It
`6 may not be exactly what your understanding is.
`7
` Q. Do you understand that if there's any
`8
`difference between the teaching of the claim and
`9
`the teaching of the prior art reference, then the
`10
`claim is not anticipated by that reference, right?
`11
` MR. HUGUENIN-LOVE: Objection. Form.
`12
` THE WITNESS: Well, that's where I'm going
`13
`to have to part company with you a little. I mean,
`14
`it's what a person would understand from a
`15
`reference, because that person is a person of skill
`16
`in the art -- and this is just how I operate. I'm
`17
`not trying tell you how, you know, the law comes
`18
`down on this or anything like that. I'm just
`19
`saying, here's what I think about.
`20
` When I look for anticipation, okay, I
`21
`think, what would that person have understood, and
`22 would they clearly have understood a certain
`23
`concept in the claim? I mean, if it was exactly
`24
`the same, precisely the same, it would be the same
`25
`thing. But, you know, a person looks at it and
`
`Page 32
`1
`they capture an idea, and if that idea is, if they,
`2
`say, "Uh-huh. I it right here. It's X." That
`3 would be anticipation.
`4
` If they say,