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 1
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ___________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ___________________
` APPLE INC.
` Petitioner
` V.
` VALENCELL INC.
` Patent Owner
` ___________________
` Case IPR2017-00317
` U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
` ___________________
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. ALBERT TITUS
` Dallas, Texas
` Friday, November 10, 2017
`
`Reported by: KIM A. McCANN, RMR, CRR, CSR
`Job No: 133499
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`APL1101
`Apple v. Valencell
`IPR2017-00317
`
`
`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 1
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ___________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ___________________
` APPLE INC.
` Petitioner
` V.
` VALENCELL INC.
` Patent Owner
` ___________________
` Case IPR2017-00317
` U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830
` ___________________
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. ALBERT TITUS
` Dallas, Texas
` Friday, November 10, 2017
`
`Reported by: KIM A. McCANN, RMR, CRR, CSR
`Job No: 133499
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`APL1101
`Apple v. Valencell
`IPR2017-00317
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` November 10, 2017
` 9:07 a.m.
`
` Oral deposition of DR. ALBERT TITUS,
`held at the offices of Bragalone Conroy, 2200
`Ross Avenue, Suite 4500 W, Dallas, Texas,
`pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`before Kim A. McCann, Registered Merit Reporter,
`Certified Realtime Reporter and Certified
`Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
` BRAGALONE CONROY
` BY: WILLIAM KENNEDY, ESQUIRE
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Dallas, TX 75201
` Counsel for Apple, Inc.
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` BY: MICHAEL SPECHT, ESQUIRE
` KAVON NASABZADEH, ESQUIRE
` 1100 New York Avenue Northwest
` Washington, DC 20005
` Counsel for Valencell, Inc.
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` I N D E X
` PAGE
`Examination by Mr. Specht 5
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
` (Reference only)
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
` 2007 Declaration of Dr. Albert H. Titus 7
` 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830 16
` 1007 U.S. Patent No. 4,830,014 52
` 1005 Asada reference 89
` 2110 Albert Titus declaration in support 92
` of motion to amend
` 2123 Han article 98
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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 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
`25
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` DR. ALBERT TITUS,
`Having been first duly sworn, testified as
`follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SPECHT:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Titus. How are you
`today?
` A. Good. How are you?
` Q. Good. As we did yesterday, I want to
`start out with a just a few ground rules so the
`record is complete. As I said, yesterday and
`today my objective here is to ask you clear
`questions. Hopefully you will understand those.
`If you don't understand those, please let me
`know.
` Sound reasonable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you do answer the questions, I
`will assume that you understand them.
` Sound reasonable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Don't speak over one another.
`Reasonable?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` A. Yes.
` Q. Provide verbal answers to the
`questions. Reasonable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Again, we'll take periodic breaks,
`roughly an hour per session. Reasonable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And certainly, again, if you need a
`break at any time, let me know. I just ask that
`you complete any pending question before we take
`a break?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Any reason you can't testify
`truthfully today?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you on any medication that would
`impair your ability to testify today?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you know why you are here today?
` A. I do.
` Q. Why is that?
` A. To -- a deposition for my declaration
`in support of the -- of the petition and in
`support of the response provided being developed
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 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
`25
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`by Bill Kennedy and his firm to -- for the
`Valencell and the Apple litigation.
` Q. And this deposition relates to
`IPR2017-00317, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the focus of that proceeding is
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to hand you a document,
`that is Valencell Exhibit 2007.
` Have you seen this document before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what is this document?
` A. This is my declaration.
` Q. As we discussed yesterday, this is
`your declaration in support of the patent owner
`response, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And to avoid confusion, I'll do my
`best to refer to this as your POR declaration as
`opposed to your motion to amend declaration to
`keep the record clear.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Please turn to page 2.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` (Witness complies.)
` Q. Do you see a signature on page 2 of
`the declaration?
` A. I do.
` Q. And is that your signature?
` A. It is.
` Q. And page 2 indicates this was
`executed on September 22, 2017.
` Is that the date in which you signed
`this document?
` A. I believe that's correct, yes.
` Q. Did you review your declaration
`carefully before signing it?
` A. I did.
` Q. And what did that review entail?
` A. Various times of reading, editing,
`reading, editing, etc.
` Q. And at the time of signing your
`declaration, did you make any changes or
`corrections to the declaration?
` MR. KENNEDY: I think that that gets
`into -- I think that gets into draft discovery of
`the declaration. I don't think he can answer
`that question.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` MR. SPECHT: Why not?
` MR. KENNEDY: Because drafts of an
`expert declaration are not discoverable. So what
`are the changes he made, you can't really talk
`about.
` MR. SPECHT: So I'm not asking about
`the specific changes. I'm just asking if there
`are any changes.
` MR. KENNEDY: But like when would --
`right as during -- right as he was signing it or
`something? It doesn't -- it seems like that gets
`into the actual draft.
` MR. SPECHT: But I'm not asking for
`specifics. It's just a question of whether or
`not you made any changes. It goes to the
`thoroughness of your review.
` MR. KENNEDY: But when? During the
`course of -- during the course of him drafting
`it? Or like right when he was signing it? Or
`see how it goes to the --
` MR. SPECHT: I understand. That's a
`different question.
` Q. (BY MR. SPECHT) So just prior to
`signing the declaration, did you make any changes
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`to it when you reviewed it?
` A. I don't recall at what point final
`changes were made relative to when I signed -- I
`signed the final version.
` Q. When was the last time you reviewed
`your declaration?
` A. Over the last couple of days.
` Q. Have you made -- are there any
`corrections, additions, or deletions you would
`like to make at this time?
` A. I believe the only thing I know of
`that I might have noticed was maybe a typo in one
`of the -- referring to prior art, if I remember
`exactly where the page was.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. Not prior art. I'm sorry. That's
`not correct. It was one of the exhibits, I think
`the number was messed up. I think possibly it
`was, if I remember right, maybe the -- it's like
`Exhibit 214, maybe is mistaken.
` Q. I'm sorry. Where are you at in your
`declaration?
` A. I'm sorry. Yes, it's paragraph 82,
`page 39.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` Q. And what is the correction there?
` A. I'm not sure if I remember off the
`top of my head what that -- I don't know if I
`remember what all the exhibit numbers are, but I
`thought when I was looking in here -- yeah, I'm
`not sure -- I'm not sure if I can recall what
`this exhibit is off the top of my head, what that
`number should be.
` Q. So is it your testimony that there is
`a typo in paragraph 82 with respect to one of the
`exhibit numbers?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Did you write the declaration?
` A. The declaration is my -- is my
`opinion, and I worked on this with Bill Kennedy
`and his staff.
` Q. Are there any particular sections
`that you did write in the declaration?
` A. I can't point to specifically one
`word or one -- one figure or one paragraph, one
`label that I would say that is mine or isn't mine
`because -- but it does represent my -- my
`opinions.
` Q. Can I direct your attention to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`paragraph 21 of your declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You state there, "I reserve the right
`to revise my opinions if I receive new
`information or insight on the relevant topics or
`materials."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you receive any new insights,
`based on your deposition yesterday, related to
`the '269 patent?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. And so then based on that, you have
`no new insights in which you would affect your
`opinions in this declaration?
` A. Not at this time, no.
` Q. And it wouldn't affect your views as
`to the accuracy of this declaration?
` A. It would not.
` Q. So we talked about this a bit
`yesterday, but just to make it clear for the
`record with respect to the '830 patent.
` When were you contacted to work on
`this matter?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`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
`25
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` A. Again, I'm not sure of exactly the
`day, but it was around the middle-ish of July, I
`believe, of this year.
` Q. And then when did you actually become
`engaged to work on this matter, meaning you were
`contracted to do the work?
` A. Oh. I don't recall -- again, I'm
`sorry I don't recall exactly the date, but it was
`within a couple of weeks of that, maybe the
`beginning of August or so, end of July, beginning
`of August.
` Q. When you were asked to work on this
`matter, did you have an initial reaction to the
`'830 patent?
` A. As kind of most things that I see for
`the first time, it's like, hmmm, this is
`interesting.
` Q. Did you have a reaction as to whether
`you felt the claims of the '830 patent were
`obvious?
` A. Initially I -- it just was
`interesting. I didn't develop an opinion at that
`point.
` Q. Do you have an opinion now as to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`whether the challenge claims of the '830 patent
`are obvious?
` A. I do not believe they are obvious.
` Q. Can we turn to paragraph 13?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In paragraph 13 you indicate, "I have
`reviewed and analyzed the prosecution history of
`the '830 patent."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What did do you as part of that
`review?
` A. I read -- I read through the
`document, relatively long document.
` Q. When you said you read through the
`document, what document are you referring to?
` A. The -- I'm sorry. The prosecution
`history of the '830 patent.
` Q. Did you review any of the provisional
`applications for which the '830 patent claims
`priority?
` A. I don't recall specifically what I
`looked -- looked at at that point. But I was
`reading through that prosecution history, the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`long document discusses, you know, many, many
`issues, purely monetary others that are -- were
`relevant.
` Q. Do you have an understanding of the
`prosecution history?
` A. I have a general understanding of it,
`yeah, I believe.
` Q. What does it mean to have a general
`understanding of it?
` A. I mean, I understand what goes on in
`the process of filing a patent and going -- and
`having -- working through the U.S. Patent Office
`and having them have office actions that are sent
`back and responses, etc.
` Q. Do you know why in the prosecution
`history the claims of the '830 patent were
`originally allowed?
` A. I don't know if I recall the exact
`reasonings for that, no.
` Q. Do you know what features the patent
`office considered were patentable?
` A. In the '830 patent?
` Q. Correct.
` A. I believe they allowed the claims
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`that are in the '830 patent to be patentable.
` Q. Were there specific features within
`those patents that were the basis for allowance,
`that you're aware of?
` A. I'm not sure what you mean by
`"features." I mean, they allowed the claims and
`the patent was issued.
` Q. I'm going to give you what's marked
`as Apple 1001 exhibit. This is U.S. Patent No.
`8,989,830 issued to LeBoeuf, et al.
` Have you seen this before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this is the patent that's the
`subject of this proceeding, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with the
`relationship between the '830 patent and the '269
`patent, which we spoke about yesterday?
` A. I'm not sure if I know exactly the
`relationship between them. They're two separate
`patents that have -- that are issued by -- or I'm
`sorry -- not issued by. I believe it's the same
`inventor listed on them, but I don't know -- I'm
`not sure if I remember exactly what the exact
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`relationship is between them.
` Q. Looking at the '830 patent. On the
`cover page about midway down column 1, do you see
`a heading titled "Related U.S. Application Data"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you reviewed this before? And I
`say "this," this portion of the patent?
` A. I believe I read through it at one
`point, yes.
` Q. It states, "Continuation of
`application No. 14/184,364 filed on
`February 19, 2014, now Pat. No. 8,886,269." It
`goes on, I'm just reading the first two lines.
` The U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269 is the
`patent we talked about yesterday, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is the patent of the 317 IPR,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know what it means for a
`patent to be a continuation of another patent?
` A. I don't know if I -- I don't know if
`I know the exact definition of the legal
`definition of that, but I would say that it would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`be -- and I believe that it would mean that it
`continues from that. It has some basis as
`derived from the previous.
` Q. What is the basis for that
`understanding?
` A. Just from prior -- prior discussions.
`But again, it's not -- I don't -- I'm not sure
`that I've -- have a full legal definition in my
`head of that.
` Q. So just to be clear, I'm not looking
`for a legal definition. I'm just seeking to
`understand your understanding as a technical
`expert working in a patent matter of the
`relationship between the two patents that we're
`considering, the '269 and the '830 patent.
` And so in terms of that relationship,
`one is a continuation of the other, correct?
` A. It says here that this -- that
`"Continuation of Application No. 14/184,364 filed
`on February 19, 2014, now Pat. No. 8,886,269," so
`I believe that's correct, yes.
` Q. In developing your understanding of
`the '830 patent, did you consider the prosecution
`history of the '269 patent?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` A. I looked through that, yes.
` Q. And did the prosecution history of
`the '269 patent have any impact on your opinions
`in your declaration for this matter?
` A. After reading through them, it did
`not -- I don't know if I know exactly how it
`impacted my opinions in this matter, but -- but
`as I think I state in the -- in my declaration
`that I -- in my declaration, I believe it's
`stated, "In my opinion, persons of ordinary" --
`I'm sorry, this is paragraph 83, page 39: "In my
`opinion, persons of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have understood claims 1-4, 11-14 of
`the '830 patent to be rendered obvious by the
`single reference Goodman."
` So I believe that -- and that
`continues from there, and I believe that that's
`the answer to my question.
` Q. So my question was did the
`prosecution history of the '269 patent have any
`impact on your opinions in your declaration for
`this matter. How does your answer address that
`question?
` A. I believe my opinions are stated in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`my declaration. So whatever impact it might have
`had or might not have had has come out and has
`been -- is available in my declaration, as I
`said. That was my -- what I was thinking.
` Q. But to your knowledge, there's no
`place in this declaration, the POR declaration
`before us today, that makes any reference to
`the '269 prosecution history, does it?
` A. I believe it -- I believe page 13,
`paragraph 41 states that "The '830 patent issued
`from U.S. Patent No. 14/484,585," it continues,
`etc., etc., on to the next page, going back and
`then gets to the point of "that the priority date
`for the '830 patent is February 25, 2009," which
`is referred to as "the relevant time frame" or
`"time of the invention."
` So it does mention, I guess, in a
`sense it mentions the prosecution history there.
` Q. Is there any other place you're aware
`of that either directly or suggestively refers to
`the prosecution history from the '269 patent?
` A. I'm not sure. I don't believe there
`-- it's mentioned anyplace else.
` Q. Let's go back to paragraph 41 then.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`In paragraph 41, the second-to-last sentence you
`make the statement, "For this declaration, I
`assume that the priority date for the '830 patent
`is February 25, 2009."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is your basis for that
`assumption?
` A. Since the patent issued from -- I'm
`sorry -- this patent, The '830 issued -- and this
`is -- I'm just stating from paragraph 41 again --
`"The '830 patent issued from U.S. Patent
`Application No. 14/484,585 (the '585
`application)." The '585 is now a continuation of
`this next number. "The '585 application further
`claims priority provisional application, which is
`filed on No. 61/208,567 filed on February 25,
`2009."
` So that is -- that's -- my
`understanding is that since the one is -- since
`they're linked in that way, that's why this is
`the priority date for this patent.
` Q. In your opinion, is that all that's
`necessary, that they're linked in the way you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`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
`25
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`described in paragraph 41 to support the priority
`date of February 25, 2009 that you list there?
` A. It says, "the '585 application
`further claims priority to provisional
`application No." -- again, this is continuing in
`paragraph 41 now on page 14 -- "provisional
`application No. 61/208,567 filed on February 25,
`2009, and provisional application No. 61/208,574
`filed on February 25, 2009."
` So I believe it is all of those --
`for all of these connections, I believe that to
`be why it is the priority date.
` Q. Just one reminder of when you're
`reading from a document, can you read more
`slowly --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- so the court reporter can keep up.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Did you review the provisional
`applications that are identified in paragraph 41
`of your declaration?
` A. Yes, I believe I did.
` Q. And do you understand the provisional
`applications that are identified in paragraph 41
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`of your declaration?
` A. Yes, I believe so.
` Q. So would it be your opinion that the
`subject matter claimed in the '830 patent was
`disclosed in those provisional applications?
` A. I don't think that I recall exactly
`what was in those applications specifically.
` Q. So do you not have an opinion whether
`or not the subject matter claimed in the '830
`patent was disclosed in those provisional
`applications?
` A. I believe that they are -- since --
`that they are connected, I believe that this --
`the statement is accurate in paragraph 41. So I
`believe that there is material that is connected
`in those as -- in those provisional patent
`applications.
` Q. When you're using the term
`"connected," what do you mean in this context?
` A. In that there's relevant material in
`those patent -- provisional patent applications
`that continues through the -- through to the
`current patent under discussion. My
`understanding for a provisional patent when it is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`filed, that the provisional patent allows you to
`then file the full patent, and that full patent
`has -- is based on provisional patent and the
`claims that are in there.
` As I said, I don't remember the exact
`details of the provisional patents to be able to
`state whether or not the claims that are in those
`provisional patents are identical to what is in
`the current patent.
` Q. Let's turn to paragraph 51 of your
`declaration. Paragraph 51 includes claim 1 of
`the '830 patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you understand claim 1 of the
`'830 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you have an understanding of all
`of the challenge claims of the '830 patent?
` A. I do.
` Q. In reviewing claim 1 of the '830
`patent, element 1.2 includes an "element of light
`transmissive material."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` Q. As of 2009, would a person of
`ordinary skill in the art been familiar with a
`light transmissive material?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In element 1.3, there is an element
`"at least one optical emitter."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. As of 2009, would a person of
`ordinary skill in the art been familiar with at
`least one optical emitter?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In that same element, there is -- or
`in that same -- yeah, in that same element 1.3,
`there is "at least one optical detector."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. As of 2009, would a person of
`ordinary skill in the art been familiar with that
`element?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In section -- or in element 1.4,
`there's a element of "cladding material."
` Do you see that?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`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
`25
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` A. Yes.
` Q. As of 2009, would a person of
`ordinary skill in the art been familiar with a
`cladding material?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are there any elements within this
`claim that as of 2009, a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would not have been familiar with?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection. Form.
` A. So in -- taken in its entirety, I
`would say what -- there are elements in here, of
`course, that people would recognize as existing
`because otherwise there would have to potentially
`be more of a definition of what those were to be
`able to have the text in there.
` Basically what you're asking me was
`did someone know what these were, and the answer
`is -- is yes. But that's by themselves -- by
`itself it is not what -- that term itself is not
`patenting the term itself.
` Q. So how does that answer the question
`whether or not there would be any elements within
`the claim that as of 2009 a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would not be familiar with?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection. Form.
` A. May not be -- there -- I would say in
`terms of those -- looking at those types of
`terms, those -- the terms that you defined and
`other terms in the claim would be recognized by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
` Q. Would a person of ordinary skill in
`the art in 2009 been able to combine these
`elements using known methods?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection. Form.
` A. I don't believe taken in entirety
`that one would have just done this.
` Q. How does that answer the question of
`whether or not a person of ordinary skill in the
`art in 2009 would have been able to combine the
`elements of the claim using known methods?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection. Asked and
`answered.
` A. I believe that, as I said, not just
`-- not the whole thing in its entirety, as this
`is. I don't believe it's obvious.
` Q. I didn't ask you whether it was
`obvious, did I?
` A. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`been able to combine this, again, I don't believe
`they would have in this particular form.
` Q. Why is that?
` A. Why is?
` Q. You said, "A person of ordinary skill
`in the art would not have been able to combine
`this. I don't believe they would have in this
`particular form."
` And I said, "Why is that?"
` What is the basis of that?
` A. I believe in looking at this, it's
`necessary to understand fully what the patent is
`describing, and in particular, it could discuss
`the abstract of the patent or discusses a
`monitoring device configured to be attached to
`the body of a subject, includes an outer layer
`and inner secured together. The inner layers
`includes a light transmissive material, and has
`an inner and outer surfaces. A base is secured
`to at least one outer and inner layers, and
`includes optical emitter and optical detector, a
`layer of cladding material." It continues from
`there. I'm reciting that.
` So I believe that in its entirety,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`that's what makes this -- makes this -- these
`claims not just something that someone would just
`throw together.
` Q. Let's turn to paragraph 26 of your
`declaration. Sorry. Do you see the statement,
`"I understand that 'preponderance of the
`evidence' means that the evidence is sufficient
`to show that a fact is more likely true than it
`is not"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So if something is expressly
`disclosed by a reference, is it more likely to be
`true than if something is not disclosed by that
`reference?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection. Form.
` A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the
`question?
` Q. If something is expressly disclosed
`by a reference, is it more likely to be true than
`if something is not disclosed by that reference?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection. Form.
` A. Preponderance of evidence means in --
`A preponderance of evidence in paragraph 26 means
`that the evidence is sufficient to show that a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`fact is more likely true than it is not.
` Q. How did that answer the question?
` A. I'm sorry, what was your question
`again?
` Q. If something is expressly disclosed
`by a reference, is it more likely to be true than
`if something is not disclosed by that reference?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection to form.
` A. If something is disclosed by a
`reference, is it more likely to be true than not?
`I guess I don't agree with that statement.
` Q. Why not?
` A. If -- if something is -- if something
`could be disclosed by a reference that's stating
`something false, therefore that would not be
`true.
` Q. But what if it's not false, is the
`statement true then?
` MR. KENNEDY: Objection.
`Hypothetical. Vague. Ambiguous. Unintelligible
`question.
` MR. SPECHT: You don't need to get
`carried away with your objections. They're not
`supposed to be a speaking objection, correct,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`Bill?
` MR. KENNEDY: Just listing off
`reasons why this whole line of question has
`been -- I think he's been clarifying --
` MR. SPECHT: That's not your call.
` A. So if a -- I'm sorry. So then you're
`saying if a reference states something is true,
`is it more likely that it's true. Is that what
`you were saying?
` Q. Than if it doesn't say anything about
`it.
` A. I -- I guess if that is something --
`if it is something that's disclosed as being
`true, then I guess I would have to say that it is
`true.
` Q. So what did you do to prepare for
`your deposition today?
` A. Preparation is in general something
`that is -- that is long. I think about it as
`being kind of starting from the point of when I
`was first -- when I first agreed to do this and
`reading the materials, becoming familiar with the
`materials, going through the whole -- the various
`documents. So during the entire timeline over
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`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
`
` DR. ALBERT TITUS - 11/10/17
`that period of time, reading and preparing, etc.,
`more -- I would say more recently, again, going
`through the documents again, re-reading some
`things.
` Q. So after yesterday's deposition in
`the '269 patent, did you do anything to prepare
`for your deposition today?
` A. I read through some documents again.
` Q. What documents did you read through?
` A. I read through my declaration. I
`probably looked at the patent again. I don't --
`I don't recall exactly what else I was looking
`at.
` Q. Did you meet with anyone in
`preparation for your deposition today after your
`deposition yesterday?
` MR. KENNEDY: You can answer this
`question, but I cautio
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
