Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 ____________________
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________________
`
` 6 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.,
`
` 7 Petitioner,
`
` 8 v.
`
` 9 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`
` 10 Patent Owner.
`
` 11 _____________________
`
` 12 Case IPR2017-00444
`
` Patent 6,915,560
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15 DEPOSITION OF NEIL J. SHEEHAN
`
` 16 JANUARY 26, 2018
`
` 17 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20 Reported by:
`
` 21 Lisa O'Sullivan
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
` 22 License No. 7822
`
` 23
`
` 24 GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
`
` 877.370.3377 T | 917.591.5672 F
`
` 25 deps@golkow.com
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 ____________________
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________________
`
` 6 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.,
`
` 7 Petitioner,
`
` 8 v.
`
` 9 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`
` 10 Patent Owner.
`
` 11 _____________________
`
` 12 Case IPR2017-00444
`
` Patent 6,915,560
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15 DEPOSITION OF NEIL J. SHEEHAN
`
` 16 JANUARY 26, 2018
`
` 17 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20 Reported by:
`
` 21 Lisa O'Sullivan
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
` 22 License No. 7822
`
` 23
`
` 24 GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
`
` 877.370.3377 T | 917.591.5672 F
`
` 25 deps@golkow.com
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ____________________
`
` 2
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 3 ____________________
`
` 4 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.,
`
` 5 Petitioner,
`
` 6 v.
`
` 7 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`
` 8 Patent Owner.
`
` _____________________
`
` 9
`
` Case IPR2017-00444
`
` 10 Patent 6,915,560
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15 Deposition of NEIL J. SHEEHAN, taken on behalf
`
` 16 of the Patent Owner, held at 2040 Main Street,
`
` 17 14th Floor, Irvine, California, from 9:15 a.m. to
`
` 18 2:10 p.m. on Friday, January 26, 2018, before Lisa
`
` 19 O'Sullivan, California CSR No. 7822.
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
` 2
`
` 3 For the Petitioner:
`
` 4 CRAIG S. SUMMERS, ESQ.
`
` KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
` 5 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
` Irvine, California 92614
`
` 6 949.760.0404 T
`
` 949.760.9502 F
`
` 7 Craig.summers@knobbe.com
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` For the Patent Owner:
`
` WALLACE WU, ESQ.
`
` 10 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
`
` 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`
` 11 Los Angeles, California 90017-5844
`
` 213.243.4000 T
`
` 12 213.243.4199 F
`
` Wallace.wu@apks.com
`
` 13 213.243.4104 D
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 INDEX
`
` 2
`
` 3 EXAMINATION OF NEIL J. SHEEHAN PAGE
`
` 4 BY MR. WU 6
`
` 5 Afternoon Session 82
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
` 2
`
` 3 FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` 4 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` 5 Exhibit 1101 United States Patent 6,915,560, 65
`
` Austin
`
` 6
`
` Exhibit 1103 United States Patent 4,454,657, 8
`
` 7 Yasumi
`
` 8 Exhibit 1105 Declaration of Neil Sheehan in 9
`
` Support of Petition for Inter
`
` 9 Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
` 6,915,560
`
` 10
`
` Exhibit 1127 Supplemental Declaration of Neil 7
`
` 11 Sheehan in Support of Petition for
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
` 12 No. 6,915,560
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY; JANUARY 26, 2018
`
` 2 9:15 A.M.
`
` 3 - - -
`
` 4 NEIL J. SHEEHAN,
`
` 5 having been first duly sworn or affirmed,
`
` 6 was examined and testified as follows:
`
` 7 EXAMINATION
`
` 8 BY MR. WU:
`
` 9 Q. Good morning. Could you state your name for
`
` 10 the record?
`
` 11 A. Neil, N-E-I-L, Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Sheehan,
`
` 12 S-H-E-E-H-A-N.
`
` 13 Q. Where do you reside?
`
` 14 A. 1 Southgate Street, Atherton, California
`
` 15 94027.
`
` 16 Q. How are you currently employed?
`
` 17 A. Self.
`
` 18 Q. What did you do to prepare for today's
`
` 19 deposition?
`
` 20 A. I came down -- this is Friday. I came down
`
` 21 Wednesday night and met from, I don't know, from maybe
`
` 22 10:00, 9:30 yesterday to maybe 2:00 or something. I'm
`
` 23 drawing a blank. I'm drawing a blank on the other guy's
`
` 24 name. I'm sorry. With the two attorneys from Knobbe.
`
` 25 Q. And one is Mr. Summers?
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 A. Yes. Craig Summers and Josh.
`
` 2 Q. Now, I understand that your deposition has
`
` 3 been taken numerous times.
`
` 4 A. Yes. By you, in fact.
`
` 5 Q. That's what I mean. Do I need to go through
`
` 6 the ground rules?
`
` 7 A. No.
`
` 8 Q. Is there anything that might affect your
`
` 9 ability to testify truthfully and accurately today?
`
` 10 A. No.
`
` 11 (Exhibit 1127, previously marked, is
`
` 12 introduced herein.)
`
` 13 BY MR. WU:
`
` 14 Q. Mr. Sheehan, you have a corrected version of
`
` 15 the Exhibit 1127 in front of you, which is your
`
` 16 supplemental declaration in this IPR.
`
` 17 A. Yes.
`
` 18 Q. Now, your counsel has submitted this corrected
`
` 19 version yesterday.
`
` 20 A. Yes.
`
` 21 Q. Is there anything in Exhibit 1127 that's
`
` 22 inaccurate or incorrect, to your knowledge?
`
` 23 A. Well, as long as this is the same as the one
`
` 24 that I submitted, save for the addition of the
`
` 25 neglectfully not-included perjury thing, I have no
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 reason to believe there are any mistakes.
`
` 2 (Exhibit 1103, previously marked, is
`
` 3 introduced herein.)
`
` 4 BY MR. WU:
`
` 5 Q. You also have Exhibit 1103 in front of you --
`
` 6 A. Yes.
`
` 7 Q. -- which is the Yasumi patent.
`
` 8 A. Uh-huh.
`
` 9 Q. Feel free to go back and forth between your
`
` 10 declaration and Exhibit 1103. Okay?
`
` 11 A. Okay. Is it possible that I could have a copy
`
` 12 of my first declaration?
`
` 13 MR. WU: I actually don't have a copy with me.
`
` 14 Craig, do you have a copy?
`
` 15 MR. SUMMERS: I don't have one with me in this
`
` 16 conference room, but I can obtain copies and bring them
`
` 17 in.
`
` 18 MR. WU: Do we want to just pause, and you can
`
` 19 get it so that Mr. Sheehan can take a look?
`
` 20 MR. SUMMERS: Would you like me to do that?
`
` 21 I'm happy to do that.
`
` 22 MR. WU: Yeah, yeah. Let's just go off the
`
` 23 record so that -- we don't need it for the next set of
`
` 24 questions, but I feel like, you know, maybe you should
`
` 25 have someone get it done so that he feels comfortable
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 about it, just find it. Is that okay?
`
` 2 MR. SUMMERS: Sure. Let's go off the record,
`
` 3 then.
`
` 4 MR. WU: Yeah.
`
` 5 (Recess, 9:20 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.)
`
` 6 (Exhibit 1105, previously marked, is
`
` 7 introduced herein.)
`
` 8 BY MR. WU:
`
` 9 Q. All right. Mr. Sheehan, you now have
`
` 10 Exhibit 1105 in front of you --
`
` 11 A. Yes. Thank you very much.
`
` 12 Q. -- which is your original declaration
`
` 13 submitted in this IPR, right?
`
` 14 A. Yes, sir.
`
` 15 Q. So can we turn to Exhibit 1127?
`
` 16 A. Yes.
`
` 17 Q. And in particular, I would like to ask you a
`
` 18 few questions regarding paragraph 8 on page 2.
`
` 19 A. Yes.
`
` 20 Q. Are you there?
`
` 21 A. Yes.
`
` 22 Q. And in that paragraph, you say, "In the course
`
` 23 of rendering my opinion in that case, I was called upon
`
` 24 to remove hundreds of stents from the balloon catheter
`
` 25 products in order to test the balloons," correct?
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 A. Yes, sir.
`
` 2 Q. And do you remember in which year you removed
`
` 3 hundreds of stents from the balloon catheter products in
`
` 4 order to test the balloons?
`
` 5 A. Well, it was -- the case was 2006. At least,
`
` 6 that's what I have in the paragraph. So it would have
`
` 7 been 2005, 2006. It's knowable. I could research it.
`
` 8 Q. And that was about six years after the
`
` 9 relevant time frame of the '560 patent, right?
`
` 10 A. Oh, okay. Sure.
`
` 11 Q. And removing a stent from a balloon catheter
`
` 12 is not crimping a stent on the balloon catheter,
`
` 13 correct?
`
` 14 A. Oh, I agree.
`
` 15 Q. And you didn't use any stent crimpers to
`
` 16 remove the stent from the balloon catheter, correct?
`
` 17 A. Correct.
`
` 18 Q. And you don't know how the stent was crimped
`
` 19 on any of the balloon catheters you tested in that
`
` 20 paragraph, correct?
`
` 21 A. That's correct.
`
` 22 Q. And you don't know what apparatus was used to
`
` 23 crimp the stent in any of the balloon catheters you
`
` 24 tested in that paragraph, correct?
`
` 25 A. It sounds like the same question, but yes.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions in
`
` 2 paragraph 9. Are you there?
`
` 3 A. Yes.
`
` 4 Q. In that paragraph, you talk about
`
` 5 investigating how the accused TriReme Chocolate-brand
`
` 6 percutaneous transluminal angioplasty catheter was made
`
` 7 and testing them, right?
`
` 8 A. Yes. They were accused -- they were being
`
` 9 accused of infringement by AngioScore.
`
` 10 Q. Do you recall again in which year you did the
`
` 11 investigation and testing?
`
` 12 A. Well, it would have been the case was 2012.
`
` 13 Oh, you know what? That was -- the trial was in 2015,
`
` 14 and so I guess it went back as far as 2012.
`
` 15 Q. And that was at least 12 years after the
`
` 16 relevant time frame of the '560 patent, right?
`
` 17 A. Sure, sure. No problem.
`
` 18 Q. And in the second sentence of that paragraph,
`
` 19 you said "a non-deployable stent"?
`
` 20 A. Yes.
`
` 21 Q. Why was it called "non-deployable stent"?
`
` 22 A. Well, that is not my language. The patent in
`
` 23 suit referred to what was actually a containing
`
` 24 structure or a CS, as it was called, at TriReme, and it
`
` 25 was a constraining nitinol -- it was rather like a
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 stent, but it wasn't left behind. And the purpose of it
`
` 2 was to create, when the balloon was -- the angioplasty
`
` 3 balloon was inflated, it held the balloon down in such a
`
` 4 way that little pillows came out of the openings in the
`
` 5 stent lattice.
`
` 6 And so it created kind of like -- I don't know
`
` 7 if you know about tuck-and-roll seating in cars in the
`
` 8 '50s or in diners, but there were these little puffs of
`
` 9 prominences. In fact, the stent itself didn't really
`
` 10 contact a lesion, and the beauty of it was to prevent
`
` 11 migration. That was one.
`
` 12 But because the patent referred to it as a
`
` 13 stent, even though it was not left behind -- I think if
`
` 14 you speak to a number of engineers, most people would
`
` 15 say a stent is something that's left behind. But they
`
` 16 called it a non-deployable stent. It was made much the
`
` 17 same way.
`
` 18 It was probably made at NDC, which is a big
`
` 19 manufacturer of stents. Nitinol Development
`
` 20 Corporation, just called NDC. Somebody bought them. It
`
` 21 could be Medtronic. I'm not sure.
`
` 22 But it was made the same way. So it's like,
`
` 23 you know, .1 millimeter thick and just had the same feel
`
` 24 and look as a traditional -- like the stents I have in
`
` 25 my right coronary artery.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 Q. So there's another name for this
`
` 2 non-deployable stent, which is a constraining structure?
`
` 3 A. Structure, which is what it was called by
`
` 4 TriReme, who was being accused by AngioScore.
`
` 5 Q. And why do you consider a constraining
`
` 6 structure a stent, again?
`
` 7 A. Oh, I didn't. I didn't. It's just that the
`
` 8 patent -- the patent called it a non-deployable stent.
`
` 9 Q. So your opinion is that a constraining
`
` 10 structure is not a stent?
`
` 11 A. Well, separate from that, I would say -- I
`
` 12 would agree with you, yes. For my money, a stent is
`
` 13 something that is left behind. It's an implant, if you
`
` 14 will. So but to be accurate, I used the word "stent"
`
` 15 here because it's made just like any other stent,
`
` 16 et cetera. It's attached in the same manner. You have
`
` 17 to crimp it on. All the steps are the same. It's just
`
` 18 that it is held at the ends so it can't -- it can't
`
` 19 leave. And so the balloon inflates through it, if you
`
` 20 will.
`
` 21 Q. So just so I'm clear, the constraining
`
` 22 structure in this case in paragraph 9 is not a stent, in
`
` 23 your expert opinion, correct?
`
` 24 A. Well, it's somewhere in between. It has
`
` 25 stent-like aspects, especially in its manufacture, as an
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 original part and in the assembly, but it's just not
`
` 2 left behind. So I can't say it's not a stent. It's a,
`
` 3 as they called it, a non-deployable stent.
`
` 4 Q. You've never crimped the constrained structure
`
` 5 on a balloon catheter, correct?
`
` 6 A. I have never. I have observed it at TriReme,
`
` 7 but I have never done it myself, correct.
`
` 8 Q. And you've never used a stent crimper in that
`
` 9 context either, right?
`
` 10 A. That's correct, personally.
`
` 11 Q. Can you turn to paragraph 12 of your
`
` 12 declaration, supplemental declaration?
`
` 13 A. Sure.
`
` 14 Q. And are you there at paragraph 12?
`
` 15 A. Yes.
`
` 16 Q. All right. Can you take a look at the last
`
` 17 sentence? It says, "The '560 patent is a relatively
`
` 18 straightforward mechanical system for reducing the size
`
` 19 of a tubular object, and I have been working with
`
` 20 mechanical devices my entire career."
`
` 21 Do you see that?
`
` 22 A. I do.
`
` 23 Q. And why do you say the '560 patent is a
`
` 24 relatively straightforward mechanical system?
`
` 25 A. Because you can read the patent. One of
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 ordinary skill in the art, which would be typically a
`
` 2 mechanical engineer -- I have a definition of a person
`
` 3 of skill in the art in the first declaration.
`
` 4 The mechanical arts are known as predictable,
`
` 5 unlike, say, chemical arts. And so it is relatively
`
` 6 straightforward to understand how the embodiments in the
`
` 7 '560 are intended to work. It's a mechanism. So I
`
` 8 don't know that there's anybody involved in the case who
`
` 9 doesn't understand how the '560 works.
`
` 10 It's relatively -- its specification is
`
` 11 clearly written, although -- yeah, the specification is
`
` 12 relatively clearly written, and so it's quite
`
` 13 understandable. I think even Dr. Solar understands how
`
` 14 it works.
`
` 15 Q. Can you turn to paragraph 18 of your
`
` 16 supplemental declaration?
`
` 17 A. 18, 1-8?
`
` 18 Q. Yep.
`
` 19 A. Okay.
`
` 20 Q. On page 6.
`
` 21 A. Uh-huh.
`
` 22 Q. Again, I want you to focus on the last
`
` 23 sentence of paragraph 18. It says, "Although one
`
` 24 example does refer to an electric wire, i.e., an
`
` 25 electric wire guide device, at 9:35-37, such a device is
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 used to guide a threaded wiring to a pin connector so
`
` 2 that the connector can be crimped securely onto the
`
` 3 wire."
`
` 4 Do you see that?
`
` 5 A. Yes. That's the penultimate sentence. It's
`
` 6 not the last one.
`
` 7 Q. That's correct. When you say "such a device"
`
` 8 in that sentence, which device are you referring?
`
` 9 A. Oh, you mean which embodiment?
`
` 10 Q. Yes, figure 8 or some other figure?
`
` 11 A. Well, you can do it in figure 8. Figure 9 is
`
` 12 the one that shows -- shows it most clearly. It's where
`
` 13 they show the pin connector, which is item 51.
`
` 14 Q. Let me ask this question again.
`
` 15 A. Sure.
`
` 16 Q. In this particular sentence, when you said
`
` 17 "such a device," were you referring to figure 8 or
`
` 18 figure 9 of Yasumi?
`
` 19 A. Oh, all of Yasumi.
`
` 20 Q. Do you understand that the only embodiment
`
` 21 that is the basis of this IPR is figure 8 of Yasumi?
`
` 22 A. Well, with a clarification: figure 8 and
`
` 23 supporting figure 3 and 10, figures 3 and 10.
`
` 24 Q. That's correct.
`
` 25 A. Yes. No, I'm not -- I'm just telling you what
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 it says in the specification, and where the pin is shown
`
` 2 specifically is in figure 8 -- figure 9, sorry, which is
`
` 3 part of the specification.
`
` 4 Q. Right. So figure 9 is not --
`
` 5 A. Yes.
`
` 6 Q. -- the basis for this IPR, correct?
`
` 7 A. Yes. I have no problem with that.
`
` 8 Q. Okay. And the passage you cited, 9:35-37, are
`
` 9 you there?
`
` 10 A. Not yet. Yes.
`
` 11 Q. And that is referring to figure 9, correct?
`
` 12 A. Yes, yes.
`
` 13 Q. And figure 9 is not the basis for this IPR,
`
` 14 correct?
`
` 15 A. Figure 9 -- how shall I put this? I agree
`
` 16 with you on that, but figure 9 also shows -- I think the
`
` 17 mechanism in figure 9 is not in it, is not a part of it,
`
` 18 but I don't -- you lawyers will have to tell me what the
`
` 19 deal is. But if there's something disclosed in the
`
` 20 specification about another figure that is apropos to
`
` 21 all the figures, let's say the device in figure 8, you
`
` 22 can do the exact same thing in figure 8. You can crimp
`
` 23 a wire onto a pin. That's crimping.
`
` 24 Q. But that's your opinion, right? The figure 8
`
` 25 itself never talks about a pin connector, correct?
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 A. Oh, I couldn't -- at this point, I couldn't
`
` 2 say one way or the other. I'd have to take the time to
`
` 3 look. I know that in the specifications, there are
`
` 4 references to different kinds of linear members, and so
`
` 5 that would catch -- the phrase "linear member," that
`
` 6 would catch everything.
`
` 7 Q. Can you take a look at the figure 8 embodiment
`
` 8 and tell me where you see a reference to a pin
`
` 9 connector?
`
` 10 A. I didn't -- okay. Well, you mean in the
`
` 11 specification about the figure 8 --
`
` 12 Q. Correct.
`
` 13 A. -- or in the figure? You asked about the
`
` 14 figure. There's nothing in the figure.
`
` 15 Q. No, I understand that.
`
` 16 A. Right.
`
` 17 Q. I'm not restricting to the figure itself. I'm
`
` 18 talking about the disclosures relating to figure 8.
`
` 19 A. Boy. In column 7, lines, I don't know, 36,
`
` 20 37, or so, "A description will be given of how
`
` 21 respective parts shown are assembled into the manual
`
` 22 forming and pressing tool." So that tells you this is a
`
` 23 manual forming and pressing tool, as a start.
`
` 24 Okay. Column 9, line 21. "In the state in
`
` 25 which the handles 26 and 27 have been drawn away from
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 each other to open the aperture, a linear member to be
`
` 2 formed, such as an electric wire or the like, is
`
` 3 inserted into the hole 35 of the sleeve 34."
`
` 4 Q. This sentence does not talk about a pin
`
` 5 connector, right?
`
` 6 A. Oh, the actual word. Well, it says "linear
`
` 7 member."
`
` 8 Okay. I don't know. So far, I haven't come
`
` 9 across "pin connector" as a phrase, save for in
`
` 10 reference to figure 9. It's illustrated in figure 9.
`
` 11 And then what I've checked is the generic information in
`
` 12 the beginning of the patent. So I've only looked at the
`
` 13 specification referenced, where my reference points are
`
` 14 figure 3, figure 10, and figure 8.
`
` 15 Of course, you are aware that in the
`
` 16 background of the invention, there is language about a
`
` 17 press tool and the like.
`
` 18 So I don't know that the phrase that's
`
` 19 associated with figure 9, "A pin of a connector and an
`
` 20 electric wire are inserted into the aperture setting
`
` 21 device," et cetera, appears anywhere else in the patent
`
` 22 specifically to 9, figure 9. But I'd think it's under
`
` 23 the aegis of the broader language that's in the
`
` 24 specification, including "linear member."
`
` 25 You know, you could use this tool to crimp any
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 number of things.
`
` 2 Q. So disclosures relating to figure 8 of Yasumi
`
` 3 do not refer to a pin connector, correct?
`
` 4 A. By that language exactly, as far as I know,
`
` 5 no, but I haven't looked at everything. I have looked
`
` 6 at the specific part of the patent where it says figure
`
` 7 3, figure 10, and figure 8. I have not seen that
`
` 8 phrase.
`
` 9 Q. So going back to the second-to-last sentence
`
` 10 of paragraph 18. Do you still believe "such a device"
`
` 11 in that sentence refers to both figure 8 and figure 9?
`
` 12 A. I'm sorry. Your question was?
`
` 13 Q. Whether the term "such a device" is referring
`
` 14 to figure 9 only or figure 8 and 9.
`
` 15 A. Okay. Well, clearly, it would be figure 9.
`
` 16 Q. Okay. Just so we're clear.
`
` 17 A. Sure.
`
` 18 Q. So "such a device" here, in the second-to-last
`
` 19 sentence of paragraph 18, refers only to figure 9,
`
` 20 correct?
`
` 21 A. Correct. But you have to take it in the
`
` 22 context of everything else in paragraph 18, which is
`
` 23 about the specification in general, including figures 3,
`
` 24 10, and 8.
`
` 25 Q. And figure 9 is not the basis of this IPR,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 correct?
`
` 2 A. Still. It's still not, yeah.
`
` 3 Q. And the last sentence of paragraph 18, "It is
`
` 4 not used to change the size or shape of the wire
`
` 5 itself."
`
` 6 A. Correct.
`
` 7 Q. The phrase "it" is also referring to figure 9
`
` 8 only, correct?
`
` 9 A. That's fine. I have no problem with that.
`
` 10 Q. Just so I'm clear, the "it" in "It is not used
`
` 11 to change the shape or size of the wire itself" is not
`
` 12 referring to figure 8, correct?
`
` 13 A. Well, it's also true about figure 8, but in
`
` 14 this, in this specification, that description from
`
` 15 column 9, lines 35 to 37, perforce renders the reference
`
` 16 at the end in the actual last sentence of paragraph 18
`
` 17 to be associated with figure 9. But it informs one of
`
` 18 ordinary skill in the art about what they already know,
`
` 19 is that you crimp wires inside of pin connectors.
`
` 20 That's how you make connectors. There are a number in
`
` 21 this room.
`
` 22 Q. So your testimony is that from reading the
`
` 23 specification in Yasumi, one of skill in the art could
`
` 24 consider figure 8 not used to change the size or shape
`
` 25 of the wire itself?
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 A. Oh, I think there -- I think there is a line
`
` 2 in the patent that says something like that. I think
`
` 3 it's associated with linear members, such as a wire,
`
` 4 something like that. So I have a feeling you're going
`
` 5 to point it to me, you're going to point it out to me.
`
` 6 Q. That line is at column 9, line 21?
`
` 7 A. Yes.
`
` 8 Q. Right. I'm just asking you whether figure 8
`
` 9 is actually used to change the size or shape of the wire
`
` 10 itself or not.
`
` 11 A. Well, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
` 12 understand that when you crimp a wire, it is not -- you
`
` 13 don't crimp the wire just all by itself. Now, whether
`
` 14 this is a translation issue here, because the original
`
` 15 is probably in Japanese, when you crimp something
`
` 16 electrically, you crimp a pin, typically, onto the wire
`
` 17 itself.
`
` 18 Now, if the wire is a braided wire, like an
`
` 19 electrical cord, you know how it's not a solid piece of
`
` 20 copper.
`
` 21 In your house or apartment, whatever, you may
`
` 22 have big, heavy, solid wire, like 20-amp lines or 30-amp
`
` 23 lines. That's big, tough wire. There is no -- I can
`
` 24 think of no reason, and I don't think a POSITA could
`
` 25 think of any reason, to reshape the solid copper. Let's
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 say the wire is made of solid copper. And if it's a big
`
` 2 size, a gauge appropriate for, let's say, a 20-amp line,
`
` 3 that is usually connected into a receptacle where
`
` 4 there's a screw you thread down, kind of like, you know,
`
` 5 in model trains.
`
` 6 Braided wire, which is the kind of wire used
`
` 7 in flexibility in headphones, you know, ear buds, things
`
` 8 like that -- that's braided wire so it can flex.
`
` 9 There's no reason to shape that. It just won't shape.
`
` 10 So one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
` 11 understand that any reference in this patent to crimping
`
` 12 a wire or shaping a wire is in the context of crimping
`
` 13 that wire inside of a pin connector or a -- or any other
`
` 14 kind of connection element in electronic devices.
`
` 15 Q. Can you take a look at column 7, starting from
`
` 16 line 33?
`
` 17 A. Sure.
`
` 18 Q. I'm just going to read that paragraph into the
`
` 19 record, okay?
`
` 20 A. Sure.
`
` 21 Q. "Figure 8 is an exploded diagram illustrating
`
` 22 an embodiment of the aperture setting device of the
`
` 23 present invention as used in a manual forming and
`
` 24 pressing tool. A description will be given how
`
` 25 respective parts shown are assembled into the manual
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 23
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 forming and pressing tool."
`
` 2 Do you understand what this paragraph is
`
` 3 saying?
`
` 4 A. Yes. You left out the word "of" right before
`
` 5 "how." You're a fast reader.
`
` 6 Q. Do you disagree with what this paragraph is
`
` 7 saying?
`
` 8 A. I don't disagree with it, no.
`
` 9 Q. Are you saying in your previous answer that
`
` 10 the forming and pressing tool in figure 8 of Yasumi is
`
` 11 not used to change the size or shape of the wire itself?
`
` 12 A. Oh, the shape? When you crimp a connector
`
` 13 or -- trying to think of the word for it. Let's say pin
`
` 14 connector or its equivalent, because sometimes you
`
` 15 connect two wires together with a -- and I'm drawing a
`
` 16 blank on what that's called. Maybe at a break, I'll
`
` 17 research it. It's -- I'm sorry. I can't think of it.
`
` 18 But yes, the wire will deform inside the pin.
`
` 19 Q. So the wire will deform?
`
` 20 A. The wire will deform. I have no problem with
`
` 21 that. Sure. Of course the wire will deform in the
`
` 22 process of crimping.
`
` 23 Q. And its size is changing, right?
`
` 24 A. Size is changing? Well, if it were round to
`
` 25 begin with and you're looking at this -- the preferred
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 24
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 embodiments, it will get less round. Remember, it's
`
` 2 inside something else.
`
` 3 Q. Well, I'm just trying to reconcile your
`
` 4 statement in your declaration.
`
` 5 You said earlier that figure 8 is not used to
`
` 6 change the size or shape of the wire itself. Now you're
`
` 7 saying it is changing the size or shape of the wire
`
` 8 itself.
`
` 9 A. Oh, okay.
`
` 10 MR. SUMMERS: Objection. Mischaracterizes the
`
` 11 witness's testimony.
`
` 12 THE WITNESS: Perhaps I could be clearer.
`
` 13 When one crimps a wire inside of a connector pin -- and
`
` 14 a connector pin typically is a part made on a machine
`
` 15 tool, and it's copper or brass, and it's typically
`
` 16 gold-plated. You see them sticking out of connectors
`
` 17 that are often used in the back of -- used to be used in
`
` 18 the back of computers, those big D-shaped connectors.
`
` 19 So on one end is a pin. There is a linear
`
` 20 member with a little spherical radius on it, because
`
` 21 that's going to go into the socket, and then there is a
`
` 22 shoulder, and then there's a socket.
`
` 23 Now, in some cases, older devices, you solder
`
` 24 the wire to the pin. Well, that's not often reliable.
`
` 25 So crimping is faster and more reliable. So you would
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 25
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 have a counterbore inside the pin or the pin equivalent,
`
` 2 and that wire goes in there. And when you crimp the
`
` 3 connector down onto it, I have no doubt that the shape
`
` 4 of the wire could change. It might even extrude a
`
` 5 little bit because it's being squeezed from the outside,
`
` 6 but it depends on how hard you squeeze it.
`
` 7 So in the course of using figure -- the
`
` 8 embodiment in figure 8, 3, and 10, crimping a wire onto
`
` 9 a pin can change the shape of the wire because the wire
`
` 10 is inside the pin or the pin equivalent when it happens.
`
` 11 So it's inside getting smushed, and so it would go from
`
` 12 round to, in this case, in the preferred embodiments
`
` 13 that are shown here, into a polygonal shape.
`
` 14 BY MR. WU:
`
` 15 Q. The word "crimping" never appears in the
`
` 16 specification of Yasumi, right?
`
` 17 A. Oh, off the top of my head, I'm not sure. I
`
` 18 know if you say it isn't, then it isn't, but it doesn't
`
` 19 have to be.
`
` 20 Q. Let's go to paragraph 19 of your declaration.
`
` 21 A. Okay.
`
` 22 Q. There's a full -- the first full sentence on
`
` 23 page 7, are you there?
`
` 24 A. "The specification"? Oh, no. "However."
`
` 25 Q. Yeah.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 26
`
`
`
`Neil J. Sheehan
`
` 1 A. Okay.
`
` 2 Q. "However, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
` 3 art would not focus on forming an electric wire as the
`
` 4 only or even the primary utility of the tool."
`
` 5 Do you see that?
`
` 6 A. I do.
`
` 7 Q. And just prior to that sentence, you were
`
` 8 referring to column 9, line 22 to 34?
`
` 9 A. Yes. And I already, in this deposition,
`
` 10 already took you there.
`
` 11 Q. Right. And that sentence, are you there?
`
` 12 A. I am.
`
` 13 Q. Maybe you can turn to --
`
` 14 A. The first sentence? Oh, you want me to go
`
` 15 to --
`
` 16 Q. Go to that sentence.
`
` 17 A. Okay. Hold on. Line 22 through 34.
`
` 18 Q. Are you there?
`
` 19 A. I think so.
`
` 20 Q. In that sentence, electric wire is the only
`
` 21 example of a linear member given, correct?
`
` 22 A. Well, it says "or the like." So the answer to
`
` 23 that is no, but it's the only -- it's the only object
`
` 24 described with absolute specificity. No problem with
`
` 25 that.
`
`Golkow
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
