·1· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · · ·----------------------------
`
`·3· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · ·----------------------------
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · APPLE INC.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`·8· · · · · · · ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`10· · · · · · · ·----------------------------
`
`11· · · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2017-00626
`
`12· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · DEPOSITION OF BERTRAND HOCHWALD, PH.D.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · ·Washington, D.C.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·Tuesday, March 13, 2018
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · 10:14 a.m.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· ·Job No.:· BO-166003
`
`23· ·Pages 1 - 79
`
`24· ·Reported By:· Joan V. Cain
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 1/93
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · · · ·----------------------------
`
`·3· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · ·----------------------------
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · APPLE INC.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`·8· · · · · · · ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`10· · · · · · · ·----------------------------
`
`11· · · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2017-00626
`
`12· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · DEPOSITION OF BERTRAND HOCHWALD, PH.D.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · ·Washington, D.C.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·Tuesday, March 13, 2018
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · 10:14 a.m.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· ·Job No.:· BO-166003
`
`23· ·Pages 1 - 79
`
`24· ·Reported By:· Joan V. Cain
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 1/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · Deposition of BERTRAND HOCHWALD, PH.D., held
`
`·2· ·at the law offices of:
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · ·SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
`
`·5· · · · · · · ·1501 K Street, Northwest
`
`·6· · · · · · · ·Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`·7· · · · · · · ·(202) 736-8000
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · Pursuant to Notice, before Joan V. Cain,
`
`10· ·Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
`
`11· ·District of Columbia.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 2/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`·4· · · ·THOMAS A. BROUGHAN, III, ESQUIRE
`
`·5· · · ·SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`·6· · · ·1501 K Street, Northwest
`
`·7· · · ·Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`·8· · · ·Telephone: (202) 736-8000
`
`·9· · · ·E-mail:· tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`10
`
`11· ·ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`12· · · ·BRADLEY T. LENNIE, ESQUIRE
`
`13· · · ·PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`
`14· · · ·600 Fourteenth Street, Northwest
`
`15· · · ·Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`16· · · ·Telephone: (202) 220-1200
`
`17· · · ·E-mail:· lennieb@pepperlaw.com
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 3/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·C O N T E N T S
`
`·2· ·EXAMINATION OF BERTRAND HOCHWALD, PH.D.· · · · PAGE
`
`·3· · By Mr. Lennie· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·5
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`
`·6· · · · · · · (Attached to the Transcript.)
`
`·7· ·DEPOSITION EXHIBITS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·8· · EXHIBIT 1· ·Reply Declaration of· · · · · · · · 5
`
`·9· · · · · · · · Bertrand Hochwald Regarding
`
`10· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent 6,363,345,
`
`11· · · · · · · · 2/7/18
`
`12· · EXHIBIT 2· ·An Efficient Algorithm to· · · · · 14
`
`13· · · · · · · · Estimate the Instantaneous
`
`14· · · · · · · · SNR of Speech Signals by
`
`15· · · · · · · · Rainier Martin
`
`16· · EXHIBIT 3· ·Figure 2 from An Efficient· · · · ·20
`
`17· · · · · · · · Algorithm to Estimate the
`
`18· · · · · · · · Instantaneous SNR of Speech
`
`19· · · · · · · · Signals by Rainier Martin
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 4/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·BERTRAND HOCHWALD, PH.D.
`
`·3· ·having been duly sworn under penalties of perjury by
`
`·4· ·the Notary Public, was examined and did testify as
`
`·5· ·follows:
`
`·6· · · · EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PATENT OWNER
`
`·7· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·8· · · Q· · Good morning, Dr. Hochwald.
`
`·9· · · A· · Good morning.
`
`10· · · Q· · Let's start off by just introducing your
`
`11· ·declaration that you prepared in connection with the
`
`12· ·626 IPR.
`
`13· · · A· · I have a clean copy here if --
`
`14· · · Q· · I need to mark it, so I'll give you one
`
`15· ·that's marked, and we can use those.
`
`16· · · · · ·MR. LENNIE:· Here's one for Tom.
`
`17· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Thank you.
`
`18· · · · · ·MR. LENNIE:· Mark this as Exhibit 1.
`
`19· · · · · · · · ·(Deposition Exhibit 1 was marked for
`
`20· ·identification.)
`
`21· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`22· · · Q· · So can you identify Exhibit 1 for the
`
`23· ·record?
`
`24· · · A· · Yes.· It's my reply declaration.
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 5/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · Q· · And can you explain the process that you
`
`·2· ·went through to prepare this declaration?
`
`·3· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll object to the extent it
`
`·4· ·calls for privileged or work product protected
`
`·5· ·information.
`
`·6· · · · · ·I'll caution you not to reveal the
`
`·7· ·substance of our communications, but if you want to
`
`·8· ·discuss at a high-level processes used, you may.
`
`·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, sure.· I used, well, I
`
`10· ·guess the reply of the Andrea expert Douglas as a
`
`11· ·starting point to try to identify things that needed
`
`12· ·response.
`
`13· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`14· · · Q· · So you started off by looking at
`
`15· ·Dr. Douglas's declaration that was submitted with
`
`16· ·the patent owner's response?
`
`17· · · A· · Yes.· That's correct.
`
`18· · · Q· · And did you look at Dr. Douglas's
`
`19· ·declaration that was submitted in the patent owner's
`
`20· ·response in connection with the 627 IPR?
`
`21· · · A· · I glanced at it, yes.
`
`22· · · Q· · You didn't read it thoroughly?
`
`23· · · A· · Well, I probably did, but that would have
`
`24· ·been I guess a couple months ago, but, yeah, I
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 6/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·didn't -- didn't rely on that for this response.
`
`·2· · · Q· · Okay.· What else, if anything, did you
`
`·3· ·review in connection with your preparation of your
`
`·4· ·reply declaration that we've marked as Exhibit 1?
`
`·5· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Just caution you again not
`
`·6· ·to reveal the substance of communications with
`
`·7· ·counsel, but subject to that, you may answer.
`
`·8· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sure.· I -- the various
`
`·9· ·references that are contained in here, I reviewed
`
`10· ·those.· Those are basic ingredients for this reply.
`
`11· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`12· · · Q· · And did you prepare the first draft of your
`
`13· ·declaration that we've marked as Exhibit 1?
`
`14· · · A· · Can't say for sure.· At least parts of it,
`
`15· ·yes.
`
`16· · · Q· · Which parts of Exhibit 1 did you prepare
`
`17· ·the first draft of?
`
`18· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll caution you not to
`
`19· ·reveal the substance of communications with counsel
`
`20· ·as it's privilege or work product protected.· To the
`
`21· ·extent you can remember, you can answer.
`
`22· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I probably don't
`
`23· ·remember exactly what or where, but yeah.
`
`24· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 7/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · Q· · So you can't identify any sections of
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 1 that you prepared the first draft of
`
`·3· ·sitting here today?
`
`·4· · · A· · It's all blended together.· So, no, I can't
`
`·5· ·identify what sections, especially after revisions,
`
`·6· ·what was first and what survived.
`
`·7· · · Q· · So there were some sections of Exhibit 1
`
`·8· ·that you didn't prepare the first draft of; is that
`
`·9· ·correct?
`
`10· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.· Object to
`
`11· ·the extent it calls for privilege or work product
`
`12· ·protected information.
`
`13· · · · · ·Caution you not to reveal the substance of
`
`14· ·communication with counsel.· Subject to that, you
`
`15· ·can answer.
`
`16· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, I don't have a good
`
`17· ·recollection of how the process of this was put
`
`18· ·together.· There was some interactions with counsel.
`
`19· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`20· · · Q· · And just to be clear, I'm not asking for
`
`21· ·any discussions that you had with counsel.· I'm
`
`22· ·asking just whether you recall whether you prepared
`
`23· ·a first draft of sections or whether someone else
`
`24· ·prepared it, so just to be clear on that.
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 8/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·You signed the copy of your declaration on
`
`·2· ·February 7th, correct?
`
`·3· · · A· · Yes.
`
`·4· · · Q· · And that's of this year?
`
`·5· · · A· · Yes.· That's correct.· Yeah.
`
`·6· · · Q· · So roughly five weeks ago?
`
`·7· · · A· · Mm-hmm.
`
`·8· · · Q· · When did you start preparing Exhibit 1?
`
`·9· · · A· · I've forgotten now when the original
`
`10· ·replies from the Andrea expert Douglas came, but
`
`11· ·probably roughly around that time.
`
`12· · · Q· · And do you know how many hours you spent
`
`13· ·working on your preparation for finalizing Exhibit
`
`14· ·1?
`
`15· · · A· · No.· I'd have to check my records for that.
`
`16· · · Q· · Do you know whether it was more than a
`
`17· ·hundred hours?
`
`18· · · A· · I think it was less.
`
`19· · · Q· · Do you have any more specific recollection
`
`20· ·of the amount of fees that you charged in connection
`
`21· ·with your work in preparation for Exhibit 1?
`
`22· · · A· · Just the customary fee that I mentioned in
`
`23· ·the earlier declaration that I provided.
`
`24· · · Q· · Do you know what the aggregate amount was
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 9/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·that you worked on in connection with preparing
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 1?
`
`·3· · · A· · No, sorry.· I don't.
`
`·4· · · Q· · Other than the attorneys you're working
`
`·5· ·with at Sidley & Austin, did you speak with anybody
`
`·6· ·in connection with preparing Exhibit 1?
`
`·7· · · A· · No.
`
`·8· · · Q· · Other than the documents that have been
`
`·9· ·marked as exhibits in the IPR proceeding 2017-626,
`
`10· ·did you consider any other documents in connection
`
`11· ·with your preparation of Exhibit 1?
`
`12· · · A· · I considered the documents that's listed in
`
`13· ·my references.
`
`14· · · Q· · What did you do to prepare for today's
`
`15· ·deposition, if anything?
`
`16· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Caution you not to reveal
`
`17· ·the substance of communications with counsel, but
`
`18· ·subject to that, you can answer.
`
`19· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· We met yesterday to go over
`
`20· ·my declaration and the references.
`
`21· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`22· · · Q· · And how long did you meet with counsel in
`
`23· ·connection with preparing for today's deposition?
`
`24· · · A· · Most of the day I guess.
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 10/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · Q· · Did you do any other work besides your work
`
`·2· ·yesterday in connection with preparing for today's
`
`·3· ·deposition?
`
`·4· · · A· · Some brief review of the material before I
`
`·5· ·got here, yes.
`
`·6· · · Q· · What materials did you review in connection
`
`·7· ·with the preparation for today's deposition?
`
`·8· · · A· · Again, the declaration and the references
`
`·9· ·contained therein.
`
`10· · · Q· · Did you review any other documents besides
`
`11· ·the declaration and the prior art references?
`
`12· · · A· · Well, I might have glanced at some of the
`
`13· ·other material of the -- pertaining to the earlier
`
`14· ·declaration but --
`
`15· · · Q· · When you say the earlier declaration, which
`
`16· ·declaration are you referring to?
`
`17· · · A· · I guess it's related to the 626
`
`18· ·declaration, the one that was -- the one that this
`
`19· ·is ultimately the reply to.
`
`20· · · Q· · Are you referring to Dr. Douglas's
`
`21· ·declaration submitted in the 626 IPR proceeding?
`
`22· · · A· · Yes, and also the prior -- my prior
`
`23· ·declaration before Douglas.
`
`24· · · Q· · Okay.· Did you review the deposition
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 11/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·transcript from Dr. Douglas in the 626 IPR
`
`·2· ·proceeding?
`
`·3· · · A· · Briefly, yes.
`
`·4· · · Q· · Which portions of the Douglas' deposition
`
`·5· ·transcript did you review, if you recall?
`
`·6· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll object to the extent it
`
`·7· ·calls for privileged or work product protected
`
`·8· ·information.· To the extent you selected the
`
`·9· ·passages to review, you can answer.
`
`10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, I don't -- I don't
`
`11· ·recall.
`
`12· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`13· · · Q· · Did you review the entirety of
`
`14· ·Dr. Douglas's deposition transcript in the 626
`
`15· ·proceeding?
`
`16· · · A· · I probably flipped through it, yes.
`
`17· · · Q· · But you didn't read the entire deposition
`
`18· ·transcript; is that correct?
`
`19· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Objection to form.
`
`20· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm guessing I did, but,
`
`21· ·again, how deeply or how carefully I looked at
`
`22· ·various aspects would have been some deeper than
`
`23· ·others.
`
`24· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 12/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · Q· · And when did you review Dr. Douglas's
`
`·2· ·deposition transcript in connection with your
`
`·3· ·preparation for today's deposition?
`
`·4· · · A· · Whenever it became available.· I'm not sure
`
`·5· ·the dates on that.
`
`·6· · · Q· · Did you review Dr. Douglas's deposition
`
`·7· ·transcript yesterday?
`
`·8· · · A· · Yes, briefly.
`
`·9· · · Q· · Do you know how much time you spent
`
`10· ·preparing for today's deposition in the entirety?
`
`11· · · A· · There was the day yesterday I spent here
`
`12· ·and some period of time in advance of coming here.
`
`13· ·I don't know how many hours.
`
`14· · · Q· · Can you make a ballpark estimate of the
`
`15· ·number of hours that you spent preparing for today's
`
`16· ·deposition?
`
`17· · · A· · Maybe on the order of six hours or so.
`
`18· · · Q· · How long did you meet with counsel
`
`19· ·yesterday?
`
`20· · · A· · Most of the day.
`
`21· · · Q· · I mean, the day is 24 hours.· Can you
`
`22· ·narrow it down a little bit more on the total number
`
`23· ·of hours?
`
`24· · · A· · Oh, sure.· Sure.· Probably around 10
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 13/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·o'clock in the morning till about 4:00 in the
`
`·2· ·afternoon, somewhere around there.· I meant most of
`
`·3· ·the working day.
`
`·4· · · Q· · And did you review your signed declaration
`
`·5· ·that we've marked as Exhibit 1 in connection with
`
`·6· ·your preparation for today's deposition?
`
`·7· · · A· · Yes.
`
`·8· · · Q· · And in connection with your review of
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 1, did you identify any inaccuracies or
`
`10· ·typographical errors in your declaration?
`
`11· · · A· · No.· I remember seeing the name of Hirsch
`
`12· ·was misspelled once or twice, but nothing else.
`
`13· · · Q· · No substantive errors in the testimony that
`
`14· ·you provided in Exhibit 1?
`
`15· · · A· · That's correct.
`
`16· · · Q· · In Exhibit 1 you provide an opinion that
`
`17· ·the Martin 1993 prior art reference discloses that
`
`18· ·sub-windows are an optional feature of Martin's
`
`19· ·algorithm; is that correct?
`
`20· · · A· · Yes.
`
`21· · · · · ·MR. LENNIE:· Let me introduce as Exhibit 2
`
`22· ·a copy of the Martin 1993 reference.
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·(Deposition Exhibit 2 was marked for
`
`24· ·identification.)
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 14/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·2· · · Q· · And you're familiar with what we've marked
`
`·3· ·as Exhibit 2, the Martin prior art reference
`
`·4· ·entitled "An Efficient Algorithm to Estimate the
`
`·5· ·Instantaneous SNR of Speech Signals," correct?
`
`·6· · · A· · Yes.
`
`·7· · · Q· · Where does the Martin reference state that
`
`·8· ·sub-windows are an optional feature of the algorithm
`
`·9· ·described in this reference?
`
`10· · · A· · I don't think he says it exactly in those
`
`11· ·words, but he provides the parameter W, which he
`
`12· ·calls windows, but for our purposes we're calling
`
`13· ·them sub-windows.· That's a variable at the user's
`
`14· ·discretion, and setting W to any value seems to be
`
`15· ·very much acceptable to Martin, especially, he
`
`16· ·doesn't exclude W equal to one, which would make it
`
`17· ·one sub-window.· So to that extent it's an optional
`
`18· ·feature.
`
`19· · · Q· · So Martin's algorithm describes the use of
`
`20· ·sub-windows, correct?
`
`21· · · A· · He calls them windows, W, but we're calling
`
`22· ·them sub-windows, yes.· I assume that's what you
`
`23· ·mean.
`
`24· · · Q· · Correct.· W is the number of sub-windows;
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 15/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·whereas, L is the length of the larger full window.
`
`·2· ·Is that correct?
`
`·3· · · A· · Right.· Yes.
`
`·4· · · Q· · So when we talk about W windows, you
`
`·5· ·understand that to be sub-windows; whereas, L refers
`
`·6· ·to the broader window.· Is that correct?
`
`·7· · · A· · Yes.· That's correct.
`
`·8· · · Q· · The Martin reference that we've marked as
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 2 doesn't expressly state that sub-windows
`
`10· ·are an optional feature of his algorithm; is that
`
`11· ·correct?
`
`12· · · A· · He says that -- he makes comments on what
`
`13· ·the overall window length L should be, but makes --
`
`14· ·is pretty much silent on the choice of how W should
`
`15· ·be made.· So whether it's W equal one or any other
`
`16· ·value seems to be within the scope of what he
`
`17· ·intended.
`
`18· · · Q· · So just to be clear on the question, so the
`
`19· ·Martin reference that we've marked as Exhibit 2
`
`20· ·doesn't state that sub-windows are an optional
`
`21· ·feature of his algorithm; is that correct?
`
`22· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`23· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· He's silent on the matter.
`
`24· ·He doesn't say it's optional, but he also doesn't
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 16/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·say it's mandatory.
`
`·2· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·3· · · Q· · Now, if W is set to equal one -- let me
`
`·4· ·strike that.· Let me back up.
`
`·5· · · · · ·W is a parameter that's utilized in
`
`·6· ·Martin's algorithm, correct?
`
`·7· · · A· · Yes.
`
`·8· · · Q· · And the value of W will correspond to the
`
`·9· ·number of W windows or what we've been referring to
`
`10· ·as sub-windows, correct?
`
`11· · · A· · Yes.
`
`12· · · Q· · Where does Martin state that W can be set
`
`13· ·equal to one?
`
`14· · · A· · Again, he's silent on the matter.· He
`
`15· ·doesn't say what constraints there are on W other
`
`16· ·than you would infer from his use that W is a
`
`17· ·positive integer whether one, two, three, four,
`
`18· ·five.· There's no real guidelines.
`
`19· · · Q· · Does Martin provide an example where W is
`
`20· ·set to a certain value in the algorithm -- I mean,
`
`21· ·in the algorithm in his paper?
`
`22· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`23· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So his flowchart of the
`
`24· ·algorithm, for example, has no comment on W.· He
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 17/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·does provide an example where the algorithm is used
`
`·2· ·where W is equal to four.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·4· · · Q· · Is that the only example that the Martin
`
`·5· ·reference provides in terms of how the algorithm
`
`·6· ·works?
`
`·7· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·8· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· He -- well, he has many
`
`·9· ·results in the -- in his paper.· What values of W he
`
`10· ·chose, again, he's silent on except for that one
`
`11· ·example where he mentions W equal to four.
`
`12· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`13· · · Q· · So the paper that we've marked as Exhibit 2
`
`14· ·doesn't provide any express examples where W is set
`
`15· ·to equal one; is that correct?
`
`16· · · A· · I believe -- I believe, again, that he is
`
`17· ·silent on what values of W he chose for all these
`
`18· ·various examples except that one example he gives
`
`19· ·where W is equal to four.
`
`20· · · Q· · So I'm just looking for a yes-or-no answer.
`
`21· ·Does the Martin reference that we've marked as
`
`22· ·Exhibit 2 provide any examples where W is set equal
`
`23· ·to one?
`
`24· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Objection, asked and
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 18/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·answered.
`
`·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, I don't know what
`
`·3· ·values of W he chose for all his other examples.· He
`
`·4· ·does not specify W equal to one on those examples,
`
`·5· ·but we can't exclude that possibility.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·7· · · Q· · So is it your testimony that W can be set
`
`·8· ·to any value?
`
`·9· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, he doesn't constrain
`
`11· ·it, and, yes, any integer value seems to be within
`
`12· ·the scope of what he intended, positive integer.
`
`13· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`14· · · Q· · So W has to be an integer.· Is that your
`
`15· ·testimony?
`
`16· · · A· · Positive integer, yes.
`
`17· · · Q· · And it has to be positive?
`
`18· · · A· · Yes.
`
`19· · · Q· · And why does it have to be positive?
`
`20· · · A· · Well, otherwise it doesn't make -- it
`
`21· ·doesn't fit into the algorithm to have M times W
`
`22· ·equal to L where we know that L is positive and M is
`
`23· ·positive.· W should be positive as well.
`
`24· · · Q· · Of course the Martin reference doesn't say
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 19/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·that W needs to be positive, does it?
`
`·2· · · A· · By having that formula, he does, yes.
`
`·3· · · Q· · Why does W need to be set to an integer?
`
`·4· · · A· · Again, the way he uses W, it's used as an
`
`·5· ·index into an array for example.· It only makes
`
`·6· ·sense in the context of that that W should be a
`
`·7· ·positive integer.· It's in the way he's using it.
`
`·8· · · Q· · You're familiar with figure 2 from the
`
`·9· ·Martin reference that we've marked as Exhibit 2?
`
`10· · · A· · Yes.
`
`11· · · Q· · It's a little difficult to read in the
`
`12· ·actual Martin reference.· So let me mark as Exhibit
`
`13· ·3 just a blown-up copy of figure 2 from the Martin
`
`14· ·reference.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·(Deposition Exhibit 3 was marked for
`
`16· ·identification.)
`
`17· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`18· · · Q· · You want to just take a minute to confirm,
`
`19· ·if you can, whether what we've marked as Exhibit 3
`
`20· ·is an accurate depiction of figure 2 from the Martin
`
`21· ·reference that we've marked as Exhibit 2.
`
`22· · · A· · Yes, it appears to be.
`
`23· · · Q· · So looking at figure 2 from Martin that
`
`24· ·we've marked as Exhibit 3 to today's deposition, you
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 20/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·see the third diamond-shaped box in figure 2.· Do
`
`·2· ·you see that, the third one down from the top?
`
`·3· · · A· · Yes.· Monotonically increasing power?
`
`·4· · · Q· · Yeah.· So it's the diamond-shape box that
`
`·5· ·indicates inside the box:· Monotonically increasing
`
`·6· ·power?
`
`·7· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`·8· · · A· · Yes, I do.
`
`·9· · · Q· · And you agree with respect to the Martin
`
`10· ·algorithm this box is referring to whether or not
`
`11· ·the signal power is monotonically increasing within
`
`12· ·a given sub-window; is that correct?
`
`13· · · A· · Signal power?· I guess I would need to
`
`14· ·understand what the definition of signal power is.
`
`15· · · Q· · Well, the box refers to monotonically
`
`16· ·increasing power, correct?
`
`17· · · A· · Right.
`
`18· · · Q· · Do you understand that to refer to whether
`
`19· ·or not the signal power is monotonically increasing?
`
`20· · · A· · I understand that to refer to these
`
`21· ·variables inside this vector, these various PMmin
`
`22· ·that he's storing in this vector to be increasing or
`
`23· ·not.
`
`24· · · Q· · The PMmin value that we're referring to,
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 21/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·does that correspond to the power of a signal that's
`
`·2· ·being analyzed by the algorithm?
`
`·3· · · A· · Well, so there's verbiage, again, that
`
`·4· ·Martin uses for that PMmin.· I'm trying to recall
`
`·5· ·what the words are he uses for that.· The power
`
`·6· ·minimum of the last M samples.
`
`·7· · · Q· · So what is your understanding as to what
`
`·8· ·that diamond-shaped box, monotonically increasing
`
`·9· ·power, is referring to?
`
`10· · · A· · It appears to be examining the elements of
`
`11· ·that vector, min_vec, and deciding whether or not
`
`12· ·those values are increasing monotonically.
`
`13· · · Q· · Okay.· And are those min_vec values that
`
`14· ·are being compared to determine whether or not
`
`15· ·they're monotonically increasing, are those for a
`
`16· ·given sub-window in the Martin algorithm?
`
`17· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`18· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So the min_vec is -- each
`
`19· ·value in min_vec is a Pmin -- or PMmin, and the number
`
`20· ·of elements in the min_vec is W.
`
`21· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`22· · · Q· · And W is what we've been referring to as a
`
`23· ·sub-window?
`
`24· · · A· · Yes.· Number of sub-windows, yes.
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 22/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · Q· · So the min_vec values that are being
`
`·2· ·compared to determine whether or not they're
`
`·3· ·monotonically increasing are the min_vec values for
`
`·4· ·W, correct?
`
`·5· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·6· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Let me try to clarify.· So
`
`·7· ·the -- again, the min_vec vector has W values in it,
`
`·8· ·each one corresponding to a PMmin value, and each
`
`·9· ·PMmin value corresponds to one sub-window.
`
`10· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`11· · · Q· · So if W is equal to one, how many min_vec
`
`12· ·values are in that vector?
`
`13· · · A· · One.
`
`14· · · Q· · And if W is equal to one and you have one
`
`15· ·min_vec value, can the algorithm determine whether
`
`16· ·or not the min_vec values are monotonically
`
`17· ·increasing in power?
`
`18· · · A· · So, again, the whole notion of whether or
`
`19· ·not monotonically increasing in power is if you --
`
`20· ·it becomes a trivial case when you have a vector of
`
`21· ·just one value that you can assert that it is or it
`
`22· ·isn't monotonically increasing, but, again, it's not
`
`23· ·excluded from the algorithm.
`
`24· · · Q· · Where W is equal to one, is the algorithm
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 23/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·able to definitively determine whether or not the
`
`·2· ·values of min_vec for that W window are
`
`·3· ·monotonically increasing in power?
`
`·4· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·5· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, if there's just one
`
`·6· ·element, the issue of monotonically increasing is
`
`·7· ·trivially answered either yes or no, and it doesn't
`
`·8· ·matter.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`10· · · Q· · What do you mean by trivially answered yes
`
`11· ·or no?
`
`12· · · A· · Well, when you have a minimum of one
`
`13· ·element, then the value of that minimum is the
`
`14· ·element itself.· So the question of the
`
`15· ·monotonically increasing in power can be answered
`
`16· ·yes or no.· The algorithm works.· Steps of the
`
`17· ·algorithm follow through just fine.
`
`18· · · Q· · So you have one value in W, is that
`
`19· ·correct, for min_vec when W is equal to one?
`
`20· · · A· · You have one min_vec -- so min_vec contains
`
`21· ·one value when W is equal to one, yes.
`
`22· · · Q· · And with that one value, the algorithm
`
`23· ·wouldn't be able to determine whether or not this
`
`24· ·value is monotonically increasing or not; is that
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 24/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·correct?
`
`·2· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·3· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, there is no notion of
`
`·4· ·monotonically increasing when you have just one
`
`·5· ·value.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·7· · · Q· · So if W is equal to one and you only have
`
`·8· ·one min_vec value for that W sub-window, what would
`
`·9· ·the algorithm do when it's faced with the decision
`
`10· ·block question monotonically increasing power?
`
`11· · · A· · It would send Pn(i) equal to PMmin.
`
`12· · · Q· · And that's following the yes decision path
`
`13· ·where Pn(i) is equal to PMmin; is that correct?
`
`14· · · A· · Yes.· If it wanted to follow no path, the
`
`15· ·same results hold, that Pn(i) is equal to PMmin.
`
`16· · · Q· · But isn't that the purpose of the diamond
`
`17· ·decision block, to determine whether the answer to
`
`18· ·that question monotonically increasing power is yes
`
`19· ·or no?
`
`20· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`21· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, by having set W equal
`
`22· ·to one, you are -- the person using the algorithm
`
`23· ·has concluded that the issue of yes or no in that
`
`24· ·block is not material.· The result is the same in
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 25/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·either case.
`
`·2· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·3· · · Q· · So when W is equal to one, it makes no
`
`·4· ·difference whether you go down the yes or no path in
`
`·5· ·connection with the decision tree in the
`
`·6· ·monotonically increasing power decision block; is
`
`·7· ·that correct?
`
`·8· · · A· · That's correct.
`
`·9· · · Q· · So is it your opinion that the
`
`10· ·determination in this decision block of
`
`11· ·monotonically increasing power that we've been
`
`12· ·discussing within a given sub-window is an optional
`
`13· ·step of Martin's algorithm?
`
`14· · · A· · No.· I didn't say that's an optional step.
`
`15· ·You leave it in.· It's just the result of it becomes
`
`16· ·immaterial to the performance of the algorithm when
`
`17· ·W is equal to one.· It behaves the same whether you
`
`18· ·choose yes or no in that particular block.
`
`19· · · Q· · When W is equal to one, the algorithm can't
`
`20· ·make a determination of whether or not the signal
`
`21· ·within the W window is monotonically increasing in
`
`22· ·power; is that correct?
`
`23· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, by choosing W equal to
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 26/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·one, the user has decided that the outcome of that
`
`·2· ·particular block is not material to the performance
`
`·3· ·of the algorithm.
`
`·4· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·5· · · Q· · And by making that decision that it's not
`
`·6· ·material, the user has effectively read out that
`
`·7· ·decision block from the algorithm; isn't that
`
`·8· ·correct?
`
`·9· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No.· The result of whether
`
`11· ·you go yes or no is the same.· That's the only
`
`12· ·conclusion.
`
`13· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`14· · · Q· · But when you have W equal to one, you can't
`
`15· ·make a determination of whether it goes yes or no;
`
`16· ·isn't that correct?
`
`17· · · A· · The point is that it doesn't matter.· So
`
`18· ·whether you can or can't is not material as much as
`
`19· ·it doesn't matter because the algorithm does the
`
`20· ·same thing either way.
`
`21· · · Q· · So setting aside the issue of whether it
`
`22· ·does or doesn't matter, you'll agree with me that
`
`23· ·when W is equal to one, the algorithm cannot
`
`24· ·determine whether or not the signal is monotonically
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 27/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·increasing in power for that W window; is that
`
`·2· ·correct?
`
`·3· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·4· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, the question becomes
`
`·5· ·an empty question because if I have a list of one
`
`·6· ·item, the notion of whether that one item is
`
`·7· ·monotonically increasing or not becomes a trivial
`
`·8· ·question.· Then you can answer yes or no, and either
`
`·9· ·way you do the same thing in this algorithm.
`
`10· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`11· · · Q· · Well, it's not a trivial question.· The
`
`12· ·issue is whether or not when you have one value in
`
`13· ·the W window you're unable to determine whether or
`
`14· ·not the signal for that window -- that's window W --
`
`15· ·is monotonically increasing in power or not; is that
`
`16· ·correct?
`
`17· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`18· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, I don't think
`
`19· ·characterizing it as unable as much as you've
`
`20· ·decided that it's not material would be my
`
`21· ·characterization of the block.
`
`22· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`23· · · Q· · And by setting W equal to one and making
`
`24· ·the determination that this decision block is not
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 28/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·material, you're effectively reading this decision
`
`·2· ·block out of the algorithm; isn't that correct?
`
`·3· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·4· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, I don't know how to
`
`·5· ·just pull a decision block out.· I just can follow
`
`·6· ·the algorithm for this case of W equals to one,
`
`·7· ·which he does not exclude, and see what it does, and
`
`·8· ·I don't want to change the algorithm or affect it in
`
`·9· ·any material way.· I'm just applying particular
`
`10· ·values of W and seeing what it does.
`
`11· ·BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`12· · · Q· · All right.· W is equal to one in your
`
`13· ·hypothetical, right, in a hypothetical that you
`
`14· ·think fits within the Martin algorithm; is that
`
`15· ·correct?
`
`16· · · A· · That's one choice possible, yes.
`
`17· · · Q· · According to your testimony?
`
`18· · · A· · Right.
`
`19· · · Q· · And if W is equal to one, you have one
`
`20· ·min_vec value for that W window, correct?
`
`21· · · A· · Yes.
`
`22· · · Q· · When the algorithm comes down to the
`
`23· ·decision step of monotonically increasing in power
`
`24· ·or not, can the algorithm determine whether or not
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 29/93
`
`
`
`·1· ·the output of that answer is yes or no?
`
`·2· · · A· · Again, that issue is not material in the
`
`·3· ·sense that if you have a list of one item, whether
`
`·4· ·that item has -- you can call that item increasing
`
`·5· ·or decreasing and it doesn't matter, and the
`
`·6· ·algorithm shows that it does the same thing in
`
`·7· ·either case too.· So whether or not you want to
`
`·8· ·answer that question yes or no, the result doesn't
`
`·9· ·matter.
`
`10· · · Q· · So you said when you have one value for
`
`11· ·min_vec for the window W, it doesn't matter whether
`
`12· ·it's increasing or decreasing.· Is that what you
`
`13· ·said?
`
`14· · · A· · Well, by choosing W equal to one, you've
`
`15· ·decided that the list you're looking at has only one
`
`16· ·item in it, and so, therefore, the issue of whether
`
`17· ·it's monotonically increasing in power or not --
`
`18· ·whether that item is monotonically increasing or
`
`19· ·not, that one item is, you've decided that that's
`
`20· ·not a material issue, and so the outcome won't be
`
`21· ·affected by your decision, whether it's yes or no.
`
`22· · · Q· · But with one value you can't make a
`
`23· ·determination whether it's increasing or decreasing;
`
`24· ·is that correct?
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Ex. 2007 30/93
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·MR. BROUGHAN:· Objection to form.
`
`·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, it doesn't matter.
`
`·3· ·Because whether you've decided that's yes or no, the
`
`·4· ·algorithm behaves the same w
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
