Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-------------------------------X
`APPLE INC., :
` :
` Petitioner : Case No:
` : IPR2017-00626
` -vs- : Patent:
` : 6,363,345 B1
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORP., :
` : Pages 1 - 14
` Patent Owner :
`-------------------------------X
`
` Remand Hearing
` Via Telephone
` Tuesday, March 31, 2020
`
`Reported by: Kathleen M. Vaglica, RPR, RMR
`Job No: 567850
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
` Tuesday, March 31, 2020
` (3:01 p.m.)
`
`Remand Hearing via telephone held before:
`
` JEREMY M. PLENZLER, ADMINISTRATIVE PATIENT
` JUDGE
` STEPHEN C. SIU, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE
` MICHAEL R. ZECHER, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE
`
`Pursuant to notice, before Kathleen M. Vaglica, RPR,
`RMR, a Notary Public in and for the State of
`Maryland and District of Columbia.
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 2
`
`

`

` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`Page 3
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER (BY TELEPHONE)
` JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQUIRE
` THOMAS A. BROUGHAN, III, ESQUIRE
` Sidley Austin LLP
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Suite 600
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 736-8000
` jkushan@sidley.com
` tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 3
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER (BY TELEPHONE)
` WILLIAM D. BELANGER, ESQUIRE
` FRANK LIU, ESQUIRE
` ANDREW ZAPPIA, ESQUIRE
` Pepper Hamilton
` 2000 K Street, N.W.
` Suite 600
` Washington, D.C. 20006
` (202) 220-1200
` belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 4
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE PLENZLER: This is Judge Plenzler
`again. Who do we have on the call for Patent Owner?
` MR. BELANGER: Your Honor, William
`Belanger with Pepper Hamilton for Patent Owner, and
`also on the call Andrew Zappia and Frank Liu also
`with Pepper Hamilton.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: And who arranged the
`court reporter?
` MR. KUSHAN: We did, Your Honor. This is
`Jeff Kushan.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. And I'm sure
`you're aware that we just need a transcript of that
`in the record when it's available.
` MR. KUSHAN: Yes, Your Honor. We'll send
`that in.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. Okay. So we
`reviewed the proposals that you both have submitted
`for the remand proceedings and understand that the
`only real disagreement seems to be what extent of
`briefing is required. So I'd like to start with
`Petitioner, if we could. Then we'll hear from
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 5
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner and, if you can, just explain the
`reasons for the different proposals. I know I think
`you have either no briefing or two rounds of
`briefing, so you can begin when ready.
` MR. KUSHAN: Yes, Your Honor. Go ahead,
`Tom.
` MR. BROUGHAN: This is Tom Broughan. Our
`proposal was that no briefing is necessary at this
`point, and the reason we think no further briefing
`is necessary is because the Federal Circuit remanded
`the decision with instructions for the court to
`consider the arguments that Petitioner has already
`supported in the reply, and given the nature of the
`remand it seems like the only thing left to do is
`for you to consider withdrawing things submitted in
`the record. Everything that needs to be considered
`is already in the record.
` However, if the Board thinks that
`additional briefing would be helpful, you know, we'd
`be happy to engage with that, if that's what you
`prefer, but we think that two rounds of briefing
`should be as one because we're concerned that, if
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 6
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`it's just one round of briefing, they'll be
`something new that pops up in the patent in this
`brief that wasn't in the prior briefing, and we
`would like the opportunity to be able to address
`that.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay.
` MR. BROUGHAN: If there aren't any
`questions of the Petitioner, we will pass for now.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. Mr. Belanger,
`would you like to, I guess, respond as far as what
`you're looking for? I know you mentioned one round
`of briefing. If you could, also just explain if
`there's any reason why you wouldn't be amenable to
`having response briefs, as well as the timing that
`counsel for Petitioner suggests.
` MR. BELANGER: Yes, Your Honor. So just
`starting with why we believe that briefing would be
`appropriate, and certainly it's -- if Your Honors
`believe it would be beneficial, we think it would be
`beneficial in this circumstance just given the
`nature of the prior proceedings.
` There was a reply brief where arguments
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 7
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`were made that we, Patent Owner, and the Board
`thought were new arguments, and there wasn't an
`opportunity, a briefing opportunity to address those
`reply arguments previously. At the oral hearing
`there was discussion, but mostly the discussion in
`the oral hearing revolved around whether the
`arguments were new rather than the substance of
`those arguments.
` And so we think an additional round of
`briefing in view of the Federal Circuit's remand
`would be appropriate. And we also think that that's
`consistent with the standard practice on, for
`addressing issues on remand, but if there's factual
`issues that were not considered, it's typical
`practice to allow at least limited briefing to those
`issues.
` So we think additional briefing would be
`helpful to the Board in considering these arguments.
`We also think, and out of fairness to the Patent
`Owner, we think allowing us to have, A, opportunity
`to brief in response to the arguments raised in
`Petitioner's reply would be appropriate.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 8
`
`

`

`Page 9
` We think a single round of briefing would
`be sufficient, and I think fairly for the same
`reason that Petitioner defined the request for two
`rounds of briefing, we think the same goal, round of
`simultaneous briefing, would void exactly the
`concern of having new issues raised, that having a
`single round of briefing would allow both parties
`simultaneously to address the issues on remand and
`the correspondence, and we don't think that a second
`round of briefing would be necessary or appropriate.
`We think that would instead lend itself to new
`arguments potentially being raised.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay.
` MR. BROUGHAN: If I could briefly address
`a few things that Mr. Belanger said. This is Tom
`Broughan.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Sure. Go ahead.
` MR. BROUGHAN: So we think that Patent
`Owner did have an opportunity to address the
`arguments that we raised in our reply brief. They
`filed observations on cross-examination of our
`expert witness totaling a reply, and they had the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 9
`
`

`

`Page 10
`opportunity to request the sur-reply at the time,
`but they chose not to.
` In addition, they did have the opportunity
`to address the arguments at the oral argument as
`well. And, finally, our arguments in the reply were
`directly responsive to arguments that Patent Owner
`had made in its response, and so in that respect
`these are Patent Owner's arguments that we were
`addressing, and they have had an opportunity to
`address them already because it is their argument
`that we are responding to. That's all I had, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay.
` MR. BELANGER: Your Honor, if I just may
`briefly respond to that point, while we did have the
`opportunity to submit observations under the
`practice guidelines at the time, those observations
`would not, didn't really address any legal arguments
`and were fairly limited to the subject matter of the
`deposition of Petitioner's expert under the updated
`Trial Practice Guide.
` However, sur-replies are now allowed, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 10
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`so, again, in fairness we think having, allowing
`additional briefing in the nature of a sur-reply
`particularly given this context would be
`appropriate.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. Are there any,
`before I go offline here and confer with my panel,
`are there any other issues that either party would
`like to bring up?
` MR. BROUGHAN: I don't believe so, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Go ahead.
` MR. BELANGER: Nothing for Patent Owner,
`Your Honor.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. I'm going to put
`you all on a brief hold, and I'll be back on the
`line momentarily.
` (Discussion held off the record.)
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. This is Judge
`Plenzler back on the line here. Do we still have
`counsel for Patent Owner and Petitioner?
` MR. BELANGER: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. BROUGHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 11
`
`

`

`Page 12
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. Conferred with my
`panel and I think we are going to authorize
`briefing, and we are going to go with the two rounds
`as set forth in the e-mail. So we'll basically
`follow the timing that we have there where there
`will be concurrent initial brief, ten pages, and
`you'll have the three weeks from tomorrow, April 1,
`to file those. And then the five-page response
`brief will be two weeks after those initial briefs
`are filed.
` And as you all agreed, the briefing will
`be limited to addressing the arguments previously
`raised in the petition, Patent Owner response,
`reply, and observations that apply to the issues on
`remand so the Hirsch, Martin claim 6 to 9
`obviousness ground. There won't be any new evidence
`and no oral argument as the parties indicated they
`agreed to in the e-mail.
` I will issue an order after this call, but
`figured I would give you guys authorization now
`since the timing for that three-week response will
`start tomorrow. Do we have any questions from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 12
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`Petitioner?
` MR. BROUGHAN: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. Patent Owner?
` MR. BROUGHAN: Thank you very much.
` MR. BELANGER: No, Your Honor. Thank you
`very much.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. All right. And it
`sounds like before there were no other issues, so
`with that the call is adjourned.
` MR. BROUGHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. Thank you.
` (Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the taking of
`the proceeding was concluded.)
` * * *
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 13
`
`

`

` CERTIFICATE OF STENOTYPE REPORTER
`
`Page 14
`
` I, Kathleen M. Vaglica, RPR, RMR, certify that
`the foregoing proceedings had in the above-entitled
`matter, were taken by me in stenotype, and
`thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction
`and control, and that said transcription is a true
`record of the proceedings; that I am neither counsel
`for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties
`to the action in which this proceeding was taken;
`and, further, that I am not a relative or employee
`of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
`hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in
`the outcome of the action.
`
` Kathleen M. Vaglica,
` Registered Merit Reporter
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 14
`
`

`

`A
`
`able 7:4
`above-entitled
`14:4
`action 14:10,14
`addition 10:3
`additional 6:19
`8:9,17 11:2
`address 7:4 8:3
`9:8,14,19 10:4
`10:10,18
`addressing 8:13
`10:9 12:12
`adjourned 13:9
`ADMINISTR...
`2:10,12,13
`agreed 12:11,18
`ahead 6:5 9:17
`11:11
`allow 8:15 9:7
`allowed 10:22
`allowing 8:20
`11:1
`amenable 7:13
`ANDREA 1:6
`Andrew 4:4 5:6
`APPEAL 1:2
`APPLE 1:3
`apply 12:14
`appropriate 7:18
`8:11,22 9:10
`11:4
`April 12:7
`argument 10:4
`10:10 12:17
`arguments 6:12
`7:22 8:2,4,7,8
`8:18,21 9:12,20
`10:4,5,6,8,18
`12:12
`arranged 5:8
`attorney 14:12
`Austin 3:8
`authorization
`12:20
`
`authorize 12:2
`available 5:14
`aware 5:13
`B
`back 11:15,19
`basically 12:4
`Belanger 4:2 5:4
`5:5 7:9,16 9:15
`10:14 11:12,21
`13:5
`belangerw@pe...
`4:10
`believe 7:17,19
`11:9
`beneficial 7:19
`7:20
`Board 1:2 6:18
`8:1,18
`brief 7:3,22 8:21
`9:20 11:15 12:6
`12:9
`briefing 5:21 6:3
`6:4,8,9,19,21
`7:1,3,12,17 8:3
`8:10,15,17 9:1
`9:4,5,7,10 11:2
`12:3,11
`briefly 9:14
`10:15
`briefs 7:14 12:9
`bring 11:8
`Broughan 3:7
`6:7,7 7:7 9:14
`9:16,18 11:9,22
`13:2,4,10
`B1 1:6
`
`C
`C 2:12 3:1 5:1
`call 5:3,6 12:19
`13:9
`Case 1:4
`certainly 7:18
`CERTIFICATE
`14:1
`
`certify 14:3
`chose 10:2
`Circuit 6:10
`Circuit's 8:10
`circumstance
`7:20
`claim 12:15
`Columbia 2:18
`concern 9:6
`concerned 6:22
`concluded 13:13
`concurrent 12:6
`confer 11:6
`Conferred 12:1
`consider 6:12,15
`considered 6:16
`8:14
`considering 8:18
`consistent 8:12
`context 11:3
`control 14:7
`CORP 1:6
`correspondence
`9:9
`counsel 3:5 4:1
`7:15 11:20 14:8
`14:12
`court 5:9 6:11
`cross-examinat...
`9:21
`
`D
`D 4:2 5:1
`decision 6:11
`defined 9:3
`deposition 10:20
`different 6:2
`direction 14:6
`directly 10:6
`disagreement
`5:20
`discussion 8:5,5
`11:17
`District 2:18
`D.C 3:11 4:8
`
`E
`E 3:1,1 5:1,1
`either 6:3 11:7
`ELECTRONI...
`1:6
`employed 14:9
`14:12
`employee 14:11
`engage 6:20
`ESQUIRE 3:6,7
`4:2,3,4
`evidence 12:16
`exactly 9:5
`expert 9:22 10:20
`explain 6:1 7:12
`extent 5:20
`e-mail 12:4,18
`F
`factual 8:13
`fairly 9:2 10:19
`fairness 8:19
`11:1
`far 7:10
`Federal 6:10
`8:10
`figured 12:20
`file 12:8
`filed 9:21 12:10
`finally 10:5
`financially 14:13
`five-page 12:8
`follow 12:5
`foregoing 14:4
`forth 12:4
`Frank 4:3 5:6
`further 6:9 14:11
`G
`
`G 5:1
`give 12:20
`given 6:13 7:20
`11:3
`go 6:5 9:17 11:6
`11:11 12:3
`goal 9:4
`
`Page 1Page 1
`
`going 11:14 12:2
`12:3
`ground 12:16
`guess 7:10
`Guide 10:21
`guidelines 10:17
`guys 12:20
`H
`Hamilton 4:5 5:5
`5:7
`happy 6:20
`hear 5:22
`hearing 1:10 2:8
`8:4,6
`held 2:8 11:17
`helpful 6:19 8:18
`hereto 14:13
`Hirsch 12:15
`hold 11:15
`Honor 5:4,10,15
`6:5 7:16 10:12
`10:14 11:10,13
`11:21,22 13:2,5
`13:10
`Honors 7:18
`I
`
`III 3:7
`indicated 12:17
`initial 12:6,9
`instructions 6:11
`interested 14:13
`IPR2017-00626
`1:5
`issue 12:19
`issues 8:13,14,16
`9:6,8 11:7
`12:14 13:8
`J
`Jeff 5:11
`JEFFREY 3:6
`JEREMY 2:10
`jkushan@sidle...
`3:13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 15
`
`

`

`Job 1:22
`Judge 2:11,12,13
`5:2,2,8,12,17
`7:6,9 9:13,17
`10:13 11:5,11
`11:14,18,18
`12:1 13:3,7,11
`K
`K 3:9 4:6
`Kathleen 1:21
`2:16 14:3,18
`know 6:2,19 7:11
`Kushan 3:6 5:10
`5:11,15 6:5
`L
`left 6:14
`legal 10:18
`lend 9:11
`limited 8:15
`10:19 12:12
`line 11:16,19
`Liu 4:3 5:6
`LLP 3:8
`looking 7:11
`M
`M 1:21 2:10,16
`14:3,18
`March 1:12 2:5
`Martin 12:15
`Maryland 2:18
`matter 10:19
`14:5
`mentioned 7:11
`Merit 14:19
`MICHAEL 2:13
`momentarily
`11:16
`
`N
`N 3:1 5:1
`nature 6:13 7:21
`11:2
`necessary 6:8,10
`
`9:10
`need 5:13
`needs 6:16
`neither 14:8
`new 7:2 8:2,7 9:6
`9:11 12:16
`Notary 2:17
`notice 2:16
`N.W 3:9 4:6
`O
`
`O 5:1
`observations
`9:21 10:16,17
`12:14
`obviousness
`12:16
`OFFICE 1:1
`offline 11:6
`Okay 5:12,17 7:6
`7:9 9:13 10:13
`11:5,14 12:1
`13:3,7
`opportunity 7:4
`8:3,3,20 9:19
`10:1,3,9,16
`oral 8:4,6 10:4
`12:17
`order 12:19
`outcome 14:14
`Owner 1:7 4:1
`5:3,5 6:1 8:1,20
`9:19 10:6 11:12
`11:20 12:13
`13:3
`Owner's 10:8
`P
`P 3:1,1,6 5:1
`pages 1:7 12:6
`panel 11:6 12:2
`particularly 11:3
`parties 9:7 12:17
`14:9,12
`party 11:7
`pass 7:8
`
`patent 1:1,2,5,7
`2:12,13 4:1 5:3
`5:5 6:1 7:2 8:1
`8:19 9:18 10:6
`10:8 11:12,20
`12:13 13:3
`PATIENT 2:10
`Pepper 4:5 5:5,7
`petition 12:13
`Petitioner 1:4 3:5
`5:22 6:12 7:8
`7:15 9:3 11:20
`13:1
`Petitioner's 8:22
`10:20
`Plenzler 2:10 5:2
`5:2,8,12,17 7:6
`7:9 9:13,17
`10:13 11:5,11
`11:14,18,19
`12:1 13:3,7,11
`point 6:9 10:15
`pops 7:2
`potentially 9:12
`practice 8:12,15
`10:17,21
`prefer 6:21
`previously 8:4
`12:12
`prior 7:3,21
`proceeding 13:13
`14:10
`proceedings 5:19
`7:21 14:4,8
`proposal 6:8
`proposals 5:18
`6:2
`Public 2:17
`Pursuant 2:16
`put 11:14
`p.m 2:6 13:12
`Q
`questions 7:8
`12:22
`
`R
`R 2:13 3:1 5:1
`raised 8:21 9:6
`9:12,20 12:13
`ready 6:4
`real 5:20
`really 10:18
`reason 6:9 7:13
`9:3
`reasons 6:2
`record 5:14 6:16
`6:17 11:17 14:8
`reduced 14:6
`Registered 14:19
`related 14:9
`relative 14:11
`remand 1:10 2:8
`5:19 6:14 8:10
`8:13 9:8 12:15
`remanded 6:10
`reply 6:13 7:22
`8:4,22 9:20,22
`10:5 12:14
`Reported 1:21
`reporter 5:9 14:1
`14:19
`request 9:3 10:1
`required 5:21
`respect 10:7
`respond 7:10
`10:15
`responding 10:11
`response 7:14
`8:21 10:7 12:8
`12:13,21
`responsive 10:6
`reviewed 5:18
`revolved 8:6
`right 5:17 11:18
`13:7,11
`RMR 1:21 2:17
`14:3
`round 7:1,11 8:9
`9:1,4,7,10
`rounds 6:3,21 9:4
`
`
`
`Page 2Page 2
`
`12:3
`RPR 1:21 2:16
`14:3
`
`S
`S 3:1 5:1
`second 9:9
`send 5:15
`set 12:4
`Sidley 3:8
`simultaneous 9:5
`simultaneously
`9:8
`single 9:1,7
`SIU 2:12
`sounds 13:8
`standard 8:12
`start 5:21 12:22
`starting 7:17
`State 2:17
`STATES 1:1
`stenotype 14:1,5
`STEPHEN 2:12
`Street 3:9 4:6
`subject 10:19
`submit 10:16
`submitted 5:18
`6:15
`substance 8:7
`sufficient 9:2
`suggests 7:15
`Suite 3:10 4:7
`supported 6:13
`sure 5:12 9:17
`sur-replies 10:22
`sur-reply 10:1
`11:2
`
`T
`taken 14:5,10
`tbroughan@si...
`3:14
`telephone 1:11
`2:8 3:5 4:1
`ten 12:6
`Thank 13:4,5,10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 16
`
`

`

`13:11
`thing 6:14
`things 6:15 9:15
`think 6:2,9,21
`7:19 8:9,11,17
`8:19,20 9:1,2,4
`9:9,11,18 11:1
`12:2
`thinks 6:18
`THOMAS 3:7
`thought 8:2
`three 12:7
`three-week 12:21
`time 10:1,17
`timing 7:14 12:5
`12:21
`Tom 6:6,7 9:15
`tomorrow 12:7
`12:22
`totaling 9:22
`TRADEMARK
`1:1
`transcript 5:13
`transcription
`14:7
`Trial 1:2 10:21
`true 14:7
`Tuesday 1:12 2:5
`two 6:3,21 9:3
`12:3,9
`typewriting 14:6
`typical 8:14
`U
`understand 5:19
`UNITED 1:1
`updated 10:20
`V
`Vaglica 1:21 2:16
`14:3,18
`view 8:10
`void 9:5
`vs 1:5
`
`W
`
`
`
`Page 3Page 3
`
`9
`
`9 12:15
`
`Washington 3:11
`4:8
`wasn't 7:3 8:2
`weeks 12:7,9
`we'll 5:15,22 12:4
`we're 6:22
`William 4:2 5:4
`withdrawing
`6:15
`witness 9:22
`wouldn't 7:13
`X
`
`X 1:3,8
`
`Z
`Zappia 4:4 5:6
`ZECHER 2:13
`1
`1 1:7 12:7
`14 1:7
`1501 3:9
`2
`2000 4:6
`20005 3:11
`20006 4:8
`202 3:12 4:9
`2020 1:12 2:5
`220-1200 4:9
`3
`
`3:01 2:6
`3:13 13:12
`31 1:12 2:5
`5
`567850 1:22
`6
`
`6 12:15
`6,363,345 1:6
`600 3:10 4:7
`7
`736-8000 3:12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1034
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc., IPR2017-00626, p. 17
`
`