Page 1
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZTE (USA) INC. )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )
` ) Case No. To Be Assigned
`PAPST LICENSING GmbH & )
`CO. KG, )
` )
` Patent Owner.)
`_________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF: KEVIN ALMEROTH
` TAKEN ON: AUGUST 24, 2017
`
` REPORTED BY:
` PATRICIA L. HUBBARD, CSR #3400
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
` WITNESS PAGE
` KEVIN ALMEROTH
` (By Mr. Henkelmann) 6, 123
` (By Mr. Quist) 118
`
` E X H I B I T S
` PAGE
` ALMEROTH DESCRIPTION REFERENCED
`
` Exhibit 1 Declaration of Kevin Almeroth 7
` in Support of Petition for
` Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449:
` Claims 1, 16 and 17
`
` Exhibit 2 Declaration of Kevin Almeroth 8
` in Support of Petition for
` Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399:
` Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 15
`
` Exhibit 3 United States Patent 9
` Number 6,895,449
` Exhibit 4 United States Patent 9
` Number 6,470,399
`
` Exhibit 5 United States Patent 9
` Number 5,758,081
` Exhibit 6 American National Standard 121
` For Information Systems -
` Small Computer System
` Interface-2
` (Only cover page attached)
`
`Page 5
`
` I N D E X (Continued)
`
` INFORMATION REQUESTED:
` (NONE)
`
` WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
` (NONE)
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN ALMEROTH,
` taken on behalf of the Patent
` Owner, at 333 South Hope Street,
` 43rd Floor, Los Angeles,
` California, commencing at
` 8:42 A.M. on August 24, 2017,
` before PATRICIA L. HUBBARD,
` CSR #3400, a Certified Shorthand
` Reporter in and for the State of
` California.
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
` For the Petitioner:
`
` SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
` BY: TREVOR J. QUIST, ESQ.
` 12275 El Camino Real
` Suite 200
` San Diego, California 92130
` 858.720.8900
` -AND-
` SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
` BY: SCOTT R. MILLER, ESQ.
` 333 South Hope Street
` 43rd Floor
` Los Angeles, California 90071
` 213.620.1780
` smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Page 3
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: (Continued)
`
` For the Patent Owner:
`
` FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
` BY: PAUL B. HENKELMANN, ESQ.
` 120 South LaSalle Street
` Suite 1600
` Chicago, Illinois 60603
` 312.577.7000
` phenkelmann@fitcheven.com
`
` For the Samsung Electronics Parties:
` DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
` BY: NICK COLIC, ESQ.
` 1500 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.230.5115
` nick.colic@dbr.com
` (Present via telephone)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 2
`
`

`

`Page 6
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
` AUGUST 24, 2017
` * * *
`
` KEVIN ALMEROTH,
` called as a witness, having been
` sworn, was examined and testified
` as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Almeroth.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Thanks for coming in today.
` Just initially, have you been deposed
` before?
` A. I have.
` Q. Okay. So you know the ground rules
` generally in a deposition. You're required to
` answer my questions. If you don't understand,
` please let me know. I'll try to rephrase the
` question.
` We're talking about two of your
` declarations in two separate IPR matters.
`
`Page 7
`
` You gave a declaration in the
` IPR2017-00713 and IPR2017-00714. The first one has
` to do with U.S. Patent number 6,895,449, that's the
` 713 matter, and the 714 IPR has to do with
` U.S. Patent 6,470,399.
` I may refer to those declarations as the
` '449 Declaration or the '399 Declaration, if that's
` okay.
` A. That is.
` Q. Okay. I will hand to you what's marked
` as Exhibit 1, your declaration in support of
` petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
` Number 6,895,449.
` (Whereupon the document referred
` to was marked Almeroth Exhibit 1
` by the Certified Shorthand
` Reporter and is attached hereto.)
` MR. QUIST: And, Counsel, can you
` represent for the record that those are true and
` accurate copies of the exhibits filed in these
` proceedings?
` MR. HENKELMANN: Yes, I can.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. I'm just going to hand you all the paper
` now.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 8
` MR. QUIST: Briefly, the '449 is marked
` as Exhibit 1.
` And is there not a stamp on that one?
` MR. HENKELMANN: Oh, is that -- I'm
` sorry.
` Could you mark this as Exhibit 2,
` please.
` MR. QUIST: So for the record the
` Declaration of Kevin Almeroth in Support of Petition
` For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
` Number 6,895,449 is marked as Exhibit 1.
` And the Declaration of Kevin Almeroth in
` Support of Petitioner For Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent number 6,895,449.
` MR. MILLER: 399.
` MR. QUIST: Sorry.
` -- the '399 Patent is marked as
` Exhibit number 2.
` (Whereupon the document referred
` to was marked Almeroth Exhibit 2
` by the Certified Shorthand
` Reporter and is attached hereto.)
` THE REPORTER: Here you go.
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
` ///
`
`Page 9
`
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. We'll do our best to keep these
` straight.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Let's mark a few more
` exhibits in case we need them.
` Marking as Exhibit number 3 U.S.
` Patent 6,895,449 to Michael Tasler.
` (Whereupon the document referred
` to was marked Almeroth Exhibit 3
` by the Certified Shorthand
` Reporter and is attached hereto.)
` MR. HENKELMANN: And marking as
` Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent 6,470,399 to Michael Tasler.
` (Whereupon the document referred
` to was marked Almeroth Exhibit 4
` by the Certified Shorthand
` Reporter and is attached hereto.)
` MR. HENKELMANN: And then finally
` marking as Exhibit number 5 U.S. Patent number
` 5,758,081 to Aytac.
` (Whereupon the document referred
` to was marked Almeroth Exhibit 5
` by the Certified Shorthand
` Reporter and is attached hereto.)
` MR. QUIST: Is that the last exhibit
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`456
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 3
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
` you're going to be marking for now?
` MR. HENKELMANN: For now.
` MR. QUIST: And again as to Exhibits 3
` through 5 do you represent those are true and
` accurate copies of the '499 Patent, the '399 Patent
` and the '081 Patent respectively?
` MR. HENKELMANN: To the best of my
` knowledge.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Mr. Almeroth, do you -- could you take a
` look at the two declarations and see if you
` recognize those as the declarations you gave in the
` respective matters?
` A. They appear to be.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Almeroth, how long did you
` prepare for this deposition?
` A. I would say maybe between 10 to
` 15 hours.
` Q. Okay. And did you prepare with anyone?
` A. I did.
` Q. Who did you prepare with?
` A. With counsel.
` Q. The counsel in this room?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Anyone else?
`
`Page 11
`
` A. No.
` Q. Who is paying you for your testimony?
` A. For testimony today I believe it would
` be ZTE.
` Q. And are there other companies that might
` be paying you for other testimony in these matters?
` A. Well, you said "these matters."
` Q. In these two IPR proceedings?
` A. I would have to go back and check. I
` don't recall if there were -- I know in some
` instances there have been duplicate petitions filed
` in case primary settles. And so I'm not sure for
` which petitions there have been additional petitions
` that have been filed.
` Q. So you might be paid by the parties that
` have joined the '449 proceeding?
` A. For today?
` Q. For today.
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. Okay. And going forward after today?
` A. I don't know what's going to happen
` after today.
` Q. Okay. Okay. When were you retained for
` this -- for these two matters?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 12
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall exactly
` when it was. It would have been sometime before the
` declaration was filed, but I don't recall how -- how
` much before that.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. How long did you have to prepare your
` declarations in both of these matters?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Do you recall how long it took you to
` prepare your declaration in the '449 matter?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall how long it took you to
` prepare your declaration for the '399 matter?
` A. No.
` Q. So, you signed these -- both of these
` declarations on January 17th of 2017; is that
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you don't recall when you were
` retained prior to that date in either of these?
` A. I don't. I don't recall how much --
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don't recall how
`
`Page 13
` much before this date I was retained specifically to
` work on these declarations.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. For the '449 Declaration, did you
` prepare this declaration yourself?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Privilege.
` And actually, Counselor, Are you seeking
` a waiver by that question of the work product
` privilege?
` MR. HENKELMANN: No.
` MR. QUIST: Okay. Regardless, I'll
` lodge an objection for privilege and instruct the
` witness only to answer to the extent you are not
` conveying any information about communications
` between you and attorneys for the petitioner's.
` THE WITNESS: Understood.
` Could you repeat the question?
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Did you prepare your declaration for the
` '449 proceeding yourself?
` A. For the most part, I did. Ultimately
` when I signed the declaration, I had ensured that it
` was reflective of all of the opinions that I had
` developed in the case at that point.
` Q. So you didn't write the entire
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 4
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
` declaration yourself?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Privilege.
` Again, the expert is instructed -- we're
` going to instruct the expert not to answer to the
` extent that it is directed toward attorney
` communications with the expert.
` THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. I
` mean generally just looking at it, there's citations
` from materials. Obviously I didn't write the
` underlying material. So in some instances I would
` have cut and pasted material.
` And again, it represents the opinions
` that I had developed when I signed my name to it.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Did you write the first draft of this
` declaration?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Privilege. Same
` instruction.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall
` specifically. But it's my practice to write the
` first draft of my reports or declarations.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So you don't recall whether you wrote
` the first draft of this declaration in the '449
` matter?
`
`Page 15
`
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` Objection. Privilege. Same instruction as to
` privilege.
` THE WITNESS: It's the same answer. I
` don't recall specifically other than to say what my
` general practice is.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Did you work with counsel on drafting
` this declaration?
` MR. QUIST: Counselor, I'm -- I think
` that we're -- I think these questions are directed
` at privileged subject matter under the work product
` privilege afforded by Rule 26.
` And I don't, you know, mean to interrupt
` your flow. We're happy to meet and confer off the
` record or on the record about this. But working
` drafts and drafts of expert reports under Rule 26
` are protected under the work product doctrine.
` And I guess I don't know where you're
` going with these questions. But in general those
` are protected communications. And drafts of expert
` reports and expert declarations are also privileged.
` MR. HENKELMANN: I'm not trying to find
` out what the communications were. I'm just trying
` to find out, you know, who wrote the declaration.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 16
` MR. QUIST: Yeah. I think that that,
` too, is protected under the work product privilege
` afforded my Rule 26, certainly as to, you know, post
` amendments to Rule 26 and 2010.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Okay. So are you
` instructing him not to answer any further questions
` on this?
` MR. QUIST: I'm instructing him not to
` answer to the extent this -- to the extent any of
` his responses are related to attorney communications
` with the expert or communications concerning any
` drafts of the declaration or expert report in either
` of these matters.
` If you want to ask him yes or no
` questions as to what he recalls as to what he --
` what he wrote or you want to ask him questions about
` his compensation in the matter, those are certainly
` allowed. But beyond that, I'm instructing him not
` to answer.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Okay. I'm -- I'm
` trying to steer clear of finding out any
` communications between counsel and the witness.
` MR. QUIST: Okay.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Also, I believe
` objections should be limited to short, you know,
`
`Page 17
` one-sentence objections under the rules here in
` IPR's.
` MR. QUIST: Understood. And that's --
` that whole length of conversation is not meant to be
` an objection.
` The -- I am happy to meet and confer
` with you. We just want to try and understand
` what -- the scope of your questions here so we know
` what -- what falls inside and outside of the
` privilege. And it's not clear from your -- from
` your questions so far.
` So, the objection is simply privilege.
` My instruction to the expert is not to respond to
` the extent it essentially runs afoul of Rule 26,
` which I'm happy to recite or -- sorry, not recite,
` but read if -- if necessary to clear anything up.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Okay.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. I just want to ask the same question for
` the '399.
` Dr. Almeroth, did you write the first
` draft of this declaration for the '399 patent?
` A. To the best of my recollection. It's
` usually my standard practice to do the first draft
` of my declarations or reports.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 5
`
`

`

`Page 18
` Q. Do you recall whether you wrote the
` first draft of this declaration?
` A. To the best of my recollection, I did.
` Q. If you look at paragraph two of the '449
` declaration, Exhibit 1, there is a listing of
` exhibits.
` It says that you drafted, reviewed or
` provided from your own files each of the documents.
` Did you review all those documents in
` preparing this declaration?
` A. I did.
` Q. Are there any other documents you
` reviewed for preparing this declaration that you did
` not list here?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
` question?
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Are there any other documents that you
` reviewed in preparing this declaration that are not
` listed in this table in paragraph two?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form,
` foundation.
` THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. To
` the extent there's anything else cited in the
`
`Page 19
` declaration itself that isn't on this list, it would
` have been an oversight, but it would have been
` referred in the declaration. But I believe this
` list is complete.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. And the same question for the
` '399 Declaration in paragraph two.
` Are there any documents that you
` reviewed in preparing your declaration that are not
` listed in this table?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form,
` foundation.
` THE WITNESS: It would be the same
` answer for the '449.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. For the '399?
` A. Yeah. It would be the same answer I
` gave for the '449 for the '399.
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
` Would you turn to paragraph 66 in your
` '399 Declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You see the chart on page 33?
` A. I do.
` Q. Did you create that chart?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 20
`
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` Objection. Privilege.
` But I'll allow the expert to answer to
` the extent it doesn't violate any -- or reveal any
` communications between the attorneys for petitioner
` and Dr. Almeroth.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall whether I
` did or not.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Do you recall if this chart originated
` from another IPR?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It certainly might have.
` I certainly reviewed it and confirmed that it was
` correct before signing my name to the declaration.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So, it's my understanding that you're
` saying that this chart may have come from another
` IPR, but you're not sure?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` Objection. Scope. Objection. Privilege. Same
` instruction.
` THE WITNESS: I'm saying I don't recall.
` It's possible it came -- or might have been cited in
` another IPR or included in another IPR.
`
`Page 21
`
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. In general, let's look at paragraph 28
` of the '399.
` You say that it's your understanding
` that the terms should be given their broadest
` reasonable reconstruction in an IPR.
` Is that the standard you used in
` construing the claim terms for this matter, the
` broadest reasonable construction?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's my understanding that
` these patents are due to expire before the final
` determination is made by the PTAB. And in those
` instances, the Phillips standard is applied.
` This generally describes what happens --
` when using the broadest reasonable interpretation is
` what happens in IPR's that are for patents that are
` not expired.
` I think if you look at where I've
` offered opinions with respect to claim construction,
` which starts in paragraph 50, I have applied the
` claim constructions that are described there. And
` ultimately with respect to whether it's broadest
` reconstruction or Phillips, I think it's essentially
` the same claim constructions.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 6
`
`

`

`Page 22
` I'm not aware of where there would be a
` difference that would matter.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So, my question again was whether you
` applied the broadest reasonable interpretation in
` giving your opinions on claim construction in this
` matter.
` A. I thought I answered that question.
` Q. Yes or no, did you use the broadest
` reasonable construction for your claim construction
` interpretations?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think it's really
` a "yes" or "no" answer.
` I think what I'm describing is that --
` the constructions that would apply under the
` broadest reasonable construction, and that those
` would be the same constructions that would apply
` under Phillips, as well. I mean they were proposed
` by the patent owner, at least some of them, in the
` context of litigation in the District Court where
` the same Phillips standard applies.
` So I'm not aware of where any of the
` constructions I've used have made a difference in
` any of the analysis.
`
`Page 23
`
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So, for example, in paragraph 51, with
` regard to the data transmit/receive device, in the
` last sentence you say,
` "Accordingly, one skilled in the
` art would understand the broadest
` reasonable construction for the
` term 'data transmit/receive device'
` should be construed as 'a device
` capable of transmitting or
` receiving data.'"
` So, does that mean you used the broadest
` reasonable construction in construing that term?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That question would imply
` that the construction here is not the construction
` under Phillips.
` What I can say is I've applied the
` construction "a device capable of transmitting or
` receiving data" for the term "data transmit or
` receive device."
` Ultimately the question of whether or
` not that's broadest reasonable construction and/or
` the construction that a person of skill in the art
` would use under Phillips is essentially a legal
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 24
`
` question.
` What I'm saying is I've applied the
` construction in quotes there. And I suppose to the
` extent that the Board or the patent owner believe a
` different construction applies, then I will have an
` opportunity to respond in a reply declaration.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Did you apply the construction used in
` the District Court in offering opinions on claim
` construction in this matter?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: In some instances I've
` taken the position that Papst has proposed. I think
` the declaration speaks for itself as to where
` certain terms and the constructions that I have
` applied have come from.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. I'd like to turn to the '449
` declaration.
` In paragraph 59 you state,
` "Aytac also describes the use of
` ASPI drivers" -- A-S-P-I, all
` caps -- "and other drivers of host
` PC, e.g., ASPIDISK.SYS" --
` A-S-P-I-D-I-S-K-dot-S-Y-S --
`
`Page 25
` "ASPI2DOS.SYS" -- A-S-P-I-2, the
` number "2," D-O-S-dot-S-Y-S -- "and
` CATSYNC.VXD" --
` C-A-T-S-Y-N-C-dot-V-X-D --
` Those are all in caps for the record,
` -- "for use in conjunction with the
` SCSI interface on the host and
` communications with CaTbox."
` So, you agree that the CATSYNC.VXD
` driver is used for communications with the CaTbox?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. I think
` this sentence says a little bit -- something a
` little bit different than the way you characterized
` it.
` Certainly there are some applications
` that CATSYNC can be used for, but it's not necessary
` to support SCSI-based communication between the host
` and the CaTbox.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. All right. You say in the next
` sentence,
` "Using these drivers, the host PC
` may connect with the CaTbox (via
` the SCSI bus)" -- S-C-S-I, all
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 7
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
` caps, close paren -- "to access
` data captured by one or more of the
` peripheral data transmit/receive
` devices."
` So, in that sentence you're saying that
` the ASPIDISK.SYS, ASPI2DOS.SYS and CATSYNC.VXD are
` used to achieve that function stated in the second
` sentence?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: No. That's not quite
` right.
` It's -- I think the sentence is
` consistent with the way I answered your previous
` question, that CATSYNC.VXD is not required for
` communication. It can be used to provide some
` additional functionality on top of the basic
` communication provided by the SCSI interface. But I
` don't think it's required.
` I think I've explained that in the
` declaration.
` To the extent this sentence is confusing
` I hope I clarified it for you.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. You don't say that in this paragraph,
` what you just said about the CATSYNC driver?
`
`Page 27
`
` A. I don't see those specific words. I
` think I have conveyed that sentiment. And again, to
` the extent that you think it says something stronger
` about a requirement with respect to CATSYNC.VXD,
` that wasn't my intention.
` Q. Are these first two sentences of
` paragraph 59 correct?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think they are correct
` as I have explained them and intended to
` communicate.
` Again, if you think that they
` communicate something more than what I've expressed,
` then I think I've clarified for the record what my
` intent was with respect to these sentences.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So, without reading into anything that I
` might be trying to get at, do you stand by those
` first two sentences in paragraph 59 of your
` declaration?
` A. I do. As I've explained them to you in
` the answers to your questions.
` Q. Without the explanation do you stand by
` those first two sentences?
` A. I do stand by those two sentences in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 28
` context as I've explained to you in your questions.
` Q. That's not answering my question.
` Without the additional explanation, do
` you stand by the first two sentences of
` paragraph 59?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I do to the extent that
` they are properly understood as I've explained in my
` answers.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. That's not the question I asked.
` A. Well, I can explain to you what I'm
` saying if you would like.
` I mean if you try and take these
` questions out of context -- or these statements out
` of context and say that they mean more than what
` I've said they mean, then I don't think that's an
` accurate representation. If they are understood to
` mean as I've communicated to you what they mean,
` then I stand by what they say.
` Q. I'm just going by what -- what's
` written. Nothing else.
` Are the first two sentences accurate?
` Do you stand by those first two
` sentences without any qualifications?
`
`Page 29
`
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Yes or no?
` A. I don't think it's a "yes" or "no"
` question. You've implied that they mean something
` more than what I've intended them to mean. I
` certainly stand by those sentences and what they
` mean with the explanation I've provided to you in
` answering your questions.
` Q. Is the CATSYNC.VXD driver involved in
` file transfer between the host PC and the CaTbox
` disclosed in Aytac?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: My reading of Aytac is
` that it provides additional functionality that may
` or may not be involved in file transfer. It's
` certainly not the case that it's required for file
` exchange.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So, when the host PC requests a file
` from the CaTdisc on the CaTbox, is the CATSYNC.VXD
` driver involved?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It depends on the
` embodiment. There might be some embodiments where
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2006, p. 8
`
`

`

`Page 30
` it is. But I think the description that's included
` in Aytac describes functionality that's not
` required -- that does not require CATSYNC implement,
` but would be available through the standard SCSI
` drivers.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. Assuming that the CATSYNC.VXD driver is
` present on -- on the host PC, and the host PC
` requests a file from the CaTbox, is the CATSYNC.VXD
` driver involved in that request?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: As a hypothetical, you're
` not providing enough information.
` You could envision a system that
` implements the invention of the Aytac patent where
` the use of CATSYNC is included and may even be
` required, but there are also implementations that
` would be in line with the disclosures of Aytac where
` CATSYNC could either be present or not and not be
` needed or involved in the communication of data.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. So, if we're talking about when the
` CATSYNC driver is present, not when it's not
` present, and the host PC requests a file from the
` CaTdisc, is the CATSYNC driver going to be involved
`
`Page 31
`
` in that file request?
` MR. QUIST: Objection. Form. It's
` asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: As a hypothetical, you're
` not giving me enough information.
` BY MR. HENKELMANN:
` Q. What more information do you need?
` A. I essentially need the answer to your
` question. Because you're -- you're not specifying
` whether or not CATSYNC.VXD is used, and you're
` asking me whether it's used.
` There's no disclosure in the '081 Patent
` that says that CATSYNC.VXD is required. There's no
` description of functionality with respect to CATSYNC
` that can't also be implemented with SCSI, even to
` the extent that functionality were needed for a
` particular application.
` The '081 Patent doesn't limit the use of
` CATSYNC to particular applications or not. It
` defines functionality that can be used in tandem
` with t