`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· ·________________________________
`
`·4· ·SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`·6· · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No.:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2018-00690
`·7
`· · ·FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR
`·8· ·FORDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN E.V.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·________________________________
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · ·VIDEO DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Newport Beach, California
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·Friday, February 7, 2020
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`· · ·Reported by:
`23· ·MICHELLE BULKLEY
`· · ·CSR #13658
`24· ·Job #299660
`
`25· ·PAGES 1 - 96
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 1
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · Video Deposition of Expert WAYNE E.
`
`·4· ·STARK, Ph.D., taken on behalf of Petitioner, at 840
`
`·5· ·Newport Center Drive, Suite 400, Newport Beach,
`
`·6· ·California, beginning at 9:38 a.m. and ending at
`
`·7· ·1:52 p.m. on Friday, February 7, 2020, before
`
`·8· ·Michelle Bulkley, Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`·9· ·Number 13658.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 2
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · For Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· JEFFREY H. PRICE, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · ·1177 Avenue of the Americas
`· · · · · · · ·New York, NY 10036
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · For Patent Owner:
`
`·9· · · · · · ·IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· KAMRAN VAKILI, Ph.D., ESQ.
`10· · · · · · ·BY:· BEN J. YORKS, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`11· · · · · · ·Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · Also Present:
`
`15· · · · · · ·SHIMON GALILEY, Videographer
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 3
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · WITNESS:· WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.
`
`·4· ·EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·5· ·By Mr. Price· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · (NONE)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · ·WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · (NONE)
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · · · · ·INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · · (NONE)
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 4
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· ·MARKED· · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 2042 Declaration of Wayne E. Stark,· · · ·8
`· · · · · · · · · Ph.D.
`·4
`· · ·Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,314,289· · · · · · · · 9
`·5
`· · ·Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 6,347,122· · · · · · · ·68
`·6
`· · ·Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent 5,907,582· · · · · · · ·83
`·7
`· · ·Exhibit A· · Petition for Inter Partes· · · · · ·90
`·8· · · · · · · · Review of U.S. Patent No.
`· · · · · · · · · 6,314,289
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 5
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Newport Beach, California
`
`·2· · · · · · Friday, February 7, 2020; 9:38 a.m.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are on the record at
`
`·5· ·9:38 a.m. on February 7, 2020.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Audio and video recording will continue to
`
`·7· ·take place until all parties agree to go off the
`
`·8· ·record.· Please note that microphones are sensitive
`
`·9· ·and may pick up whispering and private
`
`10· ·conversations.
`
`11· · · · · · ·This is the video-recorded deposition of
`
`12· ·Wayne E. Stark, taken by counsel for petitioner in
`
`13· ·the matter of Sirius XM Radio, Inc., v.
`
`14· ·Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Angewandten,
`
`15· ·filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`16· ·Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`17· · · · · · ·This deposition is being held at Irell &
`
`18· ·Manella located at 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite
`
`19· ·400, Newport Beach, California 92660.
`
`20· · · · · · ·My name is Shimon Galiley.· I am the
`
`21· ·videographer on behalf of U.S. Legal Support located
`
`22· ·at 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 400, Costa Mesa,
`
`23· ·California 92626.
`
`24· · · · · · ·The court reporter is Michelle Bulkley on
`
`25· ·behalf of U.S. Legal Support.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 6
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·I am not related to any party in this
`
`·2· ·action, nor am I financially interested in the
`
`·3· ·outcome.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Counsel, will you please state your
`
`·5· ·appearances for the record.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. PRICE:· This is Jeffrey Price
`
`·7· ·representing the petitioner Sirius XM, Inc.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Kamran Vakili of Irell &
`
`·9· ·Manella.· With me is Ben Yorks of Irell & Manella
`
`10· ·representing patent owner Fraunhofer.
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The court reporter may
`
`12· ·now swear in the witness.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.,
`
`14· ·having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`
`15· ·testified as follows:
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`17· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·Good morning.
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·Good morning.
`
`20· · · · ·Q· ·Please state your full name and address
`
`21· ·for the record.
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Wayne Stark, 5277 Warren Road, Ann Arbor,
`
`23· ·Michigan 48105.
`
`24· · · · ·Q· ·Do you understand why you're here today?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 7
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·And why is that?
`
`·2· · · · ·A· ·Because there's an IPR petition.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·And what is your role associated with this
`
`·4· ·IPR petition?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·I wrote a declaration.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·And you wrote a declaration for which
`
`·7· ·party?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·For the Fraunhofer party.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·And Fraunhofer is the patent owner?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·I believe so.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·Do you recall whether your declaration
`
`12· ·provided an opinion on the validity of U.S. Patent
`
`13· ·number 6,314,289?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·Could you give me my declaration and I
`
`15· ·will review it?
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·I will give you your declaration and a
`
`17· ·copy of the patent.
`
`18· · · · · · ·I am first handing you a document that has
`
`19· ·been marked Exhibit 2042 in this case.
`
`20· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2042 marked.)
`
`21· · · · ·A· ·Will you give me the patent too?
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·I was going to just ask to make sure that
`
`23· ·that is --
`
`24· · · · ·A· ·Okay.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·-- your declaration after you went through
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 8
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·it.· It looked like you were taking your time with
`
`·2· ·it.· So take the time that you need.
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·It looks like my declaration.· I'd assume
`
`·4· ·it's correct.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1001 marked.)
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·I'm also handing you an exhibit that's
`
`·7· ·been marked Exhibit 1001 in this case.· Do you
`
`·8· ·recognize this document, Dr. Stark?
`
`·9· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·And what document is this?
`
`11· · · · ·A· ·This is U.S. Patent 6,314,289.
`
`12· · · · ·Q· ·And this is the patent that your
`
`13· ·declaration opines on; correct?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·Correct.
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Do you mind if we refer to this as the
`
`16· ·'289 patent today?
`
`17· · · · ·A· ·No.
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·And so could you tell me whether you've
`
`19· ·ever been deposed before?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·Roughly how many times?
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Probably, like, 15.
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Have you ever been deposed in an IPR
`
`24· ·proceeding before?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 9
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·And how about -- how many times?
`
`·2· · · · ·A· ·I don't know.· Maybe a half a dozen. I
`
`·3· ·don't know.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·Any other -- the balance were district
`
`·5· ·court proceedings?
`
`·6· · · · ·A· ·District court proceedings or ITC
`
`·7· ·proceedings or foreign proceedings.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q· ·So you know then I'm going to be asking
`
`·9· ·you a series of questions today, and we're going to
`
`10· ·require verbal answers because the reporter can't
`
`11· ·take down gestures?
`
`12· · · · ·A· ·Correct.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·And just for the sake of cleanliness of
`
`14· ·the record, I'll just ask you to wait till I finish
`
`15· ·my question before you start answering, and I'll
`
`16· ·extend the same courtesy to let you finish your
`
`17· ·entire answer before I move on to my next question.
`
`18· ·Does that sound good?
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·Sounds good.
`
`20· · · · ·Q· ·Dr. Stark, are you familiar with the
`
`21· ·concept of claim construction?
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·And what is your understanding of claim
`
`24· ·construction?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 10
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·conclusion.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, claims in a patent
`
`·3· ·should be construed to understand what they mean.
`
`·4· ·The terms in that claim should be construed to
`
`·5· ·understand what those terms mean.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·7· · · · ·Q· ·And I didn't see any overview of the legal
`
`·8· ·principles behind claim construction in your
`
`·9· ·declaration.· Did I miss it, or is that not in
`
`10· ·there?
`
`11· · · · ·A· ·Let me review it.
`
`12· · · · · · ·(Reviewing document.)
`
`13· · · · · · ·I believe it's in paragraph 29.
`
`14· · · · ·Q· ·So can you tell me -- so you applied the
`
`15· ·Phillips standard in construing the claims of the
`
`16· ·'289 patent?
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`18· ·conclusion.
`
`19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So as I understand, the '289
`
`20· ·patent has expired.· I believe my opinions as set
`
`21· ·forth below in my report are accurate under both the
`
`22· ·Phillips standard and the broadest reasonable
`
`23· ·interpretation standard of claim construction.
`
`24· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·Do you have an understanding of the
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 11
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·difference between the Phillips standard and the
`
`·2· ·broadest reasonable interpretation standard?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`·4· ·conclusion.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The Phillips standard is the
`
`·6· ·terms of giving their customary and ordinary meaning
`
`·7· ·as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`·8· ·art at the time of the invention in view of the
`
`·9· ·specification and examination history, whereas the
`
`10· ·broadest reasonable interpretation standard is -- is
`
`11· ·a -- in my view, a slightly different, more broad
`
`12· ·interpretation of the terms.
`
`13· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`14· · · · ·Q· ·Did you construe the claims of the '289
`
`15· ·patent?
`
`16· · · · ·A· ·I believe that I have a section about
`
`17· ·certain terms in the '289 patent and their
`
`18· ·construction.
`
`19· · · · ·Q· ·Is that beginning on page 9 of your
`
`20· ·declaration?
`
`21· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·Did you independently construe the claims
`
`23· ·that -- the claim terms that are explicitly
`
`24· ·construed here in the claim construction section, or
`
`25· ·were you asked to apply these constructions?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 12
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A· ·This is the construction that I used in
`
`·2· ·my -- forming my opinions about the claims.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·I understand that, but did you yourself
`
`·4· ·form the opinions on the construction of these claim
`
`·5· ·terms, or did counsel ask you to apply these
`
`·6· ·constructions?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·These are the constructions that I believe
`
`·8· ·are reasonable, and these are in my report.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·That's not my question.· My question was
`
`10· ·did you independently derive these constructions, or
`
`11· ·did counsel ask you to apply these constructions?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`13· ·answered.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, this is my report.
`
`15· ·These are my opinions about what these claims mean.
`
`16· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`17· · · · ·Q· ·You see in paragraph 22 where it says that
`
`18· ·you have been asked to consider the preambles of
`
`19· ·claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 as limiting?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·Who asked you to consider the preambles of
`
`22· ·the claims -- those claims as limiting?
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I've only been discussing this case with
`
`24· ·counsel.· I haven't been discussing this case with
`
`25· ·anyone else.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 13
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·So did counsel ask you to consider the
`
`·2· ·preambles of claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 as limiting?
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·That's what it -- I've been asked to do
`
`·4· ·that by counsel, yes.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q· ·And did counsel also ask you to apply the
`
`·6· ·following constructions to the means plus function
`
`·7· ·claims of the patent?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·Yes.· These are the means plus function
`
`·9· ·claims how -- these are the constructions for the
`
`10· ·mean plus function claims.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·And you only have explicit construction
`
`12· ·for the mean plus function claim terms in paragraphs
`
`13· ·23 through 27; is that correct?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·Correct.
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·So there's no explicit construction for
`
`16· ·any other claim term provided in your report;
`
`17· ·correct?
`
`18· · · · ·A· ·I believe that's correct.
`
`19· · · · ·Q· ·So in forming your opinion on whether or
`
`20· ·not the '289 patent is patentable or unpatentable,
`
`21· ·did you construe the other claim terms -- any other
`
`22· ·claim terms of the '289 patent?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`24· ·answered.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Did I construe them
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 14
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·explicitly or do I understand as someone -- what a
`
`·2· ·person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`·3· ·the terms to mean?
`
`·4· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·5· · · · ·Q· ·Let's take those two one at a time.· Did
`
`·6· ·you explicitly construe any other claim terms of the
`
`·7· ·'289 patent?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`·9· ·answered.
`
`10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think the ones in
`
`11· ·paragraph -- paragraphs 23 to 27 are the only ones
`
`12· ·I've explicitly construed because they were means
`
`13· ·plus function terms.
`
`14· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Is it your understanding that only means
`
`16· ·plus function terms need explicit construction in an
`
`17· ·IPR proceeding?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`19· ·conclusion.
`
`20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know what the law is
`
`21· ·about what terms need to be construed or not
`
`22· ·construed.
`
`23· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`24· · · · ·Q· ·But you said that you've explicitly
`
`25· ·construed those terms because they were means plus
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 15
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·function terms.· What did you mean by that?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Misstates
`
`·3· ·testimony.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's my understanding that
`
`·5· ·means plus function terms need to be construed.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·7· · · · ·Q· ·So you also said that you -- well, tell
`
`·8· ·me, did you also under -- I'm sorry.· Withdrawn.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Did you also make a determination as to
`
`10· ·what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`11· ·understand any other claim terms in the '289 patent
`
`12· ·to mean?
`
`13· · · · ·A· ·Did I explicitly in my report, or did I
`
`14· ·just have it in my mind?
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Just in your mind.
`
`16· · · · ·A· ·Yes.· I had it in my mind what a person of
`
`17· ·ordinary skill in the art would understand at the
`
`18· ·time of the invention.
`
`19· · · · ·Q· ·So if I ask you questions about particular
`
`20· ·claim terms, you'll be able to tell me what was in
`
`21· ·your mind when you prepared your report?
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Possibly.· We'll find out.
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Is it your understanding, when construing
`
`24· ·a claim term, that the term should be limited to an
`
`25· ·embodiment that's disclosed in the specification?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 16
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`·2· ·conclusion.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My understanding is that a
`
`·4· ·patentee can explicitly define some terms in the
`
`·5· ·specification that give that term special meaning --
`
`·6· ·meaning, but a term in general should be given its
`
`·7· ·understanding to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`·8· ·art in light of the specification.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·In your opinion, did you determine that
`
`11· ·the '289 patent explicitly defined any terms in the
`
`12· ·specification that gave that term a special meaning?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Compound; vague.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not apply any special
`
`15· ·definition to any term that -- that the patentee
`
`16· ·gave a special definition to.
`
`17· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·In coming to your understanding on the
`
`19· ·meaning of various terms in the '289 patent, can you
`
`20· ·tell me what sources of information you relied upon?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe I came -- I mean,
`
`23· ·my general understanding over many years of teaching
`
`24· ·and research of wireless communication systems was
`
`25· ·the main, you know, thing I relied on.· I mean, I
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 17
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·think there was other references that I made to
`
`·2· ·books that I used.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·Did you rely on the specification of the
`
`·5· ·'289 patent in order to come to your understanding
`
`·6· ·of what the claim terms mean?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·Well, that's part of understanding what a
`
`·8· ·claim means in general is looking at the
`
`·9· ·specification.· That's the first place you look.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·So you mentioned that you used your
`
`11· ·knowledge and some other -- and potentially some
`
`12· ·other books to construe -- or come to your
`
`13· ·understanding of what certain claim terms mean;
`
`14· ·correct?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Misstates
`
`16· ·testimony.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe just to understand
`
`18· ·the whole patent and other references, I -- other
`
`19· ·patents that were alleged to have certain of the
`
`20· ·claim elements of the '289 patent, I relied on some
`
`21· ·other books just for reference.
`
`22· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Did you list those books that you used to
`
`24· ·reference in your report?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·I believe I referenced the books, but did
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 18
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·I have a list of them explicitly?· I don't think
`
`·2· ·there was a list.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·Can you show me where you referenced those
`
`·4· ·books?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·Potentially.· If you go to page -- page
`
`·6· ·41, it references -- in the table there's Proakis.
`
`·7· ·That's a book.· There's also a book that I reference
`
`·8· ·by a person named Wessel, and I would have to search
`
`·9· ·to find out where I have that reference, but it's in
`
`10· ·there somewhere.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·How do you spell Wessel?
`
`12· · · · ·A· ·W-E-S -- I don't know if there's two S's
`
`13· ·or one S -- E-L.
`
`14· · · · ·Q· ·Is that the Exhibit 2049 referenced on
`
`15· ·page 26 of your declaration?
`
`16· · · · ·A· ·Yes, yes, I believe it is.
`
`17· · · · ·Q· ·Did you rely on -- in forming your
`
`18· ·opinions, did you rely on any sources of information
`
`19· ·that were not cited in your report?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·I don't think so.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·What did you do to prepare for today's
`
`22· ·deposition?
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I read my declaration, reviewed the
`
`24· ·patents.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·And what patents?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 19
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A· ·The patents at issue in this case.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·Is there more than one patent at issue in
`
`·3· ·this case?
`
`·4· · · · ·A· ·Well, there's the '289 patent, and then
`
`·5· ·there's the Chen patent and the Campanella patent.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Did you review the Smallcomb patent as
`
`·7· ·well?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·I did not.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·And why not?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·Well, because the only thing in my report
`
`11· ·about Smallcomb was not really -- I didn't really
`
`12· ·need to review that to prepare for my deposition.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·So is it correct that you didn't provide
`
`14· ·an analysis of whether or not Smallcomb taught the
`
`15· ·elements of the '289 patent claims?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not analyze Smallcomb.
`
`18· ·I was told that the priority date for the '289
`
`19· ·patent is 27 days before the Smallcomb filing date,
`
`20· ·so I was not asked to review that for analysis.
`
`21· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·Do you understand that Fraunhofer is also
`
`23· ·asserting that the Campanella patent is not prior
`
`24· ·art?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·Yes.· I understand that there's some issue
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 20
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·about that.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·But you did provide an analysis -- a
`
`·3· ·technical analysis of whether Campanella taught
`
`·4· ·various claim elements of the '289 patent; correct?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·I was asked to do so.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Do you have any understanding of why you
`
`·7· ·were asked to perform a technical analysis for
`
`·8· ·Campanella and not for Smallcomb?
`
`·9· · · · ·A· ·No.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·You mentioned that you relied on the
`
`11· ·Proakis textbook; correct?
`
`12· · · · ·A· ·I -- I looked at Proakis in order to look
`
`13· ·at the tables for the convolutional codes that are
`
`14· ·in the claims.
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Before this proceeding, were you aware of
`
`16· ·the Proakis textbook?
`
`17· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·And how did you become aware of the
`
`19· ·Proakis textbook?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·Well, I taught out of the Proakis textbook
`
`21· ·probably, like, 20 years ago, maybe 25 years ago, at
`
`22· ·least the first edition of it.· And I don't know how
`
`23· ·many editions there are now, but -- so I -- I've
`
`24· ·known of it for many, many years.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·And what course did you teach out of the
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 21
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·Proakis textbook for?
`
`·2· · · · ·A· ·A course on digital communications.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·And when was that course taught?
`
`·4· · · · ·A· ·Well, it's been taught for -- ever since
`
`·5· ·I've been at Michigan.· Okay.· So --
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Well, when did you teach the course that
`
`·7· ·employed the Proakis textbook?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·I don't remember the year, but it was many
`
`·9· ·years ago.· I taught out of the first edition, so
`
`10· ·you could look up when the second edition came out
`
`11· ·to find out a bound on when it was before, but I
`
`12· ·don't know the dates.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·Did you -- did you at some point switch to
`
`14· ·using a different textbook, or did you stop teaching
`
`15· ·digital communications?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I kept on -- I kept on
`
`18· ·teaching digital communications.· I developed my own
`
`19· ·notes for communications class I teach and then
`
`20· ·stopped using Proakis as a textbook.
`
`21· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·Do --
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I would recommend it as a reference book
`
`24· ·but not as a textbook that I would force the
`
`25· ·students to buy.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 22
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·I think, if I were a student, I would
`
`·2· ·appreciate that.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·Can you tell me about how you became
`
`·4· ·knowledgeable about the Wessel textbook?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·I don't really remember.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Did you ever use Wessel to teach a class
`
`·7· ·on digital communications?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·I have not.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·Was the Wessel textbook provided to you to
`
`10· ·use in these proceedings?
`
`11· · · · ·A· ·I -- no, I don't believe so.
`
`12· · · · ·Q· ·You located the Wessel textbook for
`
`13· ·citation in your declaration?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·I believe that's true.· That's my
`
`15· ·recollection at this point.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·It's been a while?
`
`17· · · · ·A· ·Yeah.· I don't -- I don't remember
`
`18· ·exactly.· I probably did a search on our -- in our
`
`19· ·university library system for textbooks or books
`
`20· ·that might have certain information.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·I'm going to ask you to refer to the '289
`
`22· ·patent, and specifically I'm going to ask you to
`
`23· ·turn to claim 1.· Let me know when you're there.
`
`24· · · · ·A· ·I'm there.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·You see the very last element of claim 1
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 23
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·where it talks about the transmitter further
`
`·2· ·includes delay means?
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·When preparing your declaration, did you
`
`·5· ·come to an understanding of the proper construction
`
`·6· ·for the term "transmitter"?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`·8· ·answered and calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's not one of the means
`
`10· ·plus function in that claim element, so I didn't
`
`11· ·apply a means plus function analysis.· I gave the
`
`12· ·transmitter the -- what a person of ordinary skill
`
`13· ·in the art would understand at the time of the
`
`14· ·invention.
`
`15· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·And what would a person of ordinary skill
`
`17· ·in the art have understood the term "transmitter" to
`
`18· ·mean at the time of the invention?
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·A transmitter is a device for transmitting
`
`20· ·a signal.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·Does the '289 patent disclose examples of
`
`22· ·a transmitter?
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I could look through the patent, but if
`
`24· ·you want to point me to some place in the patent to
`
`25· ·look at, I would be happy to look at that.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 24
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·Let's turn to column 2.· Do you see where
`
`·2· ·in column 2 it talks about a description of prior
`
`·3· ·art?
`
`·4· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q· ·The second sentence there, it says:
`
`·6· · · · · · ·"The transmitter receiver system generally
`
`·7· · · · · · ·comprises a transmitter section 60 and a
`
`·8· · · · · · ·receiver section 70."
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Then it goes on:
`
`10· · · · · · ·"The transmitter section 60, in the
`
`11· · · · · · ·simplest case, comprises a bitstream
`
`12· · · · · · ·source, a channel encoder, and a
`
`13· · · · · · ·transmitter 66."
`
`14· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`15· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·When the claims talk about a transmitter,
`
`17· ·do you understand them to be talking about the
`
`18· ·transmitter section 60 or the transmitter 66?
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form; calls for a
`
`20· ·legal conclusion.
`
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· This is Figure 6.· So in
`
`22· ·that specific sentence, you have a transmitter
`
`23· ·section that has a source 62.· It has a encoder 64
`
`24· ·and a transmitter 66.· So the tran- -- transmitter
`
`25· ·section encompasses all three.· The transmitter is
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 25
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·66.
`
`·2· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·And is the tran- -- transmitter 66, is
`
`·4· ·that an antenna?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·No.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·What is it?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·It's a transmitter.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q· ·Can you give me an example of what would
`
`·9· ·qualify as a transmitter?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·Your cell phone transmits signals.· Okay.
`
`11· ·So there is a transmitter in your cell phone.· Your
`
`12· ·Wi-Fi has transmitters.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·And what part of my cell phone constitutes
`
`14· ·the transmitter?
`
`15· · · · ·A· ·The transmitter part, I mean.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·So if I had in my cell phone a bitstream
`
`17· ·source, a channel encoder, and a transmitter, what
`
`18· ·part of my cell phone would be the transmitter?
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·The transmitter.
`
`20· · · · ·Q· ·So the only definition of "transmitter" is
`
`21· ·"transmitter"?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Vague; asked and
`
`23· ·answered.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I already gave you a
`
`25· ·definition for a transmitter.· Transmits signals.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 26
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·Does my cell phone have an antenna?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Relevance.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can I see your cell phone?
`
`·5· ·I could open it up and find out if you want. I
`
`·6· ·don't know which phone you have, so how would I
`
`·7· ·know?
`
`·8· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·Do cell phones typically have antennas?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·That's my understanding, yes.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·And is it the antenna in the cell phone
`
`12· ·that would be operating as the transmitter --
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.
`
`14· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·-- in the cell phone?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Relevance; asked
`
`17· ·and answered.
`
`18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The antenna is the means for
`
`19· ·converting an electrical signal into a
`
`20· ·electromagnetic signal, and that would be -- that
`
`21· ·can be considered part of a transmitter.
`
`22· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Is there anything else that a person of
`
`24· ·ordinary skill in the art would understand to be
`
`25· ·part of a transmitter?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 27
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·And what's that?
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·There would probably be an amplifier.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·Is there anything else?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·What else?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·There would probably be a mixer.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q· ·Anything else?
`
`·9· · · · ·A· ·I'm sure there are other things.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·So continuing on in column 2, starting at
`
`11· ·line 34, you see that it says:
`
`12· · · · · · ·"In the case of satellite communication,
`
`13· · · · · · ·the transmitter 66 and 68b are realized by
`
`14· · · · · · ·two satellites"?
`
`15· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·So does the '289 patent, in your opinion,
`
`17· ·contemplate a satellite being a transmitter?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form;
`
`19· ·speculating -- calls for speculation; outside the
`
`20· ·scope of testimony.
`
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think it realizes that a
`
`22· ·satellite could have transmitters in it as part of
`
`23· ·it.
`
`24· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·Meaning the transmitters could be part of
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 28
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·the satellite or the satellite is part of a
`
`·2· ·transmitter?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Compound;
`
`·4· ·misstates testimony; calls for speculation; outside
`
`·5· ·the scope of testimony.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think a satellite
`
`·7· ·communication -- a satellite would have transmitters
`
`·8· ·as part of it.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·Are there any other elements disclosed in
`
`11· ·the '289 patent that you would consider a
`
`12· ·transmitter?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Vague.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can you repeat the question?
`
`15· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·I said are there any other elements
`
`17· ·disclosed in the '289 patent that you would consider
`
`18· ·a tr