Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` - - - - -
`
` EXOCAD GMBH and EXOCAD )
` AMERICA, INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case IPR2018-00788
` vs. ) Patent 9,336,336 B2
` )
` 3SHAPE A/S, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` - - - - -
`
`
`
`
`
` Deposition of ELI SABER Ph.D.
`
` Alexandria, Virginia
`
` Monday, April 1, 2019 - 9:02 a.m.
`
`
`
`Reported by:
`
`Marjorie Peters
`
`Job no: 24884
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 1 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
` EXAMINATION PAGE
` ELI SABER PhD
` BY MR. LITTMAN 5
` BY MR. LEE 257
`
` I N D E X O F E X H I B I T S
` EXHIBIT PAGE
` Exhibit 2001 Saber declaration, 3Shape 13
` Exhibit 2001, IPR2018-00788
` Exhibit 1001 Deichmann U.S. Patent 14
` 9,336,336
` Exhibit 1002 Mundy Declaration 23
` Exhibit 1005 Sachdeva US Patent No. 26
` 7,156,655
` Exhibit 2003 3Shape Blanz article 77
` Exhibit 1013 Sachdeva US patent No. 79
` 7,234,937
` Exhibit 1008 Kopelman US Patent 6,845,175 180
` Exhibit 1007 Wiedman article 196
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` ELI SABER PhD,
` a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
` examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. LITTMAN:
` Q. Good morning.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Can you state your name for the record?
` A. Yes. Eli Saber.
` Q. Okay. So have you ever been deposed
` before?
` A. I have.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Twice.
` Q. What cases were those?
` A. The first one was, was a case with
` Canon. I was -- I vaguely remember now, it's been
` such a long time. It's probably around 2010-2011, I
` think it's somewhere. I can find the exact date if
` you want.
` And the second time was last year.
` I want to say either July or August, but I don't
` remember exactly. I can find the date if you want.
` Q. The first case you were -- were you an
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF ELI SABER PhD,
` a witness herein, called by the Petitioner for
` examination, taken pursuant to the
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(1), by and before Marjorie
` Peters, a Registered Merit Reporter, Certified
` Realtime Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
` Commonwealth of Virginia, at Buchanan Ingersoll &
` Rooney, 1737 King Street, Suite 500, Alexandria,
` Virginia, on Monday, April 1, 2019, at 9:02 a.m.
`
`Page 3
`
` COUNSEL PRESENT:
` For the Petitioner:
` Kevin M. Littman, Esquire
` FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
` 111 Huntington Avenue
` Boston, MA 02199
` (617) 342-4000
` klittman@foley.com
`
` For the Patent Owner:
` Roger H. Lee, Esquire
` Mytili Markowski, PhD, Esquire
` Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC
` Post Office Box 1404
` Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
` roger.lee@bipc.com
` mythili.markowski@bipc.com
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 2 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` expert in that case?
` A. I was.
` Q. What party were you representing?
` A. I was asked to serve as an expert
` representing -- well, serve as an expert on a Canon
` case.
` Q. For Canon?
` A. For Canon.
` Q. What was that case about?
` A. It was image processing technologies, I
` think, versus Canon, but don't quote me on the exact
` name of the other company.
` The attorney was Mr. Ryan Clark from
` Fitzpatrick or something. He could provide you with
` all of the details that you are looking for, but I
` vaguely remember the stuff from that case.
` Q. Do you remember if it was a district
` court litigation?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Was it a patent case, do you recall?
` A. Yes. There were two patents, two
` patents, I believe involved, or maybe one patent
` involved in the case that I came in where Image
` Processing Technologies -- I think that's the name
` of the company; I'm not 100 percent sure anymore --
`
`Page 7
`
` but Image Processing Technologies asserted that
` Canon is infringing on such-and-such claims from the
` patent.
` Q. Do you recall, were your opinions about
` non-infringement?
` A. I was asked to provide an opinion on
` invalidity. This was before the IPR process.
` So I was asked to provide an opinion
` on invalidity, and then an opinion on
` non-infringement.
` Q. Then you said you were deposed last
` year, maybe July or August 2018; right?
` A. Right. I think more or less -- I think
` it might have been August, but I don't remember
` exactly. Maybe it was July. Somewhere in there.
` Q. What was that case called?
` A. This was a case Align v. 3Shape.
` Q. And which party asked you to -- let me
` ask you, did you prepare an expert opinion in that
` case?
` A. Yes. I was asked to serve as an expert
` on behalf of 3Shape.
` Q. And that was a patent case also, I
` assume?
` A. Yes. There were two patents -- three
`
`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
`
` patents involved that I was asked to provide expert
` opinion on.
` Q. Were your opinions about
` non-infringement?
` A. I was asked to serve as an expert in a
` non-infringement portion of the case.
` Q. Did you provide opinions on invalidity
` as well?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall what the patents were?
` A. Not off the top of my head. No.
` Q. Do you recall what the technology in the
` patents were?
` A. Yes. It was about modelling of teeth.
` Gingival models of tissue and teeth, which Align
` held a couple of patents on, and they were asserting
` claims against 3Shape.
` Q. Your opinions were that the various
` claims were not infringed; is that right?
` MR. LEE: Objection. 402.
` A. Well, I provided opinions -- I mean, I
` can't -- I don't know what is confidential, what is
` not confidential, so I would prefer to -- if you
` wanted to know the details, just contact Pepper
` Hamilton. I think the attorney was Mr. Colton
`
`Page 9
`
` Petnik [PH], and he can provide you all of the
` details.
` But I served as an expert for
` non-infringement. It was an ITC case.
` Q. Do you know if the case is ongoing?
` A. I testified in September, and after
` that, I kind of dropped off. I haven't kept in
` touch.
` So I wasn't needed anymore.
` Q. Right. And you haven't testified at
` trial in that case?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 402, 611(b).
` A. I testified in the ITC court for that
` case.
` Q. Okay. So you also testified in the ITC
` court in that case. Do you remember when that was?
` MR. LEE: Objection 402, 611(b).
` A. It was sometime in September. I don't
` exactly recall the exact date, but it was last
` September.
` Q. Have you testified in court in any other
` matters?
` A. No, I have not.
` Q. So I know you have been deposed a couple
` of times. I just want to go through a couple of the
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 3 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` basics that perhaps you understand already.
` A. Please. Please.
` Q. So today I'm going to be asking you a
` series of questions. Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And your answers to those questions are
` under oath; do you understand that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And if you don't understand a question,
` can you ask that I clarify it; does that make sense?
` A. I will.
` Q. Also, since we have a court reporter
` taking a written record, I'll just ask you that if
` the answer is a yes or no that you actually answer
` it orally instead of a nod of the head; does that
` make sense as well?
` A. Yes. Thank you.
` Q. Then just kind of as a general matter,
` you know, a reminder that both of us should try not
` to talk too fast and not try to speak over each
` other. I will do my best at that, and if you can as
` well, that will be helpful for everyone as well.
` A. I will be as quiet as possible.
` Q. Okay. Is there anything that prevents
` you from testifying truthfully today that you can
`
`Page 11
`
` think of?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay.
` So are you a Professor at the Kate
` Gleason College of Engineering; is that right?
` A. Yes. I'm a Professor at the Kate
` Gleason College of Engineering at the Rochester
` Institute of Technology.
` Q. You have been there since 2004; is that
` right?
` A. Well, I started at RIT as an adjunct
` faculty in 1997, and I taught courses along the way.
` I joined full time in 2004.
` Q. I see.
` A. Just to be...
` Q. Right.
` A. Careful. Precise and accurate.
` Q. What's your area that you teach?
` A. I teach -- I'm an electrical engineer by
` training. My Ph.D. is in electrical engineering,
` and I teach in the -- I mean, I can teach a variety
` of electrical engineering courses, but my specialty,
` or I'm specialized in the image video and computer
` vision area, which is normally under what we call
` the signal processing umbrella or multidimensional
`
`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
`
` signal processing umbrella.
` Q. Do you have any experience in the dental
` field?
` A. I'm sorry.
` Q. Do you have any experience in the dental
` field?
` A. What -- can you clarify what you mean by
` experience in the dental field?
` Q. Have you ever designed any dental
` products?
` A. You mean like a dental -- go in and do a
` dental restoration on a patient?
` Q. Let's start there. Have you ever done
` that?
` A. No, I'm not a dentist.
` Q. Have you designed any other products in
` the dental area?
` A. Again, are you asking me if I went in on
` to a patient and did some dental work? No, I have
` not.
` Q. Broader this time. Have you done
` anything in the dental area beyond that?
` A. No, I have not. I worked on the 3Shape
` case with... Yeah.
` Q. Okay. But aside from your work as an
`
`Page 13
`
` expert witness in the case, you haven't; is that
` right?
` A. I haven't designed any dental products.
` Q. Okay. And you haven't taught any
` classes on dental products specifically; right?
` A. I taught classes on obviously computer
` vision quite a bit but not specifically on designing
` a dental product.
` (Exhibit 2001, Saber declaration, 3Shape Exhibit
` 2001, IPR2018-00788, was marked for identification.)
` Q. So I have handed you what's marked as
` Exhibit 2001. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. It's my declaration.
` Q. It's the declaration you prepared in the
` Exocad v. 3Shape IPR 2018-00788; right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So if you could turn to Paragraph 25.
` If you could just read Paragraph 25, and like my
` question after you read it is, if there's anything
` beyond what's in that paragraph that you used to
` form the basis of your opinion?
` A. You want me to read it out loud?
` Q. No. You don't have to read it out loud.
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 4 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` A. Okay.
` Yeah. That pretty much sums it up.
` Q. So you didn't talk to any other person
` with experience in the dental field; is that right?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you speak with anyone with knowledge
` of the market for digital dentistry products?
` A. No.
` Q. And did you speak with anyone with
` knowledge of what dental lab technicians seek in
` digital dental products?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you speak with anyone with knowledge
` about what any users of dental products seek with
` dental digital products?
` A. No.
` (Exhibit 1001, Deichmann U.S. Patent 9,336,336, was
` marked for identification.)
` Q. I'll hand you this. This is another
` relevant document.
` So I have handed the witness a
` document that's marked Exhibit 1001. Do you
` recognize this document?
` A. I do.
` Q. What is it?
`
`Page 15
`
` A. It's the patent 9,336,336.
` Q. This is the patent that's the subject
` matter of the IPR that we're here to discuss today?
` A. It is. It is.
` Q. So I just wanted to, before I jumped
` into your report, ask you a couple of overview
` questions about the '336 patent. So if you turn to
` Claim 1 which is on page 42, columns 25 and 26.
` If you see at the top of column 26
` starting around line 12, there's this claim
` limitation that says, "Arranged the at least one 2D
` image relative to the 3D virtual model in a virtual
` 3D space such that the at least one 2D image and the
` 3D model are aligned when viewed from a viewpoint
` and remain separate representations after being
` arranged, whereby the 3D virtual model and the at
` least one 2D image are both visualized in the 3D
` space"; do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. If you could turn to Figure 11J?
` A. 11J?
` Q. 11J on page 28.
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Is that showing an example of the claim
` limitation that I just recited?
`
`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
`
` A. Well, it's hard to see what's exactly is
` shown in this figure, but I will look at the
` description.
` Q. Yeah. I was going to say, I'll refer
` you to column 25, lines 7 through 16, I think. Look
` at that as well if that helps you answer the
` question.
` A. What was the question again, sir?
` Q. So does Figure 11J and its corresponding
` description at column 25, lines 7 through 16, is
` that an example of the claim limitation I read about
` arranging the at least one 2D image in the 3D
` virtual model?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, let's look at a description of the
` figure. So it says, 11J shows the 2D image 1101,
` which obviously is not easy to see here because of
` the poor xerography, with the cut-out area, 1130, so
` that's your cut-out area 1130, along the line 1131,
` which is -- looks like the line around more or less
` the oral cavity, of the lips. And the 3D virtual
` model 1102 is now visible in the cut-out area of the
` 2D image. That is the description.
` Q. Right. So does that meet the claim
` limitation?
`
`Page 17
`
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. In what sense are you asking? Can you
` be more specific of what your question is.
` Q. I'm just trying to get an idea if that's
` one example of something that is described in that
` claim limitation.
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, like I -- as I said, the
` description is there. It shows the 2D image of the
` cut-out area along the lines, and it shows a 3D
` virtual model that is now visible in the cut-out
` area.
` Q. Right. So does that meet the claim
` limitation?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. So the claim limitation says a range
` that at least one 2D image relative to the 3D
` virtual model in the 3D virtual space.
` So in this particular image in the
` 3D virtual model is not visible. In the 3D virtual
` space such that the at least one 2D image and the 3D
` virtual model are aligned when viewed from the
` viewpoint and remain -- it's hard to tell from this
` figure, they're -- you know, the level of alignment
` and all of that; but it's -- when viewed from a
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 5 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
` viewpoint and remain separate representations after
` being arranged.
` So...
` Q. So you agree that there's at least the
` 2D image shown in 11J; right?
` A. Well, it says that. It shows the 2D
` image 1101.
` Q. Right. And then --
` A. Then with a cut-out area along the 1130
` along the line 1131 of the lips. And the 3D virtual
` model 1102 is now visible in the cut-out area, 1130
` of the 3D image.
` Q. So you also agree that there's a 3D
` virtual model shown, then; right?
` A. Well, it says -- it's -- it is now -- it
` says, and the 3D virtual model 1102 is now visible
` in the cut-out area, 1130.
` Q. Okay. They appear to be aligned, you're
` saying, but you're not entirely sure?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, it describes a 2D image. I mean,
` I want to be precise and accurate. It describes a
` 2D image with a cut-out area, and the 3D model is
` now visible in that cut-out area.
` Q. Mm-hmm.
`
`Page 19
`
` A. Right? Of that 2D image.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So, you've got the 2D image and you've
` got the 3D model that's now visible in that cut-out
` area.
` Q. Okay. Just my question was, and they
` appear to be aligned, right, the 2D image of the 3D
` model?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well -- well, I mean, this is an
` illustration. It shows you the 2D image and it
` shows you the 3D model. It doesn't -- you know, it
` doesn't discuss exactly what the alignment is in
` that particular description, but the claim element
` discusses that they arrange at least one 2D image
` relative to the 3D virtual model in the virtual 3D
` space.
` So in this particular case, it
` doesn't state whether this is a virtual 3D space,
` but the assumption is it would be. And that -- such
` that the at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual
` model are aligned when viewed from a viewpoint.
` So I guess I'm not understanding
` what you are asking exactly.
` Q. I'm just trying to go back to my
`
`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
`
` original question and break it into parts, but so
` that would you agree that the 2D image and the 3D
` model in 11J remain -- are separate representations
` in that Figure?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, it states that they are -- I mean,
` it shows a 2D image, 1101, with a cut-out area, and
` the 3D virtual model is now visible in the cut-out
` area of the 2D image. So they are separate.
` Q. Okay. They're both visualized in a 3D
` space; right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, it states -- I mean, the
` description is reasonably clear. It states, the 2D
` image with a cut-out area. So you have a cut-out
` area in the 2D image, and the 3D virtual model is
` now visible in the cut-out area.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So...
` Q. So would you agree that what's shown in
` 11J is a --
` A. You have a 2D image and you have a 3D
` virtual model that's visible in the cut-out area.
` Q. Okay. You assume it's a virtual 3D
` space; is that right?
`
`Page 21
`
` A. Well, it doesn't exactly state that, but
` it's a 3D virtual model so they have to be the space
` to support that.
` Q. So my last question just is: So this
` Figure, you would say is showing, would you say it's
` made up of various parts, one part being the 2D
` image, one part being the 3D model?
` A. Well --
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. It does state, shows the 2D image. So
` that's one part. With a cut-out area, and then the
` 3D virtual model is now visible in the cut-out area.
` So you have a 2D image and you have
` a 3D virtual model, which is visible in the cut-out
` area.
` Q. So there's two parts; right?
` A. So --
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` Q. You can answer the question.
` A. I'm sorry?
` Q. So there's two parts; right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. So there's a 2D image and there's a 3D
` virtual model.
` Q. Right. Those are the two parts of the
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 6 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
` figure; right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, again, it's hard to tell what's
` exactly in the figure; but the figure description
` talks about a 2D image and talks about the 3D
` virtual model.
` Q. So at least two parts of what's shown in
` the figure are the 2D image and the 3D virtual
` model; right?
` A. Yes.
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Yes. It talks about the 2D image and it
` talks about the 3D virtual model and the 2D image is
` labelled 1101, and the 3D virtual model is labelled
` 1102.
` Q. I'm sure your attorney would appreciate,
` if you give him a chance to make his objections,
` pause after I ask my questions. I'm sure he would
` appreciate it, and I'm sure it will be easier for
` the court reporter, too.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Turn back to your declaration, if you
` can.
` Sorry. Before we go there, I'll
` show you this.
`
`Page 23
`
` (Exhibit 1002, Mundy Declaration, was marked for
` identification.)
` Q. So I handed you what's marked as Exhibit
` 1002, which is a document titled Declaration of
` Joseph L. Mundy, Ph.D. Do you recognize this
` document?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is this the declaration of Dr. Mundy.
` A. It is.
` Q. And this is one of the documents you
` reviewed to prepare your declaration; right?
` A. I did.
` Q. Can you turn to page 49, 0049, I should
` say, Paragraph 63.
` A. Paragraph 63?
` Q. Paragraph 63, yes.
` That paragraph provides Dr. Mundy's
` opinion on the claim construction of the term
` virtual 3D space; right?
` Is that right?
` A. I'm sorry. What was your question, sir?
` Q. Just my first question was Paragraph 63
` of Exhibit 1002, in that paragraph, Dr. Mundy
` provides his opinion of the correct claim
` construction of the term virtual 3D space; right?
`
`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
`
` A. He provides his opinion.
` Q. Right.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Do you disagree with his opinion?
` A. Well, in what sense are you asking?
` Q. In any sense.
` A. Yeah. I think it sounds reasonable.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I mean, you know, any space always is
` difficult to -- any is a very general world, but
` sounds pretty --
` (Clarification requested by the Court Reporter.)
` THE WITNESS: Sounds reasonable.
` Q. Okay. I am now going to go back to your
` report. Sorry. It's Exhibit 2001. I'd like to
` start with Sachdeva?
` So if you could turn to Paragraph
` 60?
` A. My declaration?
` Q. Of your declaration, yes.
` A. Sachdeva, you said?
` Q. Yes.
` I haven't asked a question yet, but
` just my first question is, so your opinion is that
` Sachdeva does not anticipate claims 1 through 14, 16
`
`Page 25
`
` through 20, and 22 through 30 of the '336 patent;
` right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And one of the reasons for your opinion
` is that -- is it your opinion that Sachdeva does not
` disclose that the, at least one 2D image and the 3D
` virtual model are aligned and remain separation
` representations after being arranged; right?
` A. Yes. Going that -- you are referring to
` this sentence right here?
` Q. Yeah. I'm referring to the sentence
` right underneath Paragraph 63.
` A. I just want to be clear.
` Q. I just want to set up my next series of
` questions, where I'm going with it.
` So then you have two reasons
` underlying that opinion; right? The first is
` that -- is expressed just above Paragraph 62, that
` in your opinion Sachdeva discloses that the
` morphable model in 102 is 3D and not 2D; right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Then your second reason is set forth on
` page 42, just above Paragraph 68; right?
` A. 42, you said, sir?
` Q. Yeah. Page 42. Just above Paragraph
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 7 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` 68.
` A. That's correct.
` Q. The second reason that is expressed
` there, in general terms is just that in your
` opinion, the virtual model in Sachdeva is a, quote,
` unquote, composite combined digital representation,
` not a 2D image and a 3D virtual model that are
` aligned and remain separate representations after
` being arranged; right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So I'd like to start going back to the
` first opinion of yours there about the morphable
` model 102 in Sachdeva?
` A. So which page are you on, sir?
` Q. So I'll be going back to page 37.
` A. 37. Yes, sir.
` Q. So your opinion is that the morphable
` model 102 in Sachdeva cannot be a 2D image; right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. My opinion is that the more few model in
` Sachdeva is 3D.
` Q. And that it's not -- that it's not --
` A. Not 2D.
` Q. -- 2D.
` (Exhibit 1005, Sachdeva U.S. patent, 7,156,655, was
`
`Page 27
`
` marked for identification.)
` Q. So I have handed the witness a document
` labeled 1005. It's titled Sachdeva, U.S. patent
` 7,156,655.
` Do you recognize this document?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is this the Sachdeva reference?
` A. It is.
` Q. So if you could turn to column 5, line
` 64.
` A. Column 5, line 64.
` Q. Yes. 64.
` So in that line of Sachdeva, it
` states that, that it has software features that
` create two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional
` virtual patient model on a computer; right?
` A. What's your question, sir?
` Q. Just that that's what it says right in
` those lines; right?
` A. In that particular line.
` Q. Yeah.
` A. So I just want to read it clearly.
` In that particular line, in that
` particular line, it says, in the preferred -- work
` station in the preferred embodiment provide software
`
`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
`
` features that create two-dimensional and
` three-dimensional. Just in that particular line.
` Q. Right.
` A. So the wording there on that particular
` column.
` Q. So that is stating that the virtual
` patient model in Sachdeva can be two-dimensional;
` right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. No. Not in the context of Sachdeva.
` Q. The virtual model can't be 2D in
` Sachdeva your opinion?
` A. Not in the context of Sachdeva. The
` Sachdeva virtual model is 3D.
` Q. Can you turn to -- so your opinion is
` even though Sachdeva explicitly states that the
` software can create a two-dimensional virtual model,
` you don't think Sachdeva discloses that you can't
` create a two-dimensional 3D model?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` Q. I should say, two-dimensional virtual
` patient model?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. So again, to answer the question very
` clearly and accurately and precisely, in that
`
`Page 29
`
` sentence it states two-dimensional, but the context
` of Sachdeva, if you look at the figures, the
` content, the context, describes the creation of
` three-dimensional model.
` Q. So you read that sentence as erroneous?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, it's not in the context of
` Sachdeva.
` Q. What does that mean, in the context of
` Sachdeva?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Well, when I read Sachdeva in details, I
` go over the figures, the columns, the descriptions.
` It discusses creation of the three dimensional
` virtual model, composite, combined three dimensional
` virtual model.
` Q. And it also discusses at column 5, that
` we just read, a two-dimensional virtual patient
` model; right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. In that sentence there it mentions the
` words two-dimensional, but it doesn't discuss that
` anywhere else in Sachdeva. Sachdeva's context is
` strictly three-dimensional virtual patient model.
` And that's clear when you look at
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`exocad Ex. 1026
`exocad v. 3Shape, IPR2018-00788
`
`Page 8 of 71
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`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
`
` the figures and the diagrams.
` Q. But to arrive at that, you have to
` ignore that sentence; right?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. I -- not that I ignored the sentence. I
` read the description of Sachdeva in detail as -- you
` know, as a person that's of ordinary skill in the
` art, as an expert, I read -- I read this entire
` patent in detail multiple times, looked at the
` figures.
` And you know, as a person that is
` very familiar with the art, I understand what
` Sachdeva is developing and proposing, and the
` motivation behind what he's doing.
` Q. So you read that sentence as a
` typographical error?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403.
` A. Again, that sentence mentions the word
` two-dimensional, but the context of Sachdeva is all
` three-dimensional virtual patient model.
` Q. So do you think a patent should be read
` to be limited to the embodiments disclosed in it?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403, 611(b).
` A. I'm sorry. What was the question, sir?
` Q. Do you think a patent should be read to
`
`Page 31
`
` be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in
` it?
` MR. LEE: Objection, 403, 611(b).
` A. So when I read a patent, I read the
` patent very carefully. I read the claims. I read
` the specification. I look at all of the figures in
`