OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________
` 2
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 3 ________________________
`
` 4 APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner
` 5
` vs.
` 6
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
` 7 Patent Owner.
` ____________________________
` 8
` Case IPR2018-01133
` 9 U.S. Patent 9,538,152 B2
` _____________________________
`10
` ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`11 OLIVER COSSAIRT
` FEBRUARY 5, 2019
`12
`
`13 Oral and videotaped deposition of OLIVER
`
`14 COSSAIRT, produced as a witness at the instance of the
`
`15 Patent Owner, and duly sworn, was taken in the
`
`16 above-styled and numbered cause on the 5th day of
`
`17 February, 2019, from 9:12 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., before
`
`18 Deborah L. Endler, RPR, CSR in and for the State of
`
`19 Texas, reported by stenographic means, at the offices
`
`20 of Haynes & Boone, 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300,
`
`21 Austin, Texas 78701, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.,
`
`22 42.53(d)(4) and the provisions stated on the record or
`
`23 attached hereto.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 1 of 143
`
`
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________
` 2
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 3 ________________________
`
` 4 APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner
` 5
` vs.
` 6
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
` 7 Patent Owner.
` ____________________________
` 8
` Case IPR2018-01133
` 9 U.S. Patent 9,538,152 B2
` _____________________________
`10
` ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`11 OLIVER COSSAIRT
` FEBRUARY 5, 2019
`12
`
`13 Oral and videotaped deposition of OLIVER
`
`14 COSSAIRT, produced as a witness at the instance of the
`
`15 Patent Owner, and duly sworn, was taken in the
`
`16 above-styled and numbered cause on the 5th day of
`
`17 February, 2019, from 9:12 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., before
`
`18 Deborah L. Endler, RPR, CSR in and for the State of
`
`19 Texas, reported by stenographic means, at the offices
`
`20 of Haynes & Boone, 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300,
`
`21 Austin, Texas 78701, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.,
`
`22 42.53(d)(4) and the provisions stated on the record or
`
`23 attached hereto.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 1 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 2
`
` 3 FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` 4 Philip W. Woo, Esquire
`
` 5 David W. O'Brien, Esquire
`
` 6 Hong Shi, Esquire
`
` 7 Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
` 8 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
`
` 9 Austin, Texas 78701
`
`10 philip.woo@haynesboone.com
`
`11 david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`12 hong.shi.ipr@haynesboon.com
`
`13
`
`14 FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`15 Neil A. Rubin, Esquire
`
`16 Russ August & Kabat
`
`17 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`
`18 Los Angeles, CA 90025
`
`19 Nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`20
`
`21 ALSO PRESENT: Taylor Willis, videographer
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 2 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2 APPEARANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
` 3 OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 4 Examination by Mr. Rubin. . . . . . . . . . 5
`
` 5 Examination by Mr. O'Brien. . . . . . . . . 113
`
` 6 Examination by Mr. Rubin. . . . . . . . . . 124
`
` 7 Reporter's Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
`
` 8
`
` 9 E X H I B I T S
`
`10 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`11 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review
` submitted by Apple 12
`12
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`13
` APPL-1001 U.S. Patent 9,538,152 29
`14 APPL-1004 Declaration of Oliver Cossairt,
` Ph.D. 11
`15 APPL-1005 Biographical Sketch-Oliver Cossairt 11
` APPL-1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication,
`16 No. US 2008/0030592 A1 33
` APPL-1007 U.S. Patent 7,859,588 14
`17 APPL-1008 The Manual of Photography 36
` APPL-1010 Computer Vision, Algorithms and
`18 Applications 107
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 3 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Please stand by. Good
`
` 3 morning. Today's date is February 5th, 2019 and the
`
` 4 time is 9:12 a.m. We are on the record. We are
`
` 5 located at the offices of Haynes and Boone at 600
`
` 6 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300, in Austin, Texas, for the
`
` 7 oral video deposition of Oliver Cossairt, Ph.D., in
`
` 8 the matter of Apple, Inc. versus Corephotonics, LTD,
`
` 9 Case IPR 2018-01133.
`
`10 My name is Taylor Willis, the legal
`
`11 videographer. Our court reporter is Deb Endler and we
`
`12 are with Kim Tindall & Associates.
`
`13 Would counsel, please, introduce themselves
`
`14 and whom they represent?
`
`15 MR. RUBIN: Neil Rubin, Russ August and
`
`16 Kabat, representing Corephotonics.
`
`17 MR. WOO: Philip Woo of Haynes and Boone
`
`18 representing Petitioner, Apple, Inc. and defending the
`
`19 witness.
`
`20 MR. O'BRIEN: David O'Brien, also
`
`21 representing Apple.
`
`22 MS. SHI: Hong Shi, with Haynes and Boone
`
`23 Haine representing Apple.
`
`24 VIDEOGRAPHER: The witness may now be sworn
`
`25 in.
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 4 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 (Witness first duly sworn.)
`
` 2 OLIVER COSSAIRT, PH.D.
`
` 3 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` 4 EXAMINATION
`
` 5 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` 6 Q. Good morning, Dr. Cossairt.
`
` 7 A. Good morning.
`
` 8 Q. I did say your name right?
`
` 9 A. You did.
`
`10 Q. Have you been deposed before?
`
`11 A. This is my first deposition.
`
`12 Q. Okay. Have you worked as an expert witness
`
`13 before this case?
`
`14 A. This is my first time working as an expert
`
`15 witness.
`
`16 Q. You understand today that you are under
`
`17 oath just as if you were testifying in a court of law?
`
`18 A. I do.
`
`19 Q. Now, the purpose of today's deposition is
`
`20 to get a clear record of questions that I ask and the
`
`21 answers that you give. And even though this is being
`
`22 videotaped, we have a court reporter who is taking a
`
`23 written transcript of the proceedings. In order for
`
`24 her to take that transcript, it's important that you
`
`25 answer questions using words, not simply nodding or
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 5 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 saying things like "uh-huh." You understand that?
`
` 2 A. Understood.
`
` 3 Q. And so it may be that at some point today
`
` 4 I'll, you will forget that and I'll ask you to repeat
`
` 5 your answer as a yes or no.
`
` 6 It's also important that we not talk over
`
` 7 one another. So I'd ask that you please try to make
`
` 8 sure that I've finished asking my questions before you
`
` 9 start answering and I'll try to do the same. Okay?
`
`10 A. Okay.
`
`11 Q. If at any point you don't hear a question
`
`12 or you don't understand a question -- well, let me
`
`13 strike that.
`
`14 If you don't hear a question, please ask me
`
`15 to repeat it.
`
`16 A. Okay.
`
`17 Q. And if you don't understand a question,
`
`18 please let me know and I'll try to clarify any
`
`19 misunderstanding. Okay?
`
`20 A. Okay.
`
`21 Q. I'm expecting that we'll generally take
`
`22 breaks for a few minutes at the end of every hour,
`
`23 hour and a half of testimony. If you need a break
`
`24 before that, please feel free to ask for it. But if
`
`25 there is a question pending, you need to answer the
`
`6
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 6 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 question before we take a break. Okay?
`
` 2 A. Understood.
`
` 3 Q. And you probably discussed this with
`
` 4 counsel for Apple, but you understand that under the
`
` 5 rules governing this proceeding you can't, during
`
` 6 breaks you can't have discussions with counsel for
`
` 7 Apple about any questions that I've asked or you
`
` 8 expect me to ask or any of your answers.
`
` 9 A. Yes, I understand.
`
`10 Q. Is there any reason that you are aware of
`
`11 that you cannot give complete and accurate testimony
`
`12 today?
`
`13 A. None that I'm aware of.
`
`14 Q. You are not sick today?
`
`15 A. I am not sick.
`
`16 Q. You are not --
`
`17 A. At the moment.
`
`18 Q. Okay. Hope that remains true for the rest
`
`19 of the day.
`
`20 And you are not on any medications that
`
`21 would affect your memory or your ability to answer
`
`22 questions?
`
`23 A. I am not.
`
`24 Q. You probably also went over this with
`
`25 counsel for Apple, but at certain points in the
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 7 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 deposition today counsel may object to a question that
`
` 2 I've asked. You understand that you still have to
`
` 3 answer the question to the best of your ability in
`
` 4 spite of the objection. Okay?
`
` 5 A. Understand.
`
` 6 Q. Who hired you to work on this case?
`
` 7 A. I was hired by Haynes and Boone.
`
` 8 Q. And when were you hired?
`
` 9 A. I can't recall the exact date. I guess
`
`10 this would be about six months ago, but that's not
`
`11 exact.
`
`12 Q. Okay. Do you remember when your
`
`13 Declaration was submitted?
`
`14 A. I can't recall the exact date.
`
`15 Q. It's not a memory test. I'll represent to
`
`16 you that your Declaration is dated May 21st, 2018.
`
`17 Does that sound right?
`
`18 A. That sounds correct.
`
`19 Q. How long before then, to the best of your,
`
`20 to the best you can estimate, were you engaged?
`
`21 A. It was, I believe it was on the order of 8
`
`22 weeks, somewhere between, around 8 weeks, but that's
`
`23 not exact.
`
`24 Q. Have you done any work in connection with
`
`25 Corephotonics's lawsuit against Apple other than the
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 8 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 IPR on the '152 Patent?
`
` 2 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
` 3 A. No, I have not.
`
` 4 Q. Your Declaration refers to being
`
` 5 compensated at an hourly rate, but I don't think it
`
` 6 lists what the hourly rate. What is your hourly rate?
`
` 7 A. I can't list it off the top of my head.
`
` 8 Q. You are not sure what you are getting paid
`
` 9 in this case?
`
`10 A. I don't recall exactly what it is, no.
`
`11 Q. Can you estimate?
`
`12 A. I recall that it's somewhere between 250
`
`13 and $500 an hour, but I can't recall the exact amount
`
`14 at this moment.
`
`15 Q. Do you do other consulting work?
`
`16 A. I have done other consulting work for
`
`17 companies in the capacity as an engineer.
`
`18 Q. Have you ever been paid more than $250 an
`
`19 hour for that consulting work?
`
`20 A. I can't recall.
`
`21 Q. Have you ever done any other work for Apple
`
`22 besides work on this case?
`
`23 A. Not that I can recall.
`
`24 Q. Does Apple fund or sponsor any of the work
`
`25 done by you or your students at the university?
`
`9
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 9 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 A. Not that I'm aware of.
`
` 2 Q. During the roughly 8 hours or -- I'm sorry.
`
` 3 Withdraw.
`
` 4 During the roughly 8 weeks that you
`
` 5 testified there were between when you were engaged and
`
` 6 when you submitted your Declaration, how many hours
`
` 7 did you work on this case?
`
` 8 A. I believe it was somewhere between 50 and
`
` 9 100 hours, I believe. Again, I can't recall the exact
`
`10 amount.
`
`11 Q. Who wrote your Declaration?
`
`12 A. I wrote my Declaration.
`
`13 Q. Every word?
`
`14 A. Every word of the Declaration is mine.
`
`15 Q. So, for example, there is a section in your
`
`16 Declaration that talks about legal standards for
`
`17 anticipation and obviousness. Do you remember that
`
`18 section?
`
`19 A. I do.
`
`20 Q. Did you write that section?
`
`21 A. That section was written in consultation
`
`22 with counsel.
`
`23 Q. And other sections of the report were
`
`24 similarly written in consultation with counsel?
`
`25 A. There may have been other sections that
`
`10
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 10 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 were written in consultation with counsel, but every
`
` 2 word of the report is mine.
`
` 3 Q. Sitting here, can you think of any other
`
` 4 sections that were written in the same way as the
`
` 5 legal standing section?
`
` 6 A. Not at the moment.
`
` 7 (Exhibit No. APPL-1004 was previously
`
` 8 marked.)
`
` 9 Q. I'm going to hand you a document that
`
`10 already has an Exhibit No. on it.
`
`11 A. Okay.
`
`12 Q. So exhibit number on the document is
`
`13 APPL-1004, and it's titled "Declaration of Oliver
`
`14 Cossairt, Ph.D. Under 37 C.F.R., Section 1.68 In
`
`15 Support of Petition For Inter Partes Review "document.
`
`16 Are you familiar with this document?
`
`17 A. I am.
`
`18 Q. And is this the Declaration that you
`
`19 submitted on behalf of Apple in this case?
`
`20 A. It appears to be the same document, yes.
`
`21 (Exhibit No. APPL-1005 was previously
`
`22 marked.)
`
`23 Q. I'm going to hand you another document
`
`24 that's also been, that also has an exhibit number on
`
`25 it. This is APPL-1005, titled "Biographic
`
`11
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 11 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 Sketch-Oliver Cossairt." Do you recognize this
`
` 2 document?
`
` 3 A. I do.
`
` 4 Q. And is this CV, well -- withdrawn.
`
` 5 Does Exhibit 1005 contain a complete and
`
` 6 accurate CV for you?
`
` 7 A. It's an accurate CV at the time the
`
` 8 Declaration was submitted, yeah.
`
` 9 Q. Turning to your Declaration, Exhibit 1004,
`
`10 are there any errors in this Declaration that you're
`
`11 aware of?
`
`12 A. None that I'm aware of.
`
`13 Q. Is there anything in the Declaration you
`
`14 wish to add or change after you have had a chance to
`
`15 think about things?
`
`16 A. Nothing that I would like to change.
`
`17 MR. RUBIN: Mark this as Exhibit No. 1,
`
`18 please.
`
`19 (Cossairt Exhibit No. 1 was marked.)
`
`20 Q. So what's been handed to you as Petition
`
`21 for Inter Partes Review submitted by Apple. Have you
`
`22 seen this document before?
`
`23 A. I have seen this only briefly in passing.
`
`24 Q. When was the first time you saw it?
`
`25 A. The first time that I saw it I believe was
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 12 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 yesterday.
`
` 2 Q. So you actually read Exhibit 1?
`
` 3 A. I have not.
`
` 4 Q. Are you aware that the Patent Trial and
`
` 5 Appeal Board in December issued a decision instituting
`
` 6 an Inter Partes Review in this case?
`
` 7 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
` 8 A. I would say -- actually can you rephrase
`
` 9 the question?
`
`10 Q. Well, let me ask you something a little bit
`
`11 different. Withdraw that question.
`
`12 Have you seen any decisions that were
`
`13 written by Patent Trial and Appeal Board judges in
`
`14 this case?
`
`15 A. I have seen no decisions, no written
`
`16 decisions.
`
`17 Q. Are you aware whether any such decisions
`
`18 have actually been issued?
`
`19 A. There was, I believe, some discussion about
`
`20 a decision that was in, I believe in favor of Apple.
`
`21 But I cannot recall the exact details of the decision.
`
`22 Q. Have you done any analysis of any prior art
`
`23 references other than Border and Parulski in
`
`24 connection with this case?
`
`25 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`13
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 13 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 A. There, I guess I would refer to the
`
` 2 Declaration document which lists the, all of the
`
` 3 references that were studied in reference to my
`
` 4 Declaration, which I can list off if you would like.
`
` 5 Q. So aside from the documents that are listed
`
` 6 in paragraph 3 of your report, have you considered any
`
` 7 other prior art references in connection with your
`
` 8 work on this case?
`
` 9 A. There was a number of other references that
`
`10 were considered, but these were the ones that were the
`
`11 most relevant to the Declaration, the ones that were
`
`12 used to build arguments in the Declaration.
`
`13 Q. Let me ask you to turn to paragraph 61 of
`
`14 your Declaration. This is part of your section on
`
`15 "Reasons to Combine Border and Parulski." Are you
`
`16 there?
`
`17 A. Yes.
`
`18 Q. Now would probably be a good time to give
`
`19 you Parulski.
`
`20 (Exhibit No. APPL-1007 was previously
`
`21 marked.)
`
`22 Q. Just handed you a document that's been
`
`23 marked as Exhibit APPL-007, I'm sorry, APPL-1007 U.S.
`
`24 Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski, et al.
`
`25 I assume you are familiar with this
`
`14
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 14 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 document?
`
` 2 A. I am.
`
` 3 Q. If you could please turn to column 28, the
`
` 4 paragraph starting at line 45. You there?
`
` 5 A. Yes.
`
` 6 Q. So this paragraph starts "In accordance
`
` 7 with the invention different types of augmentation or
`
` 8 modification are contemplated in relation to Figure
`
` 9 26." You see that?
`
`10 A. I do.
`
`11 Q. And then that same paragraph goes on to
`
`12 describe an image being captured with the primary
`
`13 capture unit at one focus position and another image
`
`14 being captured at another focus position. You see
`
`15 that?
`
`16 A. I do.
`
`17 Q. So that's one example of an augmentation,
`
`18 described in Parulski, correct?
`
`19 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`20 A. Actually I don't believe it's a description
`
`21 of the augmentation itself but just a description of
`
`22 the capture process to capture the data that would be
`
`23 used for the augmentation.
`
`24 Q. Okay. Well, the second sentence of that
`
`25 paragraph says "In a first type of augmentation or
`
`15
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 15 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 modification" and then goes on to describe using two
`
` 2 images with different focus positions, correct?
`
` 3 A. Correct.
`
` 4 Q. Then the next paragraph refers to another
`
` 5 type of augmentation, you see that?
`
` 6 A. I see.
`
` 7 Q. So the paragraph starting at column 28,
`
` 8 line 58, refers to augmentation using the secondary
`
` 9 image with different dynamic range than the primary
`
`10 image, correct?
`
`11 A. Correct.
`
`12 Q. Turning to column 29, line 51, Parulski
`
`13 says "The augmentation process can also be applied in
`
`14 connection with image pairs having different
`
`15 resolutions." Do you see that?
`
`16 A. Sorry, can you just read it to me?
`
`17 Q. Sure, column 29 starting at line 51.
`
`18 A. 51.
`
`19 Q. And I'll just read the first sentence, "The
`
`20 augmentation process can also be applied in connection
`
`21 with image pairs having different resolutions." You
`
`22 see that?
`
`23 A. I do.
`
`24 Q. And then at the top of column 30, a new
`
`25 paragraph says "In a further embodiment of the
`
`16
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 16 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 invention, the primary capture stage and secondary
`
` 2 capture stage are set for different exposure times so
`
` 3 that different levels of noise and motion blue are
`
` 4 present in the respective images." You see that?
`
` 5 A. I do.
`
` 6 Q. So in columns 28, 29 and 30, as we just
`
` 7 walked through, Parulski says, gives different
`
` 8 examples of types of augmentation, one is using two
`
` 9 images with different focus positions, one is using
`
`10 different images with different dynamic range, one is
`
`11 images with different resolutions and then one is
`
`12 images with different exposure times. You agree?
`
`13 A. I agree.
`
`14 Q. Parulski never says anything about
`
`15 combining examples, right? It never says you can use
`
`16 images that differ both in focus and exposure time, is
`
`17 that right?
`
`18 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`19 A. I can't confirm that off the top of my
`
`20 head.
`
`21 Q. Now, the reference in Parulski to the
`
`22 Border patent is in the paragraph we were just looking
`
`23 at in column 29 starting at line 51, correct?
`
`24 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`25 A. There is a reference to a Border patent
`
`17
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 17 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 which is referred to as Patent No. 11/461,754 Border,
`
` 2 John Border being the primary author.
`
` 3 Q. We'll see that later, but I'll represent to
`
` 4 you that that's the application serial number of the
`
` 5 prior art reference you discuss in your Declaration.
`
` 6 So turning to paragraph 61 of your report
`
` 7 you say that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
` 8 would have been motivated to apply Parulski's
`
` 9 teachings to Border because the combination would
`
`10 provide certain benefits. Gives examples of those
`
`11 benefits, "a broadened depth of field, a broadened
`
`12 dynamic range and relatively low noise and sharpness."
`
`13 You agree?
`
`14 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`15 A. I believe those are the exact words in my
`
`16 Declaration as you just stated them.
`
`17 Q. Now, the broadened depth of field is
`
`18 referred to in the portion of Parulski that you quote
`
`19 from column 28, lines 52 to 53, correct?
`
`20 A. That is as stated in the Declaration, I'm
`
`21 just confirming the number. Correct.
`
`22 Q. So Parulski describes a broadened depth of
`
`23 field as a benefit of augmentation using two images
`
`24 with different focus positions, correct?
`
`25 A. Correct.
`
`18
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 18 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 Q. Parulski does not describe that as being a
`
` 2 benefit of augmentation using images with two
`
` 3 resolutions, correct?
`
` 4 A. I can't say that without looking more
`
` 5 closely. I'm happy to do that if you would like me to
`
` 6 take the time.
`
` 7 Q. Please.
`
` 8 A. So the question is specifically about
`
` 9 whether -- actually could you repeat the question so
`
`10 it's on the top of my head?
`
`11 Q. So Parulski does not identify a broadened
`
`12 depth of field as an advantage that you would obtain
`
`13 by augmenting, by an augmentation process using two
`
`14 images with different resolutions, correct?
`
`15 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`16 A. In reference to the paragraph we were just
`
`17 discussing, which is column 29, starting at line 51,
`
`18 there is no explicit mention of depth of field,
`
`19 broadened depth of field has the benefit of combining
`
`20 together image pairs with different resolutions.
`
`21 However, it is stated that a composite
`
`22 image is then formed to produce a digital image with
`
`23 improved resolution, and in some interpretations
`
`24 increase depth of field can be interpreted as
`
`25 increased resolution over a larger, over a range of
`
`19
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 19 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 depths.
`
` 2 So I would confirm that there is no
`
` 3 explicit description of broadening of depth of field,
`
` 4 but I also would not say that there is -- Actually,
`
` 5 just repeat exact word of your question.
`
` 6 If your question is about whether the words
`
` 7 broadening depth of field appear in the paragraph
`
` 8 starting in column 29, line 51, I don't see explicit
`
` 9 mention of the words broadening depth of field in that
`
`10 paragraph in reference to combining image pairs having
`
`11 different resolutions.
`
`12 Q. And Parulski doesn't mention broadened
`
`13 dynamic range as a benefit of combining image pairs
`
`14 with different resolutions either, correct?
`
`15 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`16 A. Again, I can only state certainly that in
`
`17 this paragraph it's not stated. But I can't state
`
`18 with certainty that it's not mentioned anywhere in the
`
`19 document.
`
`20 But in regards to what the portions of the
`
`21 Parulski that we've been reading, in those paragraphs
`
`22 that we've just been looking at, I don't see explicit
`
`23 mention of increased dynamic range being a benefit of
`
`24 combining image pairs with different resolutions. But
`
`25 it may be somewhere else in the document, but not in
`
`20
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 20 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 my attention at the moment.
`
` 2 Q. And in your answer you referred to this
`
` 3 paragraph, just so the record's clear you are
`
` 4 referring to paragraph column 29, starting at 51 that
`
` 5 contains a reference to Border, correct?
`
` 6 A. Correct.
`
` 7 Q. And Parulski does not describe --
`
` 8 withdrawn.
`
` 9 Your paragraph 61 quotes Parulski referring
`
`10 to a broadened dynamic range, and there you are
`
`11 quoting to column 29, line 5, correct?
`
`12 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`13 A. Correct.
`
`14 Q. And the paragraph that you're quoting from
`
`15 is describing combining images with different dynamic
`
`16 ranges, correct?
`
`17 A. The paragraph is describing the capture of
`
`18 the images with different dynamic ranges.
`
`19 Q. Returning to your paragraph 61, you quote
`
`20 Parulski referring to "relatively low noise and good
`
`21 sharpness" as a benefit.
`
`22 There you're quoting from column 30, line
`
`23 20, correct?
`
`24 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`25 Q. Or line 21.
`
`21
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 21 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 A. Correct.
`
` 2 Q. So Parulski describes images with
`
` 3 "relatively low noise and good sharpness" as a benefit
`
` 4 of augmentation using two images with different
`
` 5 exposure times, correct?
`
` 6 A. In the embodiment described in this
`
` 7 paragraph, yes.
`
` 8 Q. So Parulski does not describe a broadened
`
` 9 depth of field, a broadened dynamic range or
`
`10 relatively low noise and good sharpness as being
`
`11 benefits achieved by combining image pairs with
`
`12 different resolutions as in Border, correct?
`
`13 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`14 A. Just state the question one more time.
`
`15 Q. So the three benefits that you quote from
`
`16 Parulski in paragraph 61 of your report, Parulski does
`
`17 not describe those as being benefits of combining
`
`18 image pairs with different resolutions as done in
`
`19 Border, correct?
`
`20 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
`21 A. So we've just been discussing three
`
`22 possible embodiments.
`
`23 Q. I count four, but okay. And just to be
`
`24 clear --
`
`25 A. Sure.
`
`22
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 22 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 Q. -- I think we went through four
`
` 2 embodiments. So the first was the images with
`
` 3 different focus positions. That's column 28, line 45.
`
` 4 The second is images with different dynamic range.
`
` 5 That's column 28, line 58. The third would be images
`
` 6 with a different resolutions, column 29, line 51. And
`
` 7 the fourth would be images with different exposure
`
` 8 times, column 30, line 1.
`
` 9 A. So there is no single embodiment that
`
`10 describes -- just state your question one more time.
`
`11 Q. Well, let me start with just a different
`
`12 question.
`
`13 A. Okay.
`
`14 Q. You would agree that there are four
`
`15 different examples at least given the types of
`
`16 augmentation --
`
`17 A. As we just discussed.
`
`18 Q. In Parulski?
`
`19 A. Yes.
`
`20 Q. All right. So in paragraph 61 of your
`
`21 report you quote three benefits described in Parulski,
`
`22 and my question is whether you agree that Parulski
`
`23 does not describe any of those three as being benefits
`
`24 of augmentation using image pairs with different
`
`25 resolutions, correct?
`
`23
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 23 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 MR. WOO: Objection, form.
`
` 2 A. In the three descriptions of the
`
` 3 embodiments, I'm sorry, the four descriptions of the
`
` 4 embodiments we just went through, there is no explicit
`
` 5 definition of combining these benefits with, with a
`
` 6 capture process that involves using images with
`
` 7 different resolutions.
`
` 8 Q. I'd like to ask you to turn to paragraph 18
`
` 9 of your Declaration, Exhibit 1004.
`
`10 A. Yes.
`
`11 Q. I'm sorry, page 18.
`
`12 A. Oh, page 18.
`
`13 Q. I may have said paragraph, but I meant page
`
`14 18.
`
`15 A. Okay.
`
`16 Q. Here in paragraphs 45 through 47 you
`
`17 discuss the claim construction for the term "standard
`
`18 color filter array." Do you see that?
`
`19 A. I do.
`
`20 Q. Did counsel assist you in of the drafting
`
`21 this section?
`
`22 MR. WOO: Objection, calls for privileged
`
`23 information. Give me a second, I'm parsing the
`
`24 question. You can answer yes or no.
`
`25 A. Yes.
`
`24
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 24 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 Q. In paragraph 45 you say that you understand
`
` 2 that the '152 Patent defines standard color filter
`
` 3 array, (CFA), to mean "a color filter array, including
`
` 4 an RGB (Bayer) B-a-y-e-r, pattern, RGBE, CYYM, CYGM,
`
` 5 RGBW#1, RGBW#2, or RGBW#3." You see that?
`
` 6 A. I do.
`
` 7 Q. That quoted definition, were you provided
`
` 8 that by counsel?
`
` 9 MR. WOO: Objection, form, and objection
`
`10 calls for privileged information. Instruct the
`
`11 witness not to answer.
`
`12 Q. Do you know whether that same definition
`
`13 has been proposed as a claim construction in the
`
`14 District Court litigation concerning this patent?
`
`15 A. I do not.
`
`16 Q. Prior to being engaged on this case, have
`
`17 you ever heard of the concept of claim construction as
`
`18 applies to a patent?
`
`19 A. I can't recall specifically.
`
`20 Q. Your Declaration has a section on relevant
`
`21 legal standards which we talked about earlier, but I
`
`22 didn't actually have you take a look at.
`
`23 A. Okay.
`
`24 Q. If you could turn to Section 4, "Relevant
`
`25 Legal Standards" which starts on page 8. See that?
`
`25
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2004 Page 25 of 143
`
`
`
`OLIVER COSSAIRT
`
` 1 A. I do.
`
` 2 Q. Now, in paragraph 28, I'm sorry, paragraph
`
` 3 24 under the subheading, you see that?
`
` 4 A. I do.
`
` 5 Q. And it starts "I have been
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
