Page 1
`
`·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·______________________
`·3· · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4· APPLE INC.· · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·5· · · ·Petitioner· · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· Case IPR2018-01279
`·6· vs.· · · · · · · · · · · ·)· Patent No. 7,844,037
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·7· QUALCOMM INCORPORATED· · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·8· · · ·Patent Owner· · · · ·)
`·9
`10· ********************************************************
`11· · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF JEREMY R. COOPERSTOCK, PH.D.
`12· · · · · · · · ·Taken for the Patent Owner
`13· · · · · · · · · · · October 22, 2019
`14· ********************************************************
`15· · · ORAL DEPOSITION OF JEREMY R. COOPERSTOCK,
`16· PH.D., produced as a witness at the instance of
`17· the Patent Owner, and duly sworn, was taken in the
`18· above-styled and numbered cause on October 22, 2019,
`19· from 9:08 a.m. to 11:48 a.m., before Pennie Futrell, CSR
`20· in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
`21· shorthand, at the office of Fish & Richardson, 1717 Main
`22· Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to
`23· Patent Trial and Appeal Board Procedure and the
`24· provisions stated on the record or attached hereto.
`25
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 1
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·______________________
`·3· · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4· APPLE INC.· · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·5· · · ·Petitioner· · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· Case IPR2018-01279
`·6· vs.· · · · · · · · · · · ·)· Patent No. 7,844,037
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·7· QUALCOMM INCORPORATED· · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·8· · · ·Patent Owner· · · · ·)
`·9
`10· ********************************************************
`11· · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF JEREMY R. COOPERSTOCK, PH.D.
`12· · · · · · · · ·Taken for the Patent Owner
`13· · · · · · · · · · · October 22, 2019
`14· ********************************************************
`15· · · ORAL DEPOSITION OF JEREMY R. COOPERSTOCK,
`16· PH.D., produced as a witness at the instance of
`17· the Patent Owner, and duly sworn, was taken in the
`18· above-styled and numbered cause on October 22, 2019,
`19· from 9:08 a.m. to 11:48 a.m., before Pennie Futrell, CSR
`20· in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
`21· shorthand, at the office of Fish & Richardson, 1717 Main
`22· Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to
`23· Patent Trial and Appeal Board Procedure and the
`24· provisions stated on the record or attached hereto.
`25
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 1
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES
`·2· FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`·3· · · Mr. Brian Oaks
`· · · · BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P.
`·4· · · 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
`· · · · Suite 1500
`·5· · · Austin, Texas 78701
`· · · · Telephone:· · ·512.322.5470
`·6· · · Facsimile:· · ·512.322.3621
`· · · · E-mail:· · · · brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`·7
`·8· FOR THE PETITIONER:
`·9· · · Mr. Dan Smith
`· · · · FISH & RICHARDSON
`10· · · 1717 Main Street
`· · · · Suite 5000
`11· · · Dallas, Texas 75201
`· · · · Telephone:· · ·214.747.5070
`12· · · Facsimile:· · ·214.747.2091
`· · · · E-mail:· · · · dsmith@fr.com
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 2
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`·2· APPEARANCES.......................................... 2
`·3· EXAMINATION OF JEREMY R. COOPERSTOCK, PH.D.
`·4· · · Direct Examination by Mr. Oaks................... 4
`·5· SIGNATURE AND CORRECTION PAGE........................ 88
`·6· CERTIFICATE.......................................... 90
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`·8· NO.· · · · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`·9· Exhibit 2024· Newton's Telecom Dictionary Page 678· ·38
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 3
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·JEREMY R. COOPERSTOCK, PH.D.
`·2· Having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`·3· · · · · · · · · · ·DIRECT EXAMINATION
`·4· BY MR. OAKS:
`·5· · · ·Q.· ·Good morning.
`·6· · · ·A.· ·Good morning.
`·7· · · ·Q.· ·Would you state your full name for the record,
`·8· please?
`·9· · · ·A.· ·Jeremy Cooperstock.
`10· · · ·Q.· ·And have you been deposed before?
`11· · · ·A.· ·Yes, I have.
`12· · · ·Q.· ·How many times?
`13· · · · · · · · ·An approximate number is fine.
`14· · · ·A.· ·I'm thinking four times.
`15· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And so you understand that a court
`16· reporter is here taking down what you and I say today,
`17· correct?
`18· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
`19· · · ·Q.· ·And so we need to be careful not to talk over
`20· each other so she can get an accurate transcription of
`21· what happens.
`22· · · · · · · · ·Do you understand?
`23· · · ·A.· ·Right.
`24· · · ·Q.· ·And I'll be asking you questions, of course.
`25· And if you don't understand a question, then please ask
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 4
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· me to clarify it.
`·2· · · · · · · · ·Okay?
`·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·And if you don't, I'll assume you understand
`·5· the question.
`·6· · · ·A.· ·(Witness nods head.)
`·7· · · ·Q.· ·Fair enough?
`·8· · · ·A.· ·Good.
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·From time to time, your attorney may object to
`10· a question that I ask.
`11· · · · · · · · ·Do you understand that you're to answer
`12· my question unless your attorney specifically instructs
`13· you not to answer it?
`14· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`15· · · ·Q.· ·And we'll be going for a few hours today, so
`16· just let me know -- I'll try to take a break every hour
`17· or so.· But if you ever need a break before that or if
`18· I'm going too long, just let me know --
`19· · · ·A.· ·Perfect.
`20· · · ·Q.· ·-- and we can take -- take a break.
`21· · · · · · · · ·Is there any reason you won't be able to
`22· give me full and truthful testimony today?
`23· · · ·A.· ·No reason whatsoever.
`24· · · ·Q.· ·Great.
`25· · · · · · · · ·So you mentioned just a minute ago that
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 5
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· you've been deposed around four times?
`·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`·3· · · ·Q.· ·Were any of those in a patent matter?
`·4· · · ·A.· ·One was in a software copyright dispute
`·5· matter.
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And who were the parties?
`·7· · · ·A.· ·It was Brim.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·What was the other party now?· I can't
`·9· remember the name of the other party.· It was two -- two
`10· companies in Canada.
`11· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· But it wasn't about a patent?
`12· · · ·A.· ·No, no, it was specifically software-related.
`13· · · ·Q.· ·Have you --
`14· · · ·A.· ·Copyright.
`15· · · ·Q.· ·Have you testified in court before?
`16· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`17· · · ·Q.· ·And what -- what matter was that?
`18· · · ·A.· ·That -- that one was in court.· And I also
`19· testified in two United Airlines lawsuits in which I was
`20· the litigant.
`21· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Have you ever been an expert witness or
`22· consultant for Apple before this matter?
`23· · · ·A.· ·No.
`24· · · ·Q.· ·And when were you first engaged in this --
`25· this IPR matter?
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 6
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · ·A.· ·Probably about one and a half weeks ago.
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Can you give me an estimate of how much
`·3· time you've spent since you've been engaged?
`·4· · · · · · · · ·MR. SMITH:· Objection, form.
`·5· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Probably about 30 hours.
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Oaks)· Okay.
`·7· · · ·A.· ·20 -- 20 to 30 hours.
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·How did you prepare for today's deposition?
`·9· · · ·A.· ·I reviewed the materials that were provided to
`10· me by Dan Smith; read the previous -- sorry -- the
`11· declaration by Dr. Mandayam, which I've been asked to
`12· adopt as my own; reviewed the relevant patents that were
`13· cited in the -- in the materials; looked through the
`14· dictionary definitions of the terminology that was being
`15· discussed; read excerpts of Dr. Jeffay's response and
`16· the amended -- was it a motion or the -- the amended
`17· request in terms of the revisions proposed by Qualcomm
`18· with regard to the claims in the patent, the '037
`19· patent.· Also reviewed some of the related literature
`20· relevant to terminology of GUIs, prompts, notifications.
`21· · · · · · · · ·Yeah, that's pretty much it.
`22· · · ·Q.· ·And what related literature are you referring
`23· to?
`24· · · ·A.· ·Looking at timelines in terms of when
`25· different prompts were in place, when graphical user
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 7
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· interfaces were introduced in handheld smartphone
`·2· devices or mobile terminals, as they're called in the
`·3· patent literature.
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·So are you referring to documents that have
`·5· been already introduced as exhibits in this IP --
`·6· · · ·A.· ·No, no, just public historical HCI type of
`·7· literature.
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·Can you help me get a little more specific on
`·9· what type -- what specific literature you looked at?
`10· · · ·A.· ·So I would go onto the ACM -- the Association
`11· for Computing Machinery's digital library --
`12· · · ·Q.· ·Uh-huh.
`13· · · ·A.· ·-- and look at terms as they appeared.· Also,
`14· looking at my own publications in the area just to make
`15· sure that I was competent to discuss the state of the
`16· art as it existed around the time of the 2000-2005 time
`17· period.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· You mentioned you reviewed
`19· Dr. Mandayam's declaration.
`20· · · · · · · · ·Do you understand that he has submitted
`21· two different declarations in this IPR?
`22· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· I -- I focused almost entirely on the
`23· second.· I glanced briefly at the first just to sort of
`24· have an understanding of the context.
`25· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Let me hand those to you.
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 8
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·This is Apple Exhibit 1003.· This is what
`·2· we'll call the first Mandayam declaration.· And this is
`·3· Apple 1018, the second Mandayam declaration.
`·4· · · · · · · · ·So I understand from your description of
`·5· your review of the first declaration that you haven't
`·6· really read this in full; is that correct?
`·7· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So I -- I understand you're -- and this
`·9· is sort of a strange situation, but you're stepping into
`10· Dr. Mandayam's shoes with respect to the second
`11· declaration and then adopting all of his opinions with
`12· respect to the second declaration?
`13· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
`14· · · ·Q.· ·But that's not true with respect to the first
`15· declaration?
`16· · · ·A.· ·That's right.· That was not indicated as my
`17· mandate.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· About how many hours did you spend
`19· reviewing the second declaration?
`20· · · ·A.· ·That was the majority of my time.· So, you
`21· know, if I -- I could have looked back at my logs, but
`22· assuming it was 20 hours that I spent so far on this,
`23· then approximately 15 would have been spent directly on
`24· the second declaration.
`25· · · ·Q.· ·Do you agree with everything that Dr. Mandayam
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 9
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· stated in that second declaration?
`·2· · · ·A.· ·I do with the exception of two points in
`·3· paragraphs 57 and 58, as well as in paragraph 1, given
`·4· that my name is not Dr. Mandayam and the title is
`·5· not . . .
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·Oh.
`·7· · · ·A.· ·The title, I'm sure, is correct, but my name
`·8· is not Dr. Mandayam.
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·I understand.
`10· · · · · · · · ·So let's talk about paragraphs 57 and 58.
`11· What -- what in those paragraphs do you not agree with?
`12· · · ·A.· ·Okay.· So in paragraph 57, what I have an
`13· issue with is the example that's provided in the
`14· first -- is it the first sentence?· Yes.
`15· · · · · · · · ·So the example that's given at the -- the
`16· latter half of the first sentence, I -- I don't agree
`17· with that example as being descriptive of -- of
`18· something that enlarges the scope.· But I do agree with
`19· the -- the rest of the paragraph.
`20· · · ·Q.· ·So can you read the sentence that you have an
`21· issue with --
`22· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`23· · · ·Q.· ·-- so I can be sure we're on the same page?
`24· · · ·A.· ·"Qualcomm enlarges the scope of the claim to
`25· include automatic addressing of messages that is not
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 10
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· responsive to receiving an incoming call, such as
`·2· automatic addressing performed responsive to another
`·3· event such as a call ending."
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·And which part of that sentence do you not
`·5· agree with?
`·6· · · ·A.· ·The -- predominantly, the "such as," "such as
`·7· automatic addressing performed responsive to another
`·8· event such as a call ending."
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·And why don't you agree with that?
`10· · · ·A.· ·I don't -- I don't anticipate responding to
`11· the ending of a call as a scenario in which a user or
`12· receiver of a telephone call is likely to take an
`13· action.· I believe it'd really be in response to the
`14· arrival of the call that would sensibly prompt a user to
`15· take some sort of action.
`16· · · ·Q.· ·And so would you -- do you think there's a
`17· meaningful difference between taking an action in
`18· response to the arrival call -- to the arrival of a call
`19· compared to taking an action while not answering the
`20· incoming call?
`21· · · · · · · · ·MR. SMITH:· Objection, form.
`22· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Is there a difference
`23· between taking an action in response to the arrival
`24· versus taking an action in response to not answering?
`25· · · · · · · · ·Yes, certainly, because one could take an
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 11
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· action after answering the call -- for example, "Oh,
`·2· yeah, Joe, hi.· Yeah, sorry, I forgot to text you the
`·3· number of Sally.· Let me do that now" -- and that would
`·4· be after answering the call.· Another one could be, "Oh,
`·5· I'm busy right now.· Let me text back.· I'll call you
`·6· back later."
`·7· · · · · · · · ·So those would be different scenarios and
`·8· different pathways that a user might follow.
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Oaks)· Okay.· So I want to talk for a
`10· minute about the legal standards that were applied in
`11· the second declaration.
`12· · · · · · · · ·Just to be sure, you're not an attorney,
`13· right?
`14· · · ·A.· ·Right.· Absolutely.
`15· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So -- and I understand you've been
`16· instructed according to your declaration by your
`17· attorneys on the legal standards.
`18· · · · · · · · ·So based on that instruction, what is
`19· your understanding of the standard that's applied to
`20· construed claims in this IPR proceeding?
`21· · · · · · · · ·MR. SMITH:· Objection, form.
`22· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So there is an element of
`23· interpreting vocabulary according to the plain and
`24· ordinary meaning of terms that don't require specific
`25· definitions.· There is questions of novelty in terms of
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 12
`
`
`
`Page 13
`·1· whether something is anticipated by prior art, whether a
`·2· POSITA would logically employ techniques that were
`·3· described either based on knowledge of technology that
`·4· was available at the time or based on motivations to do
`·5· so to employ a certain technique given commercial needs
`·6· or the apparent market value of instituting a particular
`·7· innovation.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Then there is the matter of how
`·9· anticipation can be the result of combinations of one or
`10· more elements from the prior art where the teachings
`11· from one patent can be combined with another to be
`12· combined to -- to provide for a particular element that
`13· is described in -- in the claim.
`14· · · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Oaks)· So you mentioned anticipation
`15· and obviousness, but I want to focus you in just on
`16· claim construction.
`17· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·So with respect to claim construction, do you
`19· understand the legal standard that's applied?
`20· · · ·A.· ·It'd certainly be helpful to refresh and make
`21· sure that -- I mean, I've read through, but when I --
`22· when I need to go through in terms of the legal
`23· definition, I need to refresh, given that it's not
`24· something that I deal with on a regular basis.· So if
`25· perhaps it can deal with specific questions rather than
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 13
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· the general, I can answer more -- more directly.
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·What types of information do you look at when
`·3· determining the meaning of a claim term?
`·4· · · ·A.· ·I would consider first whether the terminology
`·5· is something that is straightforward, known to the
`·6· general public or known to a POSITA, in the case where
`·7· it has a technical meaning that may differ from sort of
`·8· a regular dictionary definition.· And if it involves a
`·9· technical term, then I would look at what the standards
`10· were at the time in terms of how that term was
`11· interpreted.
`12· · · ·Q.· ·What standards are you referring to?
`13· · · ·A.· ·The -- the vocabulary that appeared in the
`14· literature and in related patents prior to the date of
`15· the filing.· I can't remember the terminology that's
`16· used, the -- the sort of -- the critical date, I
`17· believe, for a particular patent.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·Are you familiar with the -- the term
`19· "broadest reasonable interpretation"?
`20· · · ·A.· ·I've seen that in the description of the
`21· preamble for how claims are supposed to be interpreted.
`22· · · ·Q.· ·Do you understand what that standard means?
`23· · · ·A.· ·I believe so.· That one should not try to
`24· narrowly define or narrowly interpret a -- a term when
`25· it can be expanded or it can be applied to a broad range
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 14
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`·1· of different categories or different meanings.
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·And you've defined what we call a person of
`·3· ordinary skill in the art so you -- I'm going to refer
`·4· to that -- that term as POSITA --
`·5· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·-- just to shorten things up.
`·7· · · · · · · · ·And you've mentioned the critical date,
`·8· and you've agreed that the critical date of the '037
`·9· patent is August 8, 2005, that correct?
`10· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
`11· · · ·Q.· ·So when I use that term "POSITA," I'm going to
`12· be referring to a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`13· of August 8, 2005.
`14· · · · · · · · ·Fair enough?
`15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`16· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Were you a POSITA as of August 8, 2005?
`17· · · ·A.· ·I expect I was more -- more skilled or more
`18· knowledgeable of the relevant fields than a POSITA would
`19· be at that time.
`20· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Can you tell me a little bit about the
`21· degrees you have, your education?
`22· · · ·A.· ·I have a bachelor's of applied science in
`23· electrical and computer engineering from the University
`24· of British Columbia with honors.· I obtained that in
`25· 1990.· I have a master's of science in computer science
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 15
`
`
`
`Page 16
`·1· from the University of Toronto from 1992 and a PhD in
`·2· electrical and computer engineering from the University
`·3· of Toronto obtained in 1996.
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So -- and where were those degrees
`·5· from?· I'm sorry.
`·6· · · · · · · · ·The last one was Toronto, University of
`·7· Toronto?
`·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes, the University of Toronto for the
`·9· master's and the PhD.
`10· · · ·Q.· ·PhD.
`11· · · · · · · · ·Did you do a thesis with respect to your
`12· PhD?
`13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· I did a thesis both for the master's and
`14· for the PhD.
`15· · · ·Q.· ·What was the topic of your thesis?
`16· · · ·A.· ·The PhD thesis was on reactive environments
`17· and augmented media spaces.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·What does that -- what do those terms mean?
`19· · · ·A.· ·Reactive environments are a class of
`20· technological infrastructures that sense and aware --
`21· are aware of human activity and respond in some
`22· hopefully intelligent or useful manner to facilitate the
`23· user's tasks within that space.· The sort of broad
`24· conception would be taking the ideas of intelligent
`25· robotics that sense and act within their environment,
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 16
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`·1· but putting that technology into the infrastructure
`·2· surrounding the user.
`·3· · · ·Q.· ·Was that work on your thesis related to user
`·4· interface design?
`·5· · · ·A.· ·It certainly applied a considerable amount of
`·6· background knowledge and literature from the HCI field,
`·7· yes.
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·And what do you -- what's HCI?
`·9· · · ·A.· ·Human-computer interaction.
`10· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And in that work, what was the computer
`11· that the user would be interacting with?
`12· · · ·A.· ·Well, that's an interesting question because
`13· the objectives of the reactive environment were inspired
`14· by the field of ubiquitous computing, coined by Mark
`15· Weiser of Xerox PARC, defined the -- the principles
`16· behind what became known as ubicomp.· And that's where
`17· the user is interacting with possibly many computers,
`18· but is effectively unaware of that interaction in that
`19· the -- the interface is invisible to the user.
`20· · · · · · · · ·So in -- in reality, there often were
`21· computer interfaces such as conventional PCs or mobile
`22· what were called PARCTABs, which were a precursor to
`23· modern-day PDAs and eventually smartphones.· But the
`24· intent was for the interaction to be with the everyday
`25· physical environment that was augmented with computing
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 17
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· infrastructure.
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·Who is your present employer?
`·3· · · ·A.· ·McGill University.
`·4· · · ·Q.· ·And how long have you been employed by McGill?
`·5· · · ·A.· ·Since 1997.
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·Have you -- do you have any experience in your
`·7· work at McGill relating to mobile computing devices?
`·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes, I do.
`·9· · · ·Q.· ·And what is that experience?
`10· · · ·A.· ·Since the early 2000s, we were involved in
`11· various projects involving the use of mobile computing
`12· devices, some that were specifically small form factor
`13· computing without a visible screen.· There's such as the
`14· HP iPAQ in the early days that did involve a user
`15· interface, a visible user interface, and that was for
`16· manipulating and interacting with spatialized audio that
`17· was rendered in the user's environment and that the user
`18· would control and interact with.
`19· · · · · · · · ·Subsequently, we've had a significant
`20· amount of projects that relate to work with assistive
`21· technology for the visually impaired community all based
`22· on smartphones as the -- the device that -- with which
`23· they interact, looking at, as part of that project,
`24· awareness of how voiceover or the speech assist types of
`25· technologies allow for effective manipulation of the
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 18
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· user interface despite the fact that the users are
`·2· visually impaired.
`·3· · · · · · · · ·We have done about maybe a decade's worth
`·4· of work now as well in terms of background computing or
`·5· peripheral awareness and communication through multiple
`·6· mobile devices of activity that is monitored or that is
`·7· acquired from a particular user to another user in a
`·8· different location.· So the idea of using the -- the
`·9· mobile devices as a communications pathway to facilitate
`10· richer awareness or an extra sense beyond what we have
`11· in terms of our -- our sight, our hearing, and our --
`12· our sense of touch of the environment to augment our --
`13· our capacities for awareness of activity of somebody
`14· else or activity in the digital environment around us as
`15· well.
`16· · · ·Q.· ·Do you have any experience in designing mobile
`17· telephones?
`18· · · ·A.· ·No.
`19· · · ·Q.· ·Who was your employer before McGill
`20· University?
`21· · · ·A.· ·I did a one-year postdoctoral research,
`22· visiting scientist position at Sony Computer Science Lab
`23· in Tokyo.
`24· · · ·Q.· ·And what was the technology generally related
`25· to?
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 19
`
`
`
`Page 20
`·1· · · ·A.· ·I was involved in a few projects, but the --
`·2· the primary one was looking at how we could equip a VCR
`·3· with some of the same kinds of technologies that allowed
`·4· for ubiquitous computing style of interaction in which
`·5· the user would benefit from the contextual awareness of
`·6· the technology to facilitate tasks such as programming
`·7· an event or programming a recording and accessing
`·8· indexes or -- or a database knowledge of what contents
`·9· were on different tapes without having to search
`10· through -- through a -- sort of back and forth trying to
`11· locate a particular program.
`12· · · ·Q.· ·Do you have any publications in the area of
`13· user interface design?
`14· · · ·A.· ·Yes, although not specifically in sort of the
`15· graphical user interface area, but in user interface
`16· general.· There are numerous technol- -- numerous
`17· papers, I should say, from our -- myself and the
`18· students I've supervised that relate to topics
`19· concentrated on user interface.
`20· · · ·Q.· ·Are any of those user interfaces with a mobile
`21· telephone?
`22· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`23· · · ·Q.· ·What -- what were those related to?
`24· · · ·A.· ·Well, certainly those involving our Autour
`25· project, A-U-T-O-U-R, which is the work I described for
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 20
`
`
`
`Page 21
`·1· the visually impaired community.· The technologies that
`·2· were involved in the -- what we call the Audioscape
`·3· project that were the small form factors and the -- the
`·4· gum sticks computers initially.· And I think there was
`·5· one as well that used the -- the HP iPAQ computers.
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·Was any of that in 2005 or before?
`·7· · · ·A.· ·I believe so, yes.
`·8· · · ·Q.· ·Which ones?
`·9· · · ·A.· ·The Audioscape-related projects.· I can't
`10· remember the titles off the top of my head, but
`11· certainly there would have been terms of Audiostroll, I
`12· believe was one, and Soundscape probably appeared in
`13· several of the titles of those publications.
`14· · · ·Q.· ·Did you have a mobile phone in 2005?
`15· · · ·A.· ·Probably not.· I resisted as much as possible.
`16· I was using an i -- iPod to avoid -- to avoid
`17· disruption of incoming telephone calls.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·So if you would turn to paragraph 25 of --
`19· I'll call it your declaration, Exhibit 1018.
`20· · · · · · · · ·So are you there?
`21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`22· · · ·Q.· ·So will you read that paragraph to yourself?
`23· · · ·A.· ·(Witness complies.)
`24· · · ·Q.· ·So the last sentence says:· "I understand that
`25· obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 21
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· inferences and creative steps that a POSITA would employ
`·2· under the circumstances."
`·3· · · · · · · · ·The question I have for you is, did you
`·4· employ any creative steps in undertaking your
`·5· obviousness analysis?
`·6· · · ·A.· ·Did I employ creative steps?
`·7· · · ·Q.· ·Yes.
`·8· · · ·A.· ·I don't believe I was required to be creative
`·9· in analyzing the documents before me.· A POSITA who was
`10· tasked with producing a particular technology may well
`11· have employed creative steps.· But in terms of my role
`12· as the expert witness in preparing for this, I -- I
`13· didn't -- I don't think I required any creativity.
`14· · · ·Q.· ·And just to be clear, what I mean is, did you
`15· rely upon creative steps that a POSITA would have taken
`16· in 2005 in determining that the claims --
`17· · · ·A.· ·I see.
`18· · · ·Q.· ·-- were obvious?
`19· · · ·A.· ·I see.
`20· · · · · · · · ·You know, I'm not sure that -- that the
`21· examples where there were combinations of the teachings
`22· from other publications would have required creativity.
`23· For the most parts, in going through the combinations, I
`24· consider them as fairly obvious and straightforward in
`25· that it wouldn't have required a leap of imagination
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 22
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· to -- to combine them.
`·2· · · ·Q.· ·Did you use any insights of your own outside
`·3· of the prior art references in determining that the
`·4· claims were obvious?
`·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. SMITH:· Objection, form.
`·6· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Certainly my -- my
`·7· understanding of the field as it was in 2005 informed my
`·8· consideration as to what was obvious, if I -- if I've
`·9· answered the question correctly.· I mean, is that --
`10· · · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Oaks)· And so what understanding from
`11· the -- from your -- let me back up.
`12· · · · · · · · ·What -- what information from your
`13· understanding of the field in 2005 did you use in your
`14· obviousness analysis?
`15· · · ·A.· ·Consideration of existence, for example, of
`16· video camera technology that was incorporated into
`17· different devices, including in mobile devices; the
`18· use -- the predominant use of graphical user interfaces
`19· as a means of enhancing the ease or the usability of
`20· computer interfaces.· Seems there are . . .
`21· · · · · · · · ·The fact that with mobile technologies or
`22· the increasing computerization of telephony that there
`23· were opportunities for more sophisticated capacities for
`24· users or receivers of telephone calls to do more than
`25· simply answer or not answer a call but to engage in
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com(877) 421-0099· · ·PohlmanUSA.com
`
`YVer1f
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2025
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279, Page 23
`
`
`
`Page 24
`·1· messaging, in -- in launching different kinds of actions
`·2· in response to -- to calls.· Certainly, that was based
`·3· on awareness, although not one that was a technically
`·4· rooted one, but more just awareness as to what the
`·5· technology at the time was like.
`·6· · · ·Q.· ·I'm handing you Exhibit 1001, which is the
`·7· '037 patent.· So if you would, will you read the passage
`·8· that runs from Column -- it's in Column 5, from line 24
`·9· through 34.· That's an entire paragraph.· Starts with
`10· "As another alternative."
`11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`12· · · ·Q.· ·Can you read that to yourself?
`13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`14· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So if you look at the paragraph that
`15· starts on line 29, it says:· "The prompt may occur
`16· shortly after the incoming call 204 is received, such as
`17· with or before the first ring generated on the computing
`18· device 200 for the incoming call."
`19· · · · · · · · ·Do you understand that sentence to
`20· distinguish "prompt" from "ring"?
`21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`22· · · ·Q.· ·So they're different concepts, correct?
`23· · · ·A.· ·They can be.
`24· · · ·Q.· ·In this sentence, they're different, though,
`25· correct?
`
`
`Pohlman USA Court ReportingPohlman USA Court Reporting
`
`(877) 421-0099· · ·Poh
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
