`
`·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