Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`IPR2018-01140
` v.
`Patent No. 9,402,032
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`IPR2018-01146
`Patent No. 9,568,712
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
`June 7, 2019
`Rochester, New York
`
`Reported By:
`MICHELLE MUNDT ROCHA
`Job no: 25396
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 1 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 2
` Videotaped Deposition of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.
` Date: June 7, 2019
` Time: 9:09 a.m.
` Location: Regus Business Center
` 510 Clinton Square
` Rochester, New York 14604
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` Appearing on Behalf of Petitioner:
` Jamie H. McDole, Esq.
` Haynes and Boone, LLP
` 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
` Dallas, Texas 75219
` jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
` Michael S. Parson, Esq.
` Haynes and Boone, LLP
` 2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
` Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
` michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
` Priya B. Viswanath, Esq.
` Cooley LLP
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
` Pviswanath@cooley.com
`
` Appearing on Behalf of Patent Owner:
` Neil A. Rubin, Esq.
` Russ August & Kabat
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
` Los Angeles, California 90025
` nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` Appearing as the Videographer:
` Tim McDonough
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 2019;
` (Proceedings in the above-titled matter
` commencing at 9:09 a.m.)
` * * *
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are about to begin
` the recorded deposition of Dr. Duncan Moore in the
` matter of Apple, Incorporated versus Corephotonics,
` Limited in the United States Patent and Trademark
` Office, case IPR 2008-01140. This deposition is being
` held at Regus Rochester, 510 Clinton Square,
` Rochester, New York 14604 on Friday, June 7. The time
` is 9:09.
` My name is Tim McDonough, from the firm of
` Alliance Court Reporting, and I am the legal video
` specialist. The court reporter is Michelle Rocha, in
` association with Alliance Court Reporting, East
` Avenue, Rochester, New York.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves
` and whom they represent.
` MR. MCDOLE: Jamie McDole representing
` Petitioner.
` MR. PARSONS: Michael Parsons representing
` Petitioner.
` MS. VISWANATH: Priya Viswanath
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 2 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` representing Petitioner.
` MR. RUBIN: And Neil Rubin of Russ
` August & Kabat representing the Patent Owner and
` defending the witness.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will
` please swear in the witness, and we may begin.
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.,
` called herein as a witness, first being sworn,
` testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Moore. My name is Jamie
` McDole. I represent Apple in the IPRs that were just
` listed.
` Can we start by stating your full name for
` the record?
` A. Duncan Thomas Moore.
` Q. And do you go -- are you Ph.D.? Do you go
` by Dr. Moore?
` A. I go mostly by Duncan.
` Q. Duncan, okay. Well, for formality sake,
` I'm not going to call you "Duncan" today until the
` deposition is over. But if I call you "Dr. Moore,"
` will you know who I'm referring to?
` A. I will.
`
`Page 7
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
` A. I have.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Three or four.
` Q. Were those in patent cases?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand you're under oath today;
` correct?
` A. I do.
` Q. And do you understand that the oath
` requires you to answer truthfully and completely to
` the questions asked today?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there any reason why you cannot give
` truthful and complete answers today?
` A. There is no reason.
` Q. As you can see, we have a court reporter
` taking down everything we say, as well as a
` videographer. But for the court reporter's sake, it's
` important that you and I do not speak over each other,
` to make her life much easier.
` A. Understood.
` Q. So I will endeavor to let you finish your
` answers if you allow me to finish my questions. Does
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` that sound fair?
` A. Sounds reasonable.
` Q. And if at any point I cut off one of your
` answers -- you know, sometimes there's a pause, and
` I'll start a new question. If at any point you
` haven't finished an answer, will you please let me
` know, so I can allow you to finish?
` A. I will.
` Q. It's also important that you understand
` all of my questions today, to make sure we have a
` complete and accurate record. If you don't understand
` a question, will you let me know?
` A. I will.
` Q. And if you answer a question, I'm going to
` assume that you understood the question. Does that
` sound fair?
` A. Okay.
` Q. In the three or four depositions that you
` have provided testimony, how many of them were IPRs?
` A. None.
` Q. Can you identify what litigations you were
` an expert in where you were deposed?
` A. You mean the litigants or the -- I'm not
` sure that I understand the question. You want to know
`Page 9
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` what cases?
` Q. Yes.
` A. One involved a case involving the
` backlighting of large screen TVs.
` Q. Okay.
` A. In particular the lenses that are behind
` them. Another was in the issue associated with the
` security stripe that's on the hundred-dollar-bill
` currency.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And I don't remember the others. They've
` been too far in the past. Those two are the most
` recent ones.
` Q. Who did you represent with respect to the
` backlight litigation?
` A. I'd have to look that up. It was a Korean
` company.
` Q. Was it Samsung?
` A. It was not Samsung.
` Q. How about with respect to the security
` strip on the hundred dollar bill, who did you
` represent?
` A. That was Crane.
` Q. Have you ever acted as an expert on
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 3 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` miniature lens assemblies?
` A. I have.
` Q. In what case?
` A. The case goes back at least ten years. I
` can remember the law firm, but I can't remember the
` cases. The law firm was Nixon Peabody.
` Q. Did that involve lens assembly specific to
` mobile devices?
` A. It did.
` (The following exhibits were marked at a
` previous deposition: EXH Number 1, 1001,
` 2013 and 2014.)
` Q. I'm going to hand you a few documents
` here. The first one is United States Patent Number
` 9,402,032 marked as Apple Exhibit 1 in IPR2018-01140.
` I'm also going to hand you United States
` Patent Number 9,568,712, which is Apple Exhibit 1001
` in IPR2018-01146.
` I'm also going to hand you a copy of the
` declaration of Duncan Moore, Ph.D. in the two
` previously stated IPRs, which was marked as Exhibit
` 2013.
` And for the sake of completeness at this
` point, I'm going to hand you a copy of the CV of
`Page 11
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` Duncan Moore, which was submitted as Exhibit 2014 in
` both of the previously stated IPRs.
` MR. MCDOLE: Counsel, I believe I've
` handed those to you already.
` A. Can I ask you a question?
` Q. Sure.
` A. These have the same exhibit number.
` Q. That is correct. That's because there's
` two IPRs.
` A. Oh, I see. There's two different cases?
` Q. That's correct. So if you look at the
` front of your declaration, there's two IPRs stated on
` there as well.
` A. Okay. So they refer to different -- okay.
` Q. That's correct.
` So if I can have you first look -- if we
` can get some nomenclature out of the way here. If I
` can have you look at United States Patent 9,568,712.
` If I refer to Apple Exhibit 1001, which is United
` States Patent 9,586,712, as the "'712 patent," will
` you understand what I'm referring to?
` A. I will.
` Q. And if we can now turn to United States
` Patent 9,402,032, which is also marked as Apple
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` Exhibit 1001. If I refer to that exhibit as the "'032
` patent," will you understand what I'm referring to?
` A. I will.
` Q. Okay. And with respect to your
` declaration marked as Exhibit 2013, if I refer to that
` as "your declaration," will you understand that we're
` referring to Exhibit 2013?
` A. I will.
` Q. What documents did you review in preparing
` your declaration?
` A. They're listed in my declaration. There's
` quite a few of them. Obviously these two patents
` involved, and then the list is on page.
` Q. Paragraph 3?
` A. Paragraph 3, yeah.
` Q. I think the page numbers are cut off a
` little bit on the bottom, so we probably have to refer
` by paragraph number --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- as much as we can today. Is that okay?
` A. Yep.
` Q. Did you review the '032 and '712 patents
` in their entirety?
` A. I did.
`
`Page 13
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` Q. Did you review all the exhibits in
` paragraph 3 of your declaration in their entirety?
` A. I can't say that.
` Q. Which documents listed in paragraph 3 did
` you not review in their entirety?
` A. Well, I would not have read through all of
` Warren Smith's book. I would not have read through
` Born's book, which is about four or 500 pages, or
` Walker's book or Fischer's book.
` And the others I -- some of them I've read
` in entirety, some I didn't. The ones I use that I
` actually cited in my declaration I did read the whole
` thing.
` Q. Why didn't you review Exhibit 1011?
` A. What is 1011?
` Q. Well, if we go through your list of
` materials you reviewed in preparing your declaration,
` it goes from Exhibit 1001 to 1002, 1003; you skip
` 1004. Then we have 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009,
` 1010; and then 1011 is missing.
` A. I do not know.
` Q. That's the file history for the Ogino
` prior art reference. Did you know that?
` A. I did not.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 4 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` Q. Did you request that material in preparing
` your opinion?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Do you understand that that material was
` cited in the petition for IPR in the matter?
` A. I don't remember.
` Q. Do you think it would have been important
` to review all the material supporting the IPR in this
` material -- or in this case before rendering your
` opinions?
` A. I don't -- I don't know what's in 1011.
` Q. That's because you haven't reviewed it,
` though; right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So it could have information that would be
` material to you opinion; correct?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Did you intentionally not review Exhibit
` 1011?
` A. I did not. I did not review it.
` Q. Did you make the choice not to review
` Exhibit 1011, or was that a choice of counsel?
` A. I don't -- I don't remember. I don't
` remember any discussion regarding that.
`
`Page 15
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` Q. Were the materials in paragraph 3 of your
` declaration provided to you by counsel?
` A. Sorry. Restate.
` Q. Were the materials cited in paragraph 3 of
` your declaration provided to you by counsel?
` A. Yes, except for the books, which I already
` owned.
` Q. Were there any other materials that you
` requested from counsel that were not provided to you?
` A. No.
` Q. If I can have you turn to the last
` paragraph of your declaration, which is going to be
` exhibit -- or paragraph 119. If you can see the page
` number, it's page 67.
` A. You said paragraph 119?
` Q. Yes. At the bottom of page 67 under
` paragraph 119, there is a signature at the bottom of
` the page. Is that your signature?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Is that an electronic signature or
` physical signature?
` A. I believe that's electronic.
` Q. How do you know since supplying your
` electronic signature to the document that it did not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` change?
` A. Are you asking if my signature changed?
` Q. No. After applying your electronic
` signature to the declaration, how do you know that the
` declaration was not changed before being submitted to
` the United States Patent Office?
` A. My signature was applied on the very last
` day at the last hour. So I assume it did not change.
` Q. So it was an assumption on your part?
` A. I often use electronic signatures for
` doing information, especially when I'm on travel.
` Q. Have you done anything to confirm that the
` final version that you submitted your electronic
` signature to is the same version that was submitted to
` the United States Patent and Trial Trademark Office?
` A. I can only say that this is what I
` submitted. This is the document that I authored, but
` I don't know -- I can't be sure what was actually
` submitted.
` Q. Did you apply your electronic signature to
` your declaration on or about March 4, 2019?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are there any errors in your declaration
` that you're aware of?
`
`Page 17
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` A. I'm aware of three.
` Q. Okay. What are those?
` A. In the -- in paragraph 109.
` Q. Okay.
` A. The third line, the word "increases"
` should be "decreases."
` Q. Okay.
` A. I can't find the exact paragraph, but it
` involves the aperture stop, and it's...
` I can remember the third one.
` Q. All right. Let's go to the third one
` first.
` A. The third one is that in some of the
` figures of the ray fans the units indicate they're in
` inches, and they should be in millimeters. Some are
` in millimeters, some are in inches; but they all
` should be in millimeters.
` Q. Okay. With respect to the second one with
` respect to -- I think you said it related to the
` aperture stop size?
` A. It had to do with in one place I state
` that the aperture stop size changed it, when in fact
` it moved it. I can't find it sitting here.
` Q. Okay.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 5 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` A. My copy's marked up, and I can't find it
` sitting here.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Perhaps we'll find it as we go through the
` rest of the deposition.
` Q. Let me ask you about the third error that
` you've identified where your ray -- several of your
` plots are in inches versus millimeters. When did you
` recognize that error?
` A. A few days ago.
` Q. A few days ago? Have you submitted
` something to the United States Patent and Trademark
` Office saying that there is an error in your
` declaration?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Do you intend to do so?
` A. I didn't realize I needed to.
` Q. Well, that's a significant error, isn't
` it, sir?
` A. It is an error.
` Q. Scaling up a device causes your
` conclusions to change, doesn't it?
` A. We're not -- there's nothing being scaled.
` It's only the units that are -- the units are marked.
`Page 19
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` But if the label were made millimeters, then it would
` be correct.
` Q. So if I can have you turn to paragraph 89
` of your declaration. The ray trace plot in paragraph
` 89 of your declaration is in inches; correct?
` A. The label is inches, but the label is
` wrong.
` Q. Okay. So the aperture according to this
` plot is almost 3 inches wide?
` A. I said the error is in the units, it's not
` in the plot. Just the label was made incorrectly.
` Q. Sir, did you physically type in "1 inch"
` on the label?
` A. No.
` Q. That's computer generated; correct?
` A. The way the program works is you enter the
` units, but they -- when the ray trace is done, it's
` done in the units, whatever units you put them in.
` So, for example, those were all entered
` from the radii of curvature, which were all in
` millimeters. So everything here in this plot is in
` millimeters. The label was made incorrectly. The
` label is not connected to the actual data.
` Q. So I want to make sure you're testifying
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` under oath that this label of 1 inch does not apply to
` the plot that's in paragraph 89.
` A. That should read 1 millimeter.
` Q. Even though the computer generated this
` plot with this legend on it, you didn't type it in,
` and you're saying somehow the computer got it wrong?
` A. What happened, we use an old set of data,
` which we often use -- I use a plotting routine, and
` that was left over, and it was in inches. And that
` was just -- it was wrong. All the units that were
` entered there are in millimeters.
` Q. Well, can you show me where in your
` declaration the backup data is to show that this plot
` is in millimeters?
` A. So this is number 6 of Ogino; right? Yes,
` example 6. So if we go to -- these don't have
` paragraph numbers. Oh, here we go. This is page --
` looks like it's page 94.
` Q. Okay. I'm there.
` A. And this says, "Ogino, example 6." So if
` we refer to -- if you give me a copy of Ogino, we can
` look at the radii of curvature here against what's in
` the patent, and we see that his things were in
` millimeters and these numbers are exactly the same.
`Page 21
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` They're not scaled.
` Q. Okay. Well, where on page 94 does it show
` that your numbers are in millimeters and not inches?
` A. It does not show that.
` Q. It doesn't?
` A. No. But if they were in inches, they
` would not match up to Ogino.
` Q. Unless you just scaled it up by the exact
` amount and you had the wrong -- you had the wrong --
` you used inches instead of millimeters.
` A. In the lens design code you don't need to
` know what the units are until you get to using the
` code for doing things associated with diffraction.
` You can be -- design in any units, and
` they all come out in the same units. So the
` apparitions come out -- if you design the lens in
` meters, then all the answers come out in meters. If
` you put them in millimeters, they come out in
` millimeters. If you design them in kilometers, they
` come out in kilometers.
` So the only difference is when you go to
` do the calculations that are associated with
` diffraction and things that are limiting the
` performance of the lens do the actual units make a
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 6 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` difference. So for this it makes no difference.
` Q. But this doesn't show millimeters.
` A. But Ogino does.
` Q. Ogino does. I agree Ogino does. I'm
` talking about your declaration, sir, that you've
` submitted under oath.
` A. These are the same numbers as are in
` Ogino. And Ogino says they're in millimeters, so
` these are in millimeters.
` Q. Okay. Let's pick one of the numbers. For
` instance, A. How do you know that that's in
` millimeters?
` A. Where's A?
` Q. Right at the top of page 94. It has the
` number A :0.413251E-01. Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. How do I know that's in millimeters, not
` inches?
` A. Because Ogino says they're in millimeters.
` We just took those numbers from Ogino and put them
` into Code V.
` Q. And if Code V you had your units in
` inches, then it would read that as :0.413251E-01
` inches; correct?
`
`Page 23
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` A. But they're not in inches.
` Q. Well, sir, the only evidence we have of
` what units you used is in the plots that you provided
` on page 89, which you have not corrected with the
` patent office; correct?
` A. I have issued no reports to the patent
` office.
` Q. And we have no evidence in the record that
` shows -- besides Ogino that shows that what you did is
` in millimeters; isn't that correct?
` A. Ogino is the source of this information;
` so therefore, they're in millimeters.
` Q. Okay. Then why does your plot in
` paragraph 89 of your declaration show inches?
` A. Because the label was entered incorrectly.
` Q. So are you saying this label was entered
` incorrectly now? Because before you said the computer
` generated this label.
` A. Those are entered by a human, those units.
` Q. Which units? The ones -- the data on page
` 94 of your declaration are those entered in units by a
` human; right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So a human could make a mistake of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` entering them in millimeters or inches; correct?
` A. It wouldn't make any difference. What you
` do is we took the original patent, example 6, we
` entered the data from Ogino. That data was in
` millimeters. These are all in millimeters. That's
` what came out of page -- paragraph 89 or whatever it
` was. And independently of that, the word "inches" was
` entered instead of millimeters. They're not connected
` at all.
` Q. So you're saying that Code V will generate
` a plot in inches even if you enter the data in
` millimeters? Is that your testimony under oath?
` MR. RUBIN: Objection to form.
` A. That is not correct. The data is entered
` in millimeters. Separately from that, the label --
` that's all it is is a label -- is entered. They are
` not coupled together.
` Q. So are you saying that the aperture in
` paragraph 89 of your declaration does not show 3
` inches?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. And what about the ray fan plots
` that are in your declaration, are those similarly
` simply just mislabeled?
`
`Page 25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Have you tried to run those plots in just
` millimeters to see what would happen?
` A. They are in -- these are in millimeters.
` Q. Sir, if you can answer my question. Have
` you tried to run the plots with the correct label of
` millimeters to see what would happen?
` A. No.
` Q. So despite knowing of this error for
` several days, you haven't gone to check to see if
` there would be a difference as you sit here today; is
` that correct?
` A. I know there will not be one based on my
` experience.
` Q. So if Dr. Sasian runs those plots for a
` reply declaration and proves you wrong, you have no
` basis to dispute him; is that correct?
` A. These are correct.
` Q. I want to make sure. Are you saying that
` the plot on paragraph 89 is now correct?
` A. It is correct if the label is made
` millimeters.
` Q. So you think you can just simply change
` the legend of millimeters and nothing would change in
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 7 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` the plot?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And you understand you're under oath
` today?
` A. I do.
` Q. Are there any ray trace or ray fan plots
` that you performed for this IPR that are not included
` in your report?
` A. I don't know the answer to that question.
` We did a lot of ray fan plots, and we probably would
` not have put them all in there.
` Q. Well, why not?
` A. It might not have been relevant.
` Q. Well, did any of those ray trace or ray
` fan plots disprove your opinions?
` A. They did not.
` Q. The only way we know that is by you
` telling us. We haven't been able to evaluate that
` ourselves; correct?
` A. I put in all the relative plots.
` Q. Well, you put in all the plots that you
` believed were relevant; correct?
` A. It was my belief they were relevant.
` Q. You don't know if Apple believes that
`Page 27
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` other plots that you performed are relevant that you
` didn't include; correct?
` A. I do not know what Apple knows.
` Q. Did you maintain the other plots that you
` performed in this matter that you did not include in
` your declaration?
` A. I'm sure they're someplace.
` Q. You didn't destroy them?
` A. No.
` Q. So are they saved on a computer somewhere?
` A. Probably, yes.
` Q. Who made the choice of which ray trace and
` ray fan plots to include in your declaration and which
` ones to conceal?
` MR. RUBIN: Objection to form.
` A. I decided which ones were relevant. I did
` not conceal anything that was relevant.
` Q. We talked a little bit about Code V. What
` is Code V?
` A. It's an optical lens design program.
` Q. What is an optical lens design program?
` A. It is a computer program in which you can
` enter the parameters of a lens, and you can then do a
` series of analysis on it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` For example, you can do ray fans, as we've
` shown here. You can calculate other properties of the
` lens, the focal lengths, F numbers, other first-order
` properties on field of view. You can calculate the
` modulation translate functions. You can calculate --
` there's a lot of other things. Point spread
` functions. Anything that would be relevant to
` determining whether a lens was useful for your
` application.
` Q. Okay. Code V can also optimize a lens;
` correct?
` A. That's correct. So you can tell the
` program that you want to vary certain parameters of a
` lens. For example, the radius of curvature, the
` thickness of the lens, the aspheric coefficients. Any
` parameters that you want you can say either hold them
` fixed or vary them.
` And then the program, through a fairly
` complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and
` varies them and determines how to make a better lens.
` You determine as a lens designer what you're trying to
` improve.
` So if you're trying to improve the ray
` fans, for example, you would say, okay, I want to make
`Page 29
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` sure the aberrations measured in the ray fans are
` smaller. And it will then do that.
` So it's -- Code V has been around since
` the 1960s, so it's a fairly sophisticated program.
` Q. So the Code V program existed in 2013?
` A. I'm sorry?
` Q. Code V existed in 2013; correct?
` A. Oh, certainly.
` Q. And a person of ordinary skill in the art
` would be proficient in utilizing Code V; correct?
` A. They could be proficient. There are
` several other lens design codes that are used. Zemax
` is another one. So some people prefer one over the
` other. It depends upon really how you're trained.
` If you're trained in Code V as a student,
` you tend to want to use Code V. If you're trained to
` be a Zemax user, you tend to want to use Zemax. And
` there are a few other lens design codes that are out
` there that can be used.
` Q. Okay. But a person of ordinary skill in
` the art in 2013 would be proficient in at least one
` lens design program; correct?
` A. If they're doing lens design, yes.
` Q. And a person of ordinary skill in the art
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`Page 8 of 55
`
`Apple Ex. 1025 / IPR2019-00030
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` in 2013 would be able to use the computer program to
` optimize lens designs; correct?
` A. If they've got lens design experience,
` that's correct.
` Q. You would agree with me that a person of
` ordinary skill in the art would have lens design
` experience; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So --
` A. They would be able to use that, yes.
` Q. With respect to your ray trace and ray fan
` plots, did anybody help you generate those plots?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Who?
` A. Greg Schmidt.
` Q. Who's Greg Schmidt?
` A. He's a research professor at the
` University of Rochester.
` Q. Is he the one who made the mistake of
` including inches on your plots?
` A. I think so.
` Q. You think so, or you know so?
` A. I assume he's the one that did it, yes.
` Q. Have you discussed with Mr. Schmidt his
`Page 31
`
` DUNCAN MOORE, PH.D.
` error in including inches in the plots?
` A. We did talk about that, yes.
` Q. And did you regenerate the plots after you
` realized the error?
` A. They didn't need to be regenerated.
` Q. Sir, so you think it's okay for the United
` States Patent and Trademark Office to believe that
` these plots are in inches?
` A. I said the plots are not in inches. The
` plots are in millimeters.
` Q. Sir, do you think the United States Patent
` and Trademark Office knows these plots are i