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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019-00613, IPR2019-01011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`Case IPR 2019-00614, 2019-01012
`
`U.S. Patent 9,779,419
`
`DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.
`
`East Palo Alto, California
`
`Thursday, November 7, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`
`Natalie Y. Botelho
`
`CSR No. 9897
`
`Job No. 3581176
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 1
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019-00613, IPR2019-01011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`Case IPR 2019-00614, 2019-01012
`
`U.S. Patent 9,779,419
`
`DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.
`
`East Palo Alto, California
`
`Thursday, November 7, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`
`Natalie Y. Botelho
`
`CSR No. 9897
`
`Job No. 3581176
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 1
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019-00613, IPR2019-01011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`Case IPR 2019-00614, 2019-01012
`
`U.S. Patent 9,779,419
`
`Deposition of BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, taken on
`
`behalf of the Patent Owner, at 1900 University Avenue,
`
`Sixth Floor, East Palo Alto, California, beginning at
`
`11:06 a.m. and ending at 12:12 p.m. on Thursday,
`
`November 7, 2019, before NATALIE Y. BOTELHO, Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter No. 9897.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 2
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 2
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`F o r P e t i t i o n e r s :
`
`R O P E S & G R A Y L L P
`B Y : G A B R I E L L E E . H I G G I N S , E S Q .
`B Y : C H R I S T O P H E R M . B O N N Y , E S Q .
`1 9 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e , 6 t h F l o o r
`E a s t P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 3 - 2 2 8 4
`( 6 5 0 ) 6 1 7 - 4 0 0 0
`g a b r i e l l e . h i g g i n s @ r o p e s g r a y . c o m
`c h r i s t o p h e r . b o n n y @ r o p e s g r a y . c o m
`F o r t h e P a t e n t O w n e r :
`N E L S O N B U M G A R D N E R A L B R I T T O N
`B Y : T O M C . C E C I L , E S Q .
`3 1 3 1 W e s t 7 t h , S u i t e 3 0 0
`F o r t W o r t h , T X 7 6 1 0 7
`( 8 1 7 ) 8 0 6 - 3 8 1 2
`t o m @ n b a f i r m . c o m
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`1 4
`1 5
`1 6
`1 7
`1 8
`1 9
`2 0
`2 1
`2 2
`2 3
`2 4
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 3
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 3
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
` INDEX
`WITNESS PAGE
` BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.
`
`EXAMINATION
` BY MR. CECIL 5
`
` ---oOo---
`
` E X H I B I T S
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent No. 24
` US 9,633,373 B2
`
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Benjamin B. 5
` Bederson in Case IPR 2019-00613
`Exhibit 7
`614-1003 Declaration of Benjamin B.
` Bederson in Case IPR 2019-00614
`Exhibit 1013 United States Patent 10
` Application Publication No.
` US 2010/0017872 A1
`Exhibit 1015 United States Patent 17
` Application Publication No.
` US 2010-/0138914 A1
`Exhibit 1027 United States Patent 24
` Application Publication No.
` US 2012/0133484 A1
`
` ---oOo---
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 4
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 4
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
` East Palo Alto, California, Thursday, November 7, 2019
`
` 11:06 a.m.
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.,
`
`having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. CECIL
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Would you please state your
`
`name for the record?
`
`A. My name is Benjamin B. Bederson.
`
`Q. Dr. Bederson, do you understand that you're
`
`here to -- strike that.
`
` We're here today for a deposition regarding
`
`IPR 2019-613, IPR 2019-1011, IPR 2019-614, and IPR
`
`2019-1012. Dr. Bederson, are you prepared to testify
`
`regarding these four matters today?
`
`A. Yes, I am.
`
`Q. Going to hand you an exhibit which has been
`
`labeled previously as Exhibit 1003.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1003 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Do you recognize this
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 5
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`document?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. What is this document?
`
`A. This is my declaration about my analysis of
`
`the patent '373 as part of the IPR proceeding 613.
`
`Q. Did you write this declaration?
`
`A. Yes, I did.
`
`Q. Do you agree with everything in this
`
`declaration?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. Is there anything that you'd like to change?
`
`A. I can't think of anything right now.
`
`Q. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
`
`declaration?
`
`A. Nothing right now.
`
`Q. Other than your attorneys, have you spoken to
`
`anyone else about the contents of this declaration?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: You can answer the question
`
`"yes" or "no."
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Other than your attorneys,
`
`have you spoken to anyone else about the '373 patent,
`
`which is the subject of this declaration?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Same instruction.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 6
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Other than your attorneys,
`
`have you spoken to anyone about your deposition today?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Same instruction.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. I'm going to hand you an
`
`exhibit which we're going to label as 614-1003.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 614-1003 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Have you seen this document
`
`before?
`
`A. Yes, I have.
`
`Q. And what is this document?
`
`A. This is my declaration regarding patent '419
`
`and as part of the IPR 614 proceeding.
`
`Q. Did you write this declaration?
`
`A. Yes, I did.
`
`Q. Do you agree with everything in this
`
`declaration?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. Is there anything in this declaration that you
`
`would like -- sorry. Strike that.
`
` Is there anything you would like to add to
`
`this declaration?
`
`A. No, not that I can think of.
`
`Q. Is there anything you'd like to change about
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 7
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`this declaration?
`
`A. Nothing that I can think of.
`
`Q. Other than your attorneys, have you spoken to
`
`anyone about the contents of this declaration?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: You can answer the question
`
`"yes" or "no."
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Other than your attorneys,
`
`have you spoken to anyone about the '419 patent, which
`
`is the subject of this declaration?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Same instruction.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Are you an expert in the field
`
`of human-computer interaction?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form. You can
`
`answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Would you please describe your
`
`education -- strike that.
`
` Do you recall testifying about your education
`
`in the 612 matter earlier this morning?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. Would you agree that the testimony you gave
`
`this morning in the 612 matter regarding your education
`
`is accurate?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 8
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 8
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, I do. It was.
`
`What does the field of human-computer
`
`interaction mean? Strike that. What does the term
`
`"human-computer interaction" mean?
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form. You can
`
`answer.
`
`THE WITNESS: The term "human-computer
`
`interaction" refers to a broad field generally
`
`encompassing everything relating to the user experience
`
`of technical systems. I often think of it as including
`
`the design stages, which involving working with users to
`
`understand their needs, and the design of technical
`
`solutions, the construction of technical systems, and
`
`the analysis of those systems, including how people use
`
`those systems.
`
`The range of the technical domains of the
`
`systems that are included are really arbitrary. It
`
`includes everything -- all technical systems from
`
`medical systems to consumer mobile systems, business
`
`systems, educational systems, and all associated user
`
`groups that would be using those systems. The field
`
`includes academic scholars, industrial researchers, and
`
`practitioners. So it is a kind of a sometimes referred
`
`to as a big tent field encompassing many areas.
`
`MR. CECIL: Q. I'm going to hand you a
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 9
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 9
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`document which has been labeled Exhibit 1013.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1013 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Do you recognize this
`
`document?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. What is this document?
`
`A. This is the document that I referred to as
`
`Goertz in my declaration.
`
`Q. In the field of human-computer interaction,
`
`what is a dialog?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The term "dialog" is a very
`
`broad term that could include many different kinds of
`
`parts of the design process and user interface
`
`subsystems. It might include sample conversations that
`
`some users might have about a system. It might include
`
`recordings of conversations that users have had between
`
`each other. Might represent interactions that a user
`
`has had interacting with a system. It might include the
`
`user interface, components of a user interface that
`
`respond to a user and display information to a user. So
`
`it's a very broad term by itself.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. When the term "dialog" is used
`
`with respect to a user interface, is a dialog always
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 10
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 10
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`responsive to the interaction of a user?
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
`THE WITNESS: So as I said, the term "dialog"
`
`in the field of human-computer interaction is a very
`
`broad term, and there's many interfaces in the world.
`
`And so dialogs and user interfaces can be used in many
`
`ways. I would say that sometimes a dialog can be
`
`displayed in response to some user action, and sometimes
`
`a dialog can be displayed by a computer system that is
`
`not in response to a user action.
`
`MR. CECIL: Q. Is a lock screen an exhibit of
`
`a dialog?
`
`A.
`
`There are many kinds of lock screens. I have
`
`not analyzed all lock screens on all devices. I
`
`certainly could imagine that some lock screens might be
`
`implemented with dialogs, but it is certainly the case
`
`that many dialogs -- sorry -- many lock screens are not.
`
`Q.
`
`What would differentiate a lock screen that is
`
`a dialog versus one that is a dialog?
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
`THE WITNESS: Again, I have not analyzed all
`
`lock screens and how -- the different possible ways that
`
`they are implemented. But I think what's relevant in my
`
`declaration regarding Goertz is that the lock screen
`
`shown in Figure 13 is a blank screen, which is clearly
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 11
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 11
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`not a dialog, and in fact, the screen is off, since it
`
`is the same screen -- sorry -- since it is the same
`
`figure that is used in Figure 9 where the power is
`
`clearly off. So a person of skill reading Goertz would
`
`see that its screen in the locked state is off.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Is it your opinion that the
`
`screen shown in Figure 13 of Goertz is a locked screen?
`
`A. In my declaration on page 77, I describe how
`
`Goertz teaches the limitation 1f, and I explain here in
`
`a few places that Figure 13 shows that there's an
`
`illustration showing the device when the phone is
`
`locked.
`
` I do notice a few typos. Looks like I have
`
`accidentally spelled Goertz without the R. That may be
`
`on a few pages. So I have spelled it G-O-E-T-Z. Please
`
`accept my apologies and know that I meant the same
`
`Goertz we are talking about.
`
`Q. Can you tell me which report -- or which
`
`declaration you're looking at?
`
`A. Good point. The '373, 613.
`
`Q. And you said paragraph 70 --
`
`A. Page 77.
`
`Q. Thank you. I thought it was Goetz for a
`
`while, too, actually. Thank you for that clarification.
`
` MS. HIGGINS: And just for the record, we're
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 12
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 12
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`talking about Exhibit 10 -- what is the exhibit number
`
`you applied to this one?
`
` MR. CECIL: This is Exhibit 1013 -- 1003,
`
`rather.
`
` MS. HIGGINS: 1003. Okay.
`
` THE WITNESS: Oh, my declaration is 1003.
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes. We just didn't name the
`
`number.
`
` THE WITNESS: Just to complete my answer about
`
`Goertz's Figure 13, paragraph 24, Goertz describes
`
`Figure 13 by saying that it illustrates pressing the
`
`home button on a locked phone to unlock the phone.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Do you agree that Goertz does
`
`not explicitly disclose the details involved in actually
`
`performing fingerprint recognition?
`
`A. In paragraph 61 of Goertz, it says that,
`
`"Further, in accordance with an embodiment of the
`
`present invention, a touchscreen for a phone captioned
`
`'Key lock high security' is shown in Figure 15. When
`
`the home key is activated, such as by touching the home
`
`key, a keypad is displayed and a user is prompted to
`
`enter a security code. Subsequently, the phone cannot
`
`be unlocked unless the security code is entered.
`
`Optionally, additional security is implemented by use of
`
`a fingerprint identification, wherein the phone cannot
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 13
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 13
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`be unlocked unless a fingerprint is authenticated."
`
` Additionally, as I explained in the technology
`
`background of my report in paragraphs 36 through 38,
`
`identifying users with fingerprint readers was well
`
`known to a person of skill in the art, and in fact,
`
`commercially available fingerprint readers were readily
`
`available. So it would be straightforward for a person
`
`of skill in the art to use a fingerprint reader in
`
`unlocking a device such as that shown in Goertz.
`
` Additionally, my opinion about this ground is
`
`that Goertz in combination with Davis and iOS together
`
`disclose all of the limitations of the '373 patent.
`
`Q. In Goertz, is the fingerprint authentication
`
`displayed after a user inputs a security code?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Sorry. Could you repeat the
`
`question, please?
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. I'll withdraw the question and
`
`say it a different way. Is the fingerprint
`
`identification implemented after a user inputs a
`
`security code when the phone is in "Key lock high
`
`security" mode?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So as I said in my previous
`
`answer, my opinion is that Goertz, Davis, and iOS
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 14
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 14
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`together teach all of the claims of the '373 patent, and
`
`that Goertz itself explains quite clearly that there are
`
`a range of solutions a person of skill in the art could
`
`use to unlock a phone such as using a code, as well as a
`
`fingerprint, and that I focused my analysis on Davis to
`
`show the specific steps that a person would use to
`
`combine with Goertz for performing Goertz's first
`
`function as described on page 79 of my declaration.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. So you said Goertz clearly
`
`explains that there are a range of solutions that could
`
`be used. To me it's not very clear. I'm wondering if
`
`you can help me out. Does the fingerprint
`
`identification function happen after the security code
`
`is entered in Goertz?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I said, Goertz clearly
`
`discloses that there are a range of solutions available
`
`to the person of skill in the art reading Goertz to
`
`unlock a phone, including entering a code and using
`
`their fingerprint. And my opinion is that it is the
`
`combination of Goertz, Davis, and iOS that together
`
`teach these limitations.
`
` And on page 79 of my declaration, I explained
`
`how Davis teaches the specific steps for performing
`
`Goertz's first function, which is fingerprint
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 15
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 15
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`authentication in response to an unlock command, e.g.,
`
`Goertz's pressing of the home key.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. So fingerprint authentication
`
`happens before any keypad is displayed and a user is
`
`prompted to enter a security code in Goertz?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So as I said, a person reading
`
`Goertz would find a clear disclosure of multiple ways of
`
`unlocking the phone, including entering a code and using
`
`a fingerprint.
`
` (Interruption in the proceedings.)
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Let's go off the record for a
`
`moment.
`
` (Recess taken from 11:30 a.m. to
`
` 11:32 a.m.)
`
` MS. HIGGINS: We're back on the record. We
`
`had an interruption, and so would you please, court
`
`reporter, read the full question and the witness, who
`
`was in the middle of his answer, and we can proceed from
`
`there.
`
` (Record read.)
`
` THE WITNESS: And as I've already said, my
`
`opinion is that the combination of Goertz, Davis, and
`
`iOS teach all of the limitations of the '373 patent, and
`
`my report on page 79 explains in particular how I
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 16
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 16
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`applied or how a person of skill would understand
`
`Davis's teachings to perform Goertz's first function of
`
`fingerprint authentication in response to an unlock
`
`key -- unlock command.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. You're going to be handed an
`
`exhibit which is marked as 1015.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1015 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Do you recognize this
`
`document?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. What is this document?
`
`A. This document is the document that I describe
`
`as Davis in my declaration.
`
`Q. Would you turn to paragraph 50, please, in
`
`Davis. I think it's line 7 of the paragraph, Davis
`
`says, "If a match is found between the two passwords,
`
`the microprocessor presents (step 416) a dialog on the
`
`display to prompt the user to provide a fingerprint
`
`candidate." What does dialog mean in that context?
`
`A. I think in this context, the dialog of box 416
`
`would be user interface elements on the display that
`
`would give a user information regarding fingerprints.
`
`Q. What supports your opinion that that's what
`
`the dialog does? Strike that question.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 17
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 17
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
` What in Davis supports your opinion that
`
`that's what the dialog does?
`
`A. Well, the sentence that you read explains that
`
`the microprocessor 228 presents a dialog on display 226.
`
`Those boxes refer to Figure 2, where I see the
`
`microprocessor 228 and display 226 as being conventional
`
`components of the computing system, and the use of the
`
`terminology in box 416 "present fingerprint dialog" in
`
`that context would tell a person of skill in the art
`
`reading this that presenting on a display is the kind of
`
`displaying on a user interface in the way that I just
`
`described.
`
`Q. Referring back to that sentence that we talked
`
`about a few minutes ago, what does it mean to prompt the
`
`user?
`
`A. I think in general, the term "prompt" -- was
`
`it "prompt" or "prompt the user"?
`
`Q. "Prompt the user."
`
`A. I think in general the term "prompt the user"
`
`is some output of a computer system to notify the user
`
`that they should do something, or maybe that's even too
`
`specific. They could even just be prompting the user
`
`really to notify the user about anything. Maybe --
`
`that's right. I think it would just let the user know
`
`of something.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 18
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 18
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`Q. What does it mean to prompt the user to
`
`provide a fingerprint candidate?
`
`A. So I think what I just said is right. And in
`
`this case, the thing that the user would be being
`
`notified of would be to provide their fingerprint
`
`information.
`
`Q. So a notification would pop up on the screen
`
`that would say, "Put your finger down," or, "Put your
`
`thumb down"?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't know exactly -- well, a
`
`person of skill would understand that there's many
`
`different ways that a prompt could be provided. Even a
`
`simple beep. I don't know that Davis specifies exactly
`
`the form of such a prompt.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Is a beep a dialog?
`
`A. I think a dialog would normally need to
`
`require some kind of display. So it probably would not
`
`be a dialog.
`
`Q. So to present a dialog on a display to prompt
`
`the user to provide a fingerprint candidate, then what
`
`would be required in Davis?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't think I
`
`understand the question.
`
`Page 19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 19
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. What would the form of the
`
`dialog be in Davis, as discussed in paragraph 50, that
`
`would prompt the user to provide a fingerprint
`
`candidate?
`
`A. I think this is a general disclosure, and a
`
`person of skill reading this would understand that they
`
`could use any specific design for dialog that they
`
`wanted.
`
`Q. Would you agree that Davis teaches using a
`
`combination of procedures to unlock a device?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think Davis teaches that there
`
`are many possible solutions available for identifying a
`
`user. And in paragraph 71, Davis makes it quite clear
`
`that the different authentication and unlocking inputs
`
`are customizable when it says, quote, "As should be
`
`clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`order in which various authentication factors are
`
`provided by the user should not be considered to be
`
`limited to the order in which the authentication factors
`
`are provided in the example embodiments presented
`
`herein. Indeed, many embodiments will only require a
`
`subset of the authentication factors discussed in the
`
`app" -- "in this application."
`
` So a person of skill reading this would
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 20
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 20
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`clearly understand that the point of Davis was to
`
`present a range of solutions that the person of skill
`
`could then choose from in their ordinary practice of
`
`designing a particular system. And I explained in my
`
`declaration an example of that customization that
`
`combines Davis with Goertz in a way that directly meets
`
`the claim limitations.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Could you turn to page 27 of
`
`Exhibit 1003?
`
`A. Did you say page 27?
`
`Q. Yes. You see the Figure 4 that's been
`
`modified there?
`
`A. Yes, I do.
`
`Q. Did you modify that figure?
`
`A. Yes, I did.
`
`Q. Can you explain how a user would begin --
`
`sorry. Strike that.
`
` Could you explain the process by which a user
`
`unlocks a device following Figure 4?
`
`A. I explain this process in paragraph 61, where
`
`I lay out the steps that shows in this case what Griffin
`
`would look like modified by Davis, although I'll note
`
`that so far we have not yet talked about Griffin today.
`
`Q. But I want to know how Figure 4, absent of
`
`Griffin, works. Can you tell me how Figure 4, absent of
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 21
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 21
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`Griffin, works?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Sorry. Modified Figure 4.
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, my point of modifying
`
`Figure 4 was precisely to show how, in this case, Davis
`
`would work with Griffin. And the point of that -- the
`
`point of my analysis is to, in fact, look at the
`
`combination of Griffin and Davis and also iOS to show
`
`how they read on the '373 claim limitations, because in
`
`this case, as I describe in paragraph 61, the user
`
`starts by pressing the home convenience button, which is
`
`a first input mechanism of Griffin, which then in 1a
`
`initiates an unlock command and then in 1b wakes the
`
`screen to display the fingerprint dialog as taught by
`
`Davis.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Are you willing to explain
`
`modified Figure 4 absent of a reference to Griffin?
`
`A. Well, as I said, the point of modified Figure
`
`4 is to show how Griffin, modified by the teachings of
`
`Davis, would work, but the modified Figure 4 of Davis
`
`starts at 1b in paragraph 61 of my declaration where,
`
`upon receiving the unlock command, it presents a
`
`fingerprint dialog and then goes on to receive the live
`
`scan, checks to see if the fingerprint is valid, and
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 22
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 22
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`either unlocks the device or indicates a failure to
`
`verify and returns back to presenting the fingerprint
`
`dialog.
`
`Q. Where in the modified Figure 4 of Davis does
`
`the system receive a biometric candidate?
`
`A. My analysis is about the '373 claims. Are you
`
`referring to a specific claim limitation of the '373
`
`patent?
`
`Q. I'm asking about where in Figure 4 Davis,
`
`which describes receiving biometric candidates, where
`
`Davis involves involving -- involves receiving a
`
`biometric candidate in the modified Figure 4.
`
`A. If we're going to be talking about Griffin,
`
`would you be willing to share the Griffin disclosure
`
`with me?
`
`Q. I would, but I wasn't asking about Griffin. I
`
`was only asking about Davis.
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Do you -- if the witness wants
`
`Griffin, will you give it to him?
`
` MR. CECIL: Absolutely.
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Okay.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Could you explain why Griffin
`
`is relevant to your answer here?
`
`A. The reason that Griffin is relevant is because
`
`my analysis here is about the combination of Griffin and
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 23
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 23
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`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
`
`Davis, and this paragraph is a very specific combination
`
`of modified Figure 4 of Davis with Griffin. And so my
`
`answer -- my analysis is about the two of them together.
`
`Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
`
`Exhibit 1027.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1027 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Additionally, since we're
`
`talking about claim analysis, I don't actually have the
`
`'373 patent in front of me. Could you share that with
`
`me, as well?
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. You're going to be handed a
`
`document which has been labeled as Exhibit 1001. It
`
`should be the '373 patent. Let me know if you disagree.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1001 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. So in -- I don't think there's
`
`a question that's on the table, other than do you agree
`
`that you were handed the '373 patent? Do you agree that
`
`you've been handed the '373 patent?
`
`A. Yes, I have.
`
`Q. Great. Let's talk about Davis real quick.
`
`I'm sorry. Griffin. Would you turn to Figure 10 of
`
`Griffin, please. Does Figure 10 represent a finite
`
`state machine?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 24
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2008 - 24
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`IPR2019-00614
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A. I think Griffin has a few figures that
`
`disclose what I think a person of ordinary skill would
`
`be to understand finite state machines, including Figure
`
`10, and also Figures 2 and 3.
`
`Q. What does a circle represent in a finite state
`
`machine?
`
`A. Generally, it's one of the states of the
`
`machine.
`
`Q. And then what do arrows represent in a finite
`
`state machine?
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Generally, they represent
`
`transition from one state to another state.
`
` MR. CECIL: Q. Let's go back to Exhibit 1003,
`
`which is your report -- pardon me -- your declaration.
`
`Would you look at paragraph 60, please. Let me know
`
`when you've finished reading paragraph 60.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. In your discussion of paragraph 60, when does
`
`a biometric input mechanism get presented to the
`
`modified Figure 4?
`
`A. So in modified Figure 4, box 418 is described
`
`as "Receive live scan from SCR," which is the smart card
`
`reader. I believe this is the step that receives the --
`
`well, the smart card reader
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
