·1· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· · ·-----------------------------------x
`
`·5· · ·FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and
`
`·6· · ·WHATSAPP INC.,
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`
`·8· · · · v.
`
`·9· · ·BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`11· · ·-----------------------------------x
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · IPR2019-00925
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · IPR2019-00899
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · DEPOSITION OF RAJEEV J. SURATI, Ph.D.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · Tuesday, March 17, 2020
`
`19· · · · · · · · · Boston, Massachusetts
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· · ·Reported by:
`
`24· · ·Michael D. O'Connor, RMR, CRR, CRC
`
`25· · ·Job No. 10067605
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 001
`
`
`
`·2· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· · ·-----------------------------------x
`
`·5· · ·FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and
`
`·6· · ·WHATSAPP INC.,
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`
`·8· · · · v.
`
`·9· · ·BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`11· · ·-----------------------------------x
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · IPR2019-00925
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · IPR2019-00899
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · DEPOSITION OF RAJEEV J. SURATI, Ph.D.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · Tuesday, March 17, 2020
`
`19· · · · · · · · · Boston, Massachusetts
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· · ·Reported by:
`
`24· · ·Michael D. O'Connor, RMR, CRR, CRC
`
`25· · ·Job No. 10067605
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 001
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · Tuesday, March 17, 2020
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · ·12:08 p.m.
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION of RAJEEV J. SURATI,
`
`12· · ·Ph.D., held at Fish & Richardson, P.C., One
`
`13· · ·Marina Park Drive, Boston, Massachusetts,
`
`14· · ·pursuant to notice, before Michael D.
`
`15· · ·O'Connor, Registered Merit Reporter,
`
`16· · ·Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified
`
`17· · ·Realtime Captioner, and Notary Public in and
`
`18· · ·for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 002
`
`
`
`·1· · ·APPEARANCES VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · ·ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS:
`
`·4· · · · COOLEY LLP
`
`·5· · · · 3175 Hanover Street
`
`·6· · · · Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`
`·7· · · · (650) 843-5007
`
`·8· · · · BY:· · MARK R. WEINSTEIN, ESQ.
`
`·9· · · · · · · ·mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12· · ·ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`13· · · · FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`
`14· · · · 3200 RBC Plaza
`
`15· · · · 60 South Sixth Street
`
`16· · · · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`17· · · · (612) 278-4514
`
`18· · · · BY:· · CRAIG A. DEUTSCH, ESQ.
`
`19· · · · · · · ·CED@fr.com
`
`20· · · · · · · ·MICHAEL T. HAWKINS, ESQ.
`
`21· · · · · · · ·hawkins@fr.com
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 003
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`·2· · ·Deposition of:· · · · · · · · · · · · Page
`
`·3· · ·RAJEEV J. SURATI, Ph.D.
`
`·4· · ·By Mr. Weinstein· · · · · · · · ·5, 69, 72
`
`·5· · ·By Mr. Deutsch· · · · · · · · · ·63, 102
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`·8· · ·Facebook
`
`·9· · ·No.
`
`10· · ·Exhibit 1001· ·U.S. Patent 8,301,713
`
`11· · ·Exhibit 1103· ·U.S. Patent 7,434,177
`
`12
`
`13· · ·BlackBerry
`
`14· · ·Exhibit 2012· ·Second Declaration of
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · Rajeev Surati, Ph.D.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · In re: IPR-2019-00899
`
`17· · ·Exhibit 2013· ·Second Declaration of
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · Rajeev Surati, Ph.D.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · In re: IPR-2019-00925
`
`20· · ·Exhibit 2016· ·Document entitled, "How
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · to Do Everything with
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · Your Pocket PC Second
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · Edition"
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 004
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · RAJEEV J. SURATI, Ph.D.
`
`·4
`
`·5· · ·having been satisfactorily identified by the
`
`·6· · ·production of his driver's license, and duly
`
`·7· · ·sworn by the Notary Public, was examined and
`
`·8· · ·testified as follows:
`
`·9
`
`10· · ·EXAMINATION BY
`
`11· · ·MR. WEINSTEIN:
`
`12· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Good morning, Dr. Surati.
`
`13· · · · · ·A.· · ·Good morning.
`
`14· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Actually, good afternoon for you.
`
`15· · · · · · · · · Dr. Surati, you have been deposed
`
`16· · ·before, correct?
`
`17· · · · · ·A.· · ·I have been deposed.
`
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·How many times do you estimate you
`
`19· · ·have been deposed?
`
`20· · · · · ·A.· · ·Somewhere around maybe 20 times.
`
`21· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So obviously every
`
`22· · ·deposition that's ever been conducted begins
`
`23· · ·with the speech I'm about to give you, which
`
`24· · ·invariably begins with a few things that are
`
`25· · ·always the same.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 005
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · So this is a deposition, and
`
`·2· · ·you're under oath.· Everything you say here has
`
`·3· · ·the same enforcement and effect as if it was an
`
`·4· · ·open court.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · You understand that, correct?
`
`·6· · · · · ·A.· · ·I understand that.
`
`·7· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And are you taking any medication
`
`·8· · ·that could affect the testimony that you're
`
`·9· · ·giving here today?
`
`10· · · · · ·A.· · ·I have not taken any medications
`
`11· · ·that would affect my testimony today.
`
`12· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Can you identify any reason why
`
`13· · ·you cannot give your best and most accurate
`
`14· · ·testimony here today?
`
`15· · · · · ·A.· · ·I don't have any reason that I can
`
`16· · ·come -- that I have right now that would
`
`17· · ·indicate that I would have bad testimony. I
`
`18· · ·don't have a reason that I would have bad
`
`19· · ·testimony.
`
`20· · · · · ·Q.· · ·So, Dr. Surati, you're here to --
`
`21· · ·you have provided declarations in connection
`
`22· · ·with two IPR proceedings that we will be
`
`23· · ·talking about today.· One of them is the
`
`24· · ·2019-899 proceeding on the '713 patent and the
`
`25· · ·2019-925 proceeding on the '634 patent.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · You understand that, correct?
`
`·2· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, I understand that I'm here to
`
`·3· · ·discuss those two declarations with respect to
`
`·4· · ·the two IPR proceedings that you mentioned.
`
`·5· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Thank you.· So we're going
`
`·6· · ·to start with the '713 declaration, which is
`
`·7· · ·the declaration in the '899 proceeding.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · What I'm going to do is I'm going
`
`·9· · ·to go, more or less, sequentially through the
`
`10· · ·numbered paragraphs of the declaration and ask
`
`11· · ·you some points about it.· If at any point
`
`12· · ·during the deposition you need to refer to
`
`13· · ·other paragraphs of your declaration to provide
`
`14· · ·a full and complete answer, you are free to do
`
`15· · ·that.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · Do you understand?
`
`17· · · · · ·A.· · ·I understand.
`
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So looking at -- we'll
`
`19· · ·start with the identification of a person of
`
`20· · ·ordinary skill in the art, which is on
`
`21· · ·Paragraph 8 of your declaration.· For
`
`22· · ·simplicity, I'm going to be referring to this
`
`23· · ·by paragraph numbers and not by page numbers,
`
`24· · ·because there are actually two page numbers on
`
`25· · ·every page that are different.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 007
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.· You said Paragraph 12?
`
`·2· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Paragraph 8 and change to
`
`·3· · ·Paragraph 9.
`
`·4· · · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.
`
`·5· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Simple question on Paragraph 9.
`
`·6· · ·You're assuming an effective filing date of
`
`·7· · ·September 19, 2003 for the '713 patent,
`
`·8· · ·correct?
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.· As it says, "I have been
`
`10· · ·informed that the priority date of the '713
`
`11· · ·patent is the effective filing date of the '713
`
`12· · ·patent, September 19, 2003, and I have applied
`
`13· · ·this timeframe in my analysis as being the
`
`14· · ·relevant time of the '713 patent.· My opinion
`
`15· · ·as to the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`16· · ·would remain the same regardless of whether the
`
`17· · ·time of the invention is found to be in
`
`18· · ·September 2003, or any time in the early 2000s
`
`19· · ·to mid-2000s."
`
`20· · · · · ·Q.· · ·You did a very nice job of reading
`
`21· · ·your report.· Let's go to Paragraph 10 real
`
`22· · ·quickly.· It's on the same page.
`
`23· · · · · ·A.· · ·Oh, sorry.· Go ahead.
`
`24· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And your first sentence in
`
`25· · ·Paragraph 10 says, "The '713 patent generally
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 008
`
`
`
`·1· · ·relates to a 'handheld electronic device.'"
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · Do you happen to have a copy of
`
`·3· · ·the '713 patent handy?
`
`·4· · · · · ·A.· · ·I do, right underneath it, as you
`
`·5· · ·had indicated.
`
`·6· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Great.· If you could turn
`
`·7· · ·to Claim 1 of the '713 patent, that's the first
`
`·8· · ·independent claim, that begins around Column 8,
`
`·9· · ·Line 48.
`
`10· · · · · ·A.· · ·Just a second.· Okay.· Go ahead.
`
`11· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So Claim 1 of the preamble
`
`12· · ·reads, "A method of operating an electronic
`
`13· · ·device."
`
`14· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`15· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Now, is there anything in Claim 1
`
`17· · ·that you're aware of that limits the electronic
`
`18· · ·device to being a handheld electronic device?
`
`19· · · · · ·A.· · ·Give me just a second.· So, you
`
`20· · ·know, if we read the claim verbatim, and you're
`
`21· · ·limiting it to what's inside of the claim, I
`
`22· · ·think it's the case that you could say, well,
`
`23· · ·there's nothing inside the claim itself, Claim
`
`24· · ·1, that limits it.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · But in order to understand the
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 009
`
`
`
`·1· · ·claim, you actually have to look at the entire
`
`·2· · ·patent to understand what it means.
`
`·3· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Well, let me ask this
`
`·4· · ·question.· Are you taking the position that the
`
`·5· · ·term "electronic device," as used in the claims
`
`·6· · ·of the '713 patent, is limited to a handheld
`
`·7· · ·electronic device?
`
`·8· · · · · ·A.· · ·Let me see here.· So I don't think
`
`·9· · ·I've directly opined in the document on that
`
`10· · ·term.
`
`11· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So you would agree that the
`
`12· · ·term "electronic device" can include a handheld
`
`13· · ·electronic device, correct?
`
`14· · · · · ·A.· · ·In the context of the claim, yes.
`
`15· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· But you don't have an
`
`16· · ·opinion one way or the other as to whether the
`
`17· · ·claim is limited to a handheld electronic
`
`18· · ·device; is that correct?
`
`19· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah, at this time I don't have an
`
`20· · ·opinion that says that it's limited to a
`
`21· · ·handheld electronic device.· But I think the
`
`22· · ·patent discusses handheld electronic devices,
`
`23· · ·because this invention, you know, tries to deal
`
`24· · ·with limited screen space.
`
`25· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Sure.· I guess my question was,
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0010
`
`
`
`·1· · ·you're not -- withdrawn.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · And then the same -- you would
`
`·3· · ·agree, of course, that Claim 1 doesn't refer to
`
`·4· · ·the electronic device as a handheld device,
`
`·5· · ·correct?
`
`·6· · · · · ·A.· · ·I would agree that the claim in
`
`·7· · ·its plain language, I don't see anything in it
`
`·8· · ·that would -- let me just double-check before I
`
`·9· · ·spout off on something that I need to verify.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · I would say there's nothing in
`
`11· · ·Claim 1, as you read it, that, as I read the
`
`12· · ·words that plainly states anything to do with a
`
`13· · ·handheld electronic device.
`
`14· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And the same would be true for
`
`15· · ·Claims 2, 3 and 4, correct, those don't say
`
`16· · ·anything about whether the device is handheld
`
`17· · ·or not, correct?
`
`18· · · · · ·A.· · ·I don't see anything in those
`
`19· · ·claims that would indicate that the word
`
`20· · ·"handheld" is included with "electronic
`
`21· · ·device."
`
`22· · · · · · · · · But again, the patent
`
`23· · ·specification, you know, definitely talks about
`
`24· · ·handheld electronic devices, and the challenge
`
`25· · ·with the small screens they have.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0011
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·Q.· · ·You understand the distinction
`
`·2· · ·between something that's in the specification
`
`·3· · ·describing an embodiment and something in the
`
`·4· · ·claims that actually imposes a limitation on
`
`·5· · ·the scope of the claim, correct?
`
`·6· · · · · ·A.· · ·I'm not sure what you mean.· Which
`
`·7· · ·distinction?
`
`·8· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Well, you have been involved in a
`
`·9· · ·lot of patent cases.· You understand that not
`
`10· · ·everything in the patent specification imposes
`
`11· · ·a limitation on the scope of the actual claims,
`
`12· · ·correct?
`
`13· · · · · ·A.· · ·So what you're saying is correct,
`
`14· · ·that the claim -- as I understand it, the
`
`15· · ·meaning of the claims is determined by what's
`
`16· · ·in the specification.· But whatever is in the
`
`17· · ·specification can or cannot affect what that --
`
`18· · ·I mean, it's, you know, up to an interpretation
`
`19· · ·to decide whether a claim term is -- means a
`
`20· · ·certain thing versus another.
`
`21· · · · · · · · · And, you know, if there are
`
`22· · ·counter examples where things are referred to
`
`23· · ·in a way that's different than you might infer
`
`24· · ·from that, that that claim term is different,
`
`25· · ·then it is specified in such a way that it's
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0012
`
`
`
`·1· · ·agnostic to what's said in the specification
`
`·2· · ·specific to an embodiment versus not.
`
`·3· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So for purposes of your
`
`·4· · ·opinions, you're not relying on any
`
`·5· · ·understanding that the term "electronic
`
`·6· · ·device," as used in the challenged claims, is
`
`·7· · ·limited to a handheld device, correct?
`
`·8· · · · · ·A.· · ·I don't know that I necessarily
`
`·9· · ·considered that when I made my opinion. I
`
`10· · ·thought about it, but I don't know that I've
`
`11· · ·made a clear distinction between the two.
`
`12· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Fair enough.· Let's go to
`
`13· · ·Column 1 of the '713 patent.
`
`14· · · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.
`
`15· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And I'll read into the record
`
`16· · ·Lines 59 through 62, and they read, "In the
`
`17· · ·environment of a handheld electronic device, it
`
`18· · ·would be desirable to avoid unnecessary time
`
`19· · ·stamps and other unnecessary output since it
`
`20· · ·occupies too much valuable space on the limited
`
`21· · ·display of the handheld electronic device."
`
`22· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`23· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · · ·Q.· · ·So that statement is talking about
`
`25· · ·a concern that arises in the context of a
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0013
`
`
`
`·1· · ·handheld electronic device, correct?
`
`·2· · · · · ·A.· · ·So I think it's talking about the
`
`·3· · ·environment of a handheld electronic device
`
`·4· · ·where the screen space is limited.
`
`·5· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Correct.· So if you have a desktop
`
`·6· · ·PC with a full screen display, in that
`
`·7· · ·environment, this consideration on Lines 59
`
`·8· · ·through 62 doesn't hold any weight, does it?
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·Well, I guess it depends on the
`
`10· · ·resolution of the screen of the large PC, I
`
`11· · ·mean, the desktop PC.· If the screen size is
`
`12· · ·320 by 240, that's not too different than a
`
`13· · ·small screen size on a handheld display device.
`
`14· · ·That was a long time ago.
`
`15· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Did you have a desktop computer
`
`16· · ·that you used in 2003?
`
`17· · · · · ·A.· · ·I did.
`
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·You would agree it was not 320 by
`
`19· · ·240, correct?
`
`20· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.· So I would say that that
`
`21· · ·resolution existed -- I mean, it's hard to
`
`22· · ·remember all the things.· But, yeah, I would
`
`23· · ·say that in 2003, you probably saw more 800 by
`
`24· · ·600, 1024 by 768 types of screens.
`
`25· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And 1024 by 768, that refers to
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0014
`
`
`
`·1· · ·the horizontal and vertical number of pixels,
`
`·2· · ·correct?
`
`·3· · · · · ·A.· · ·That's correct.
`
`·4· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Now, going from your personal
`
`·5· · ·experience in 2003, were you a Mac guy or
`
`·6· · ·Windows guy or a UNIX guy?
`
`·7· · · · · ·A.· · ·I used all three.
`
`·8· · · · · ·Q.· · ·In 2003, did you use any computer
`
`·9· · ·regularly that had a 320 by 240 display?
`
`10· · · · · ·A.· · ·I did use some devices that had
`
`11· · ·those kind of displays, yeah, that were
`
`12· · ·computers.
`
`13· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Well, yes.· Those were called
`
`14· · ·embedded devices, correct?
`
`15· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah, those were embedded devices
`
`16· · ·or -- they weren't desktop PCs if that's what
`
`17· · ·you're asking.
`
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Well, let's talk about the
`
`19· · ·devices you would have been using to send and
`
`20· · ·receive e-mail back in 2003.· You were
`
`21· · ·obviously, like everyone else in your field, a
`
`22· · ·regular user of e-mail in the 2003 timeframe,
`
`23· · ·correct?
`
`24· · · · · ·A.· · ·I regularly used e-mail in the
`
`25· · ·2003 timeframe, yes.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0015
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And what kind of computer did you
`
`·2· · ·use most frequently to send and receive e-mail
`
`·3· · ·during that timeframe?
`
`·4· · · · · ·A.· · ·A notebook computer.
`
`·5· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Is that a Mac or a PC?
`
`·6· · · · · ·A.· · ·It would have been a PC.
`
`·7· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Do you recall what the
`
`·8· · ·screen resolution of that computer was?
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·It was at least 1024 by 768.
`
`10· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Do you recall if that
`
`11· · ·computer had also WiFi capabilities?
`
`12· · · · · ·A.· · ·It did.
`
`13· · · · · ·Q.· · ·It did?· Okay.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · Now, going back to the claims of
`
`15· · ·the patents, there is a term that shows up
`
`16· · ·called "messaging communication," and it
`
`17· · ·doesn't look like you provided an express
`
`18· · ·construction of that term.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · Would it be fair to say that you
`
`20· · ·simply applied the plain meaning of "messaging
`
`21· · ·communication" in connection with your analysis
`
`22· · ·of the challenged claims?
`
`23· · · · · ·A.· · ·So, let's see, let's go back to
`
`24· · ·what you're talking about.· You're talking
`
`25· · ·about, if we look at Claim 1, identifying a
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0016
`
`
`
`·1· · ·messaging communication?
`
`·2· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Correct.· When you applied the
`
`·3· · ·claims, you were not interpreting the term
`
`·4· · ·"messaging communication" as being limited to
`
`·5· · ·instant messages as opposed to, say, e-mail,
`
`·6· · ·correct?
`
`·7· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah, I'm not making -- I don't
`
`·8· · ·believe I'm making a distinction that a message
`
`·9· · ·has to be an e-mail versus instant message in
`
`10· · ·the context of the patent, if that's what
`
`11· · ·you're asking.
`
`12· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· That's what I thought. I
`
`13· · ·just needed to confirm.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · Now, looking at Claim 1, starting
`
`15· · ·on Line 61, do you see that there are two
`
`16· · ·steps, one begins with the word "determining"
`
`17· · ·and the other begins with the word "detecting."
`
`18· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`19· · · · · ·A.· · ·So there's "determining" on Line
`
`20· · ·61 and "detecting" on Line 65.
`
`21· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So the determining step
`
`22· · ·reads "determining that a predetermined
`
`23· · ·duration of time has elapsed since the first
`
`24· · ·time without additional communication between
`
`25· · ·the electronic device and the second electronic
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0017
`
`
`
`·1· · ·device during that duration of time."
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · The following step says "detecting
`
`·3· · ·an input to an electronic device following said
`
`·4· · ·identifying and determining steps, said input
`
`·5· · ·occurring at a second time."
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`·7· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.· And it says "and responsive
`
`·8· · ·to said detecting an input, outputting in the
`
`·9· · ·electronic conversation, a time stamp
`
`10· · ·representative of the second time."
`
`11· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Understood.· So would you
`
`12· · ·agree, based on the structure of the claims,
`
`13· · ·that the determined step occurs before the
`
`14· · ·detecting step in Claim 1?
`
`15· · · · · ·A.· · ·It seems to say "detecting an
`
`16· · ·input to the electronic device following said
`
`17· · ·identifying and determining steps."
`
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·To a person of skill in the art,
`
`19· · ·such as yourself, that would indicate to you
`
`20· · ·that the detecting step occurs at some point
`
`21· · ·after the determining step, correct?
`
`22· · · · · ·A.· · ·At this moment I don't have any
`
`23· · ·reason to suggest that that's not the case.
`
`24· · ·But, you know, if there's some reason of
`
`25· · ·concomitance with the two, I'd have to look at
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0018
`
`
`
`·1· · ·the particular case to decide whether something
`
`·2· · ·met or didn't meet the claim.
`
`·3· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Now, is there anything in the
`
`·4· · ·claim that prevents the -- withdrawn.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · So first you determine a
`
`·6· · ·predetermined time has elapsed.· At some point
`
`·7· · ·after that you can detect an input to an
`
`·8· · ·electronic device, correct?
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·I mean, I guess what I would say
`
`10· · ·is, as a result of having done that, you could
`
`11· · ·detect it.· So I'm a little bit -- I mean, as
`
`12· · ·it's stated in the claim, that's how you could
`
`13· · ·directly interpret it.· But if you thought that
`
`14· · ·the fact that a certain amount of time elapsed,
`
`15· · ·and as a result of having detected that that
`
`16· · ·you've -- that you've -- that in the process of
`
`17· · ·having determined that the time has elapsed,
`
`18· · ·that's possibly detecting it, you could say
`
`19· · ·those are possibly one in the same.
`
`20· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Well, so what you're saying is
`
`21· · ·that the determining is happening at the same
`
`22· · ·time as detecting in an actual system; is that
`
`23· · ·what you're suggesting?
`
`24· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah, I think that might be a
`
`25· · ·reasonable interpretation.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0019
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Given that that's the case, the
`
`·2· · ·claim would require the determining step to be
`
`·3· · ·performed before the detection step is
`
`·4· · ·performed, even if in a system that may be
`
`·5· · ·separated by, you know, milliseconds or less?
`
`·6· · · · · ·A.· · ·I would say that -- I don't know
`
`·7· · ·that I would -- I did that analysis.· I need to
`
`·8· · ·think about it.· I'd have to see the particular
`
`·9· · ·case that I -- that you are trying to determine
`
`10· · ·whether the claim limitation was met to
`
`11· · ·understand whether the claim applied to that.
`
`12· · · · · ·Q.· · ·So the claim at a minimum covers
`
`13· · ·the situation where you determine that the
`
`14· · ·predetermined time has elapsed, and then after
`
`15· · ·that, detects an input to an electronic device,
`
`16· · ·correct?
`
`17· · · · · ·A.· · ·I think it's correct that --
`
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. DEUTSCH:· Objection to form.
`
`19· · · · · ·A.· · ·I guess it's at least the case
`
`20· · ·that you could -- you could state what you said
`
`21· · ·about it.
`
`22· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· I mean, I understand and
`
`23· · ·experts are, you know, reluctant to say a claim
`
`24· · ·is limited to something, so I'm going to
`
`25· · ·rephrase my question as just being that the
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0020
`
`
`
`·1· · ·claim covers a situation where, first, you
`
`·2· · ·determine and then you detect, correct?
`
`·3· · · · · ·A.· · ·I think it's fair to take what you
`
`·4· · ·said, that it, at least, covers the case where
`
`·5· · ·you determine that a predetermined duration of
`
`·6· · ·time has elapsed since the first time without
`
`·7· · ·additional communication between the electronic
`
`·8· · ·device and the second electronic device during
`
`·9· · ·the duration of time, and then detecting an
`
`10· · ·input to the electronic device following said
`
`11· · ·identifying and determining steps said input
`
`12· · ·occurring at a second time and...
`
`13· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Let's go to Paragraph 14 of your
`
`14· · ·declaration.
`
`15· · · · · ·A.· · ·I need to set a timer.· Just give
`
`16· · ·me a second.
`
`17· · · · · ·Q.· · ·On the bottom of Paragraph 14,
`
`18· · ·that's on Page 11 of your declaration, you make
`
`19· · ·the following statement.· "In other words, the
`
`20· · ·straightforward meaning of the claim language
`
`21· · ·itself requires selectively outputting a time
`
`22· · ·stamp only after determining that a
`
`23· · ·predetermined duration of time has elapsed."
`
`24· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`25· · · · · ·A.· · ·I do see that.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0021
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· So just so I understand
`
`·2· · ·your opinion, so in your opinion of the
`
`·3· · ·challenged claims would exclude a system that
`
`·4· · ·outputs a time stamp with every received
`
`·5· · ·message, regardless of whether a predetermined
`
`·6· · ·duration of time has elapsed?
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. DEUTSCH:· Objection.· Out of
`
`·8· · · · · ·scope.
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·I'd have to know more about the
`
`10· · ·system that you're talking about before I
`
`11· · ·opined on whether it met it or didn't.
`
`12· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Well, I thought I was simply
`
`13· · ·stating in the rephrase but you actually said
`
`14· · ·in Paragraph 14, maybe I didn't, but when you
`
`15· · ·say that the claim language requires
`
`16· · ·selectively outputting the time stamp only
`
`17· · ·after determining that a predetermined duration
`
`18· · ·of time has elapsed, does that mean that the
`
`19· · ·system cannot display a time stamp under any
`
`20· · ·other circumstance in order to --
`
`21· · · · · ·A.· · ·I'm not sure that the claim
`
`22· · ·language excludes that case, but I would say
`
`23· · ·that it simply is the case that there may be
`
`24· · ·systems where maybe it outputs the time stamp
`
`25· · ·in a different color.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0022
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · I don't know.· That's just an
`
`·2· · ·example.· I'm just trying to, you know, I don't
`
`·3· · ·want to -- it seems a little bit like you're --
`
`·4· · ·like I know what will meet -- my thing is to
`
`·5· · ·determine whether you've provided evidence that
`
`·6· · ·-- the systems that I've seen that were
`
`·7· · ·provided in the petition, I would say, did not
`
`·8· · ·meet the claim limitation clearly for the
`
`·9· · ·reason you provided.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · But beyond that, having me say
`
`11· · ·that it excludes every possible system seems
`
`12· · ·like a lot for me to just make a statement
`
`13· · ·about.
`
`14· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Can you identify a system that
`
`15· · ·would meet the claim limitations that does
`
`16· · ·output a time stamp after every message?
`
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. DEUTSCH:· Objection.· Out of
`
`18· · · · · ·scope.
`
`19· · · · · ·A.· · ·I imagine I could.· I would have
`
`20· · ·to think about it.· I don't want to -- I don't
`
`21· · ·feel comfortable to just outright say
`
`22· · ·something.· I could at least say none of the
`
`23· · ·systems that you -- that the Petitioner has
`
`24· · ·provided meet the claim limitation.
`
`25· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· Well, let me explore that
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0023
`
`
`
`·1· · ·for a minute.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · So if your predetermined duration
`
`·3· · ·of time is 60 seconds, right, and your system
`
`·4· · ·happens, you know, you have a communication
`
`·5· · ·session where the messages are only exchanged
`
`·6· · ·every two minutes, that is a system that might
`
`·7· · ·meet the claims, even though it outputs a time
`
`·8· · ·stamp with every message, correct?
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·Oh --
`
`10· · · · · · · · · MR. DEUTSCH:· Objection.· Out of
`
`11· · · · · ·scope.
`
`12· · · · · ·A.· · · -- I'm not even sure I understood
`
`13· · ·what you're asking.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · So you're saying what again?
`
`15· · · · · ·Q.· · ·I will repeat the question.· If
`
`16· · ·you have a predetermined duration of time at 60
`
`17· · ·seconds, but you have a session in which people
`
`18· · ·are exchanging messages ever two minutes, no
`
`19· · ·sooner than that, that is an exchange that
`
`20· · ·would not be excluded by the claims, even
`
`21· · ·though every message is accompanied by a time
`
`22· · ·stamp?
`
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. DEUTSCH:· Objection.· Out of
`
`24· · · · · ·scope.
`
`25· · · · · ·A.· · ·So you're saying -- so let me just
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0024
`
`
`
`·1· · ·understand this.· There's a system that every
`
`·2· · ·two minutes a message is exchanged, and an
`
`·3· · ·output is made, but the predetermined time is
`
`·4· · ·one minute, would that system meet the claim,
`
`·5· · ·and because it outputs a time every time?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · So I think in that consideration,
`
`·7· · ·are you saying could I tell from the
`
`·8· · ·transcript -- I mean, you're giving me a lot of
`
`·9· · ·information there.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · So, for example, you're saying --
`
`11· · ·like if I looked at the open transcript of a
`
`12· · ·system and I had access to the code that said
`
`13· · ·it's doing these steps, which is if it's doing
`
`14· · ·the step of predetermining that there's a time
`
`15· · ·and it's outputting the time stamp because of
`
`16· · ·that, then that system could meet the claims.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · But none of the systems -- none of
`
`18· · ·the systems -- so what maybe I should retract
`
`19· · ·what I said, and say none of the systems that
`
`20· · ·were shown to me in the petition had the
`
`21· · ·property that those steps were shown quite
`
`22· · ·clearly.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · All I could really see was what
`
`24· · ·the -- what the system output.· And there seems
`
`25· · ·to be an inference that is being drawn that a
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0025
`
`
`
`·1· · ·system that outputs -- that happens to output
`
`·2· · ·this stuff meets the claim limitation, but in
`
`·3· · ·order to meet the claim limitation, those steps
`
`·4· · ·need to actually occur and those things need to
`
`·5· · ·be there.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · It's not a question of it happens
`
`·7· · ·to be the case that the system outputs this
`
`·8· · ·stuff invariably because it just does.· It has
`
`·9· · ·to be the case that it determines that there
`
`10· · ·was -- it detected it, and then it determined
`
`11· · ·or let me put the claim language together again
`
`12· · ·properly.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · It happened to be the case that it
`
`14· · ·determined "that a predetermined duration of
`
`15· · ·time has elapsed since the first time without
`
`16· · ·additional communication" ... and then
`
`17· · ·"detecting an input to the electronic device
`
`18· · ·following said identifying and determining
`
`19· · ·steps."
`
`20· · · · · ·Q.· · ·So let's turn to Column 8 of the
`
`21· · ·'713 patent for a moment.
`
`22· · · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.
`
`23· · · · · ·Q.· · ·There's a passage that begins on
`
`24· · ·Line 6.
`
`25· · · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0026
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·Q.· · ·If you could just read to yourself
`
`·2· · ·the paragraph that begins on Line 6 and ends
`
`·3· · ·with 25, let me know when you've had a chance
`
`·4· · ·to familiarize yourself with that.
`
`·5· · · · · ·A.· · ·So what's the question?
`
`·6· · · · · ·Q.· · ·My question was for you to read to
`
`·7· · ·yourself Lines 6 through 25, and familiarize
`
`·8· · ·yourself with it.
`
`·9· · · · · ·A.· · ·I did look at it.
`
`10· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· I will just read the first
`
`11· · ·sentence of that paragraph into the record.· It
`
`12· · ·says, "If it is desirable to provide such time
`
`13· · ·stamps that output relative times, it might
`
`14· · ·also be desirable to output such time stamps in
`
`15· · ·any of the fashions set forth above, and such
`
`16· · ·time stamps potentially could be configured to
`
`17· · ·be output without first detecting a delay or a
`
`18· · ·break in the 'conversation.'"
`
`19· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`20· · · · · ·A.· · ·Sure.
`
`21· · · · · ·Q.· · ·So that's describing an embodiment
`
`22· · ·in which a time stamp could be output without
`
`23· · ·regard to whether a predetermined duration of
`
`24· · ·time has elapsed, correct?
`
`25· · · · · ·A.· · ·So it's true that it is possible
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1130
`IPR2019-00925 - Page 0027
`
`
`
`·1· · ·that some kinds of time stamps could be output,
`
`·2· · ·and the time stamps that are being discussed
`
`·3· · ·here might be output without regard to whether
`
`·4· · ·that predetermined step has been hit.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · I actually am not feeling very
`
`·6· · ·comfortable.· Is there a way I could go to the
`
`·7· · ·restroom?
`
`·8· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Absolutely.· I think we need to
`
`·9· · ·complete your answer before.· Were you finished
`
`10· · ·with your answer, sir?
`
`11· · · · · ·A.· · ·What did I say?· My answer was, I
`
`12· · ·believe it's the case that -- I mean, I was
`
`13· · ·finished with my answer.· Maybe you want to
`
`14· · ·reread it.
`
`15· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Let's just take a five-,
`
`16· · ·ten-minute break, whatever time you need, sir.
`
`17· · · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.· Sorry about that.
`
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·No problem at all.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · (Recess taken at 1:01 p.m. and
`
`20· · · · · ·reconvening at 1:11 p.m.)
`
`21· · ·BY MR. WEINSTEIN:
`
`22· · · · · ·Q.· · ·We'll go back on the record and
`
`23· · ·I'll reframe the question.· So to
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
