`
`·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