`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` APPLE, INC.
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` MAXELL, LTD.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2020-00202
` U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 B2
`
` _______________
`
`REMOTE DEPOSITION OF BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD
`
` Taken on Behalf of Petitioner
`
` Thursday, January 28, 2021
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 1
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`
`BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD PAGE
`
`Examination by Mr. Snader. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
` oOo
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
` Ex. 1001 - Page 7, Line 17
` Ex. 1004 - Page 8, Line 1
` Ex. 2022 - Page 8, Line 3
`
` 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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 2
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 3
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` APPLE, INC.
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` MAXELL, LTD.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case No. IPR2020-00202
` U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 B2
`
` _______________
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD,
`
`produced, sworn and examined on Thursday, January 28,
`
`2021, between the hours of 9:05 a.m. and 10:25 a.m.
`
`of that day, before Connie McCarthy, CCR, RMR, CRR.
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 3
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` For the Petitioner:
` ROBIN SNADER, ESQ.
` (via Zoom)
` PAUL R. HART, ESQ.
` (via Zoom)
` ERISE IP, P.A.
` 7015 College Boulevard
` Suite 700
` Overland Park, Kansas 66211
` (913) 777-5600
` robin.snader@eriseip.com
` paul.hart@eriseip.com
`
` For the Patent Owner:
`
` ROBERT G. PLUTA, ESQ.
` (via Zoom)
` MAYER, BROWN, LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 701-8641
` rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`Reported By:
`Connie McCarthy, RMR, CRR
`MO CCR #1435
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 4
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 5
`
`Thursday, January 28, 2021 9:05 a.m.
`
` COURT REPORTER: We're on the record.
`
` I'm going to read the stipulation in, and
`
`then I will swear in the witness.
`
` The attorneys participating in this
`
`deposition acknowledge that I am not physically
`
`present in the deposition room and that I will be
`
`reporting this deposition remotely.
`
` They further acknowledge that, in lieu of
`
`an oath administered in person, I will administer the
`
`oath remotely.
`
` The parties and their counsel consent to
`
`this arrangement and waive any objections to this
`
`manner of reporting.
`
` Please indicate your agreement by stating
`
`your name and your agreement on the record.
`
` MR. PLUTA: This is Rob Pluta for Maxell.
`
`I agree.
`
` MR. SNADER: Robin Snader of Apple. I
`
`agree.
`
` COURT REPORTER: Dr. Vojcic, could you
`
`raise your right hand, please?
`
` (Witness sworn)
`
`//
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 5
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 6
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD,
`
` called as a witness by the Petitioner, having
`
` been duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Vojcic. My name is Robin
`
`Snader. Nice to meet you.
`
` A. Good morning, Counsel. Nice to meet you,
`
`too.
`
` Q. Have you been deposed before, Dr. Vojcic?
`
` A. Yes, I have.
`
` Q. About how many times?
`
` A. Probably over 30.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Maybe 40. I don't know. Somewhere in that
`
`range.
`
` Q. Okay. In that case, you're probably
`
`familiar with the ground rules, but I'd like to cover
`
`them just for the record.
`
` First, I'll ask the question, and you'll
`
`respond. You let me finish my question and I'll let
`
`you finish your answer. I'm sure the court reporter
`
`would appreciate it if we didn't talk over each
`
`other, particularly in light of the remote nature of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 6
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 7
`
`this deposition.
`
` I'll be planning to take a break about
`
`every hour or so, but if you need a break before
`
`then, just let me know. The only thing I ask is that
`
`we finish up the question we're on before we take
`
`that break.
`
` Before we jump into the substance, I'd like
`
`to get some naming conventions out of the way. The
`
`patent we're here to talk about today, subject to
`
`this IPR, is U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586. Do you have
`
`a copy of that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. If I just refer to that as the '586 patent,
`
`you'll understand what I'm referring to?
`
` A. I will.
`
` Q. And just for the record, that's
`
`Exhibit 1001 in the IPR proceeding.
`
` Next we're going to discuss United States
`
`patent application Publication No. 2006/0041746 to
`
`Kirkup. Do you have a copy of that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And if I just refer to that as Kirkup,
`
`you'll understand what I'm referring to?
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. And again, for the record, that's
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 7
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Exhibit 1004 in the IPR proceeding.
`
` I'd also like to discuss the declaration
`
`you submitted in this proceeding, Exhibit 2022. Do
`
`you have a copy of that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. And if I refer to that as your
`
`declaration, will you know what I'm referring to?
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. All right. Excellent.
`
` I'd like to start first with your
`
`declaration. Can you turn, please, in your
`
`declaration to Paragraph 69? Just let me know when
`
`you get there.
`
` A. I am there.
`
` Q. You included a chart which you've
`
`characterized as including exemplary citations to the
`
`'586 patent for certain claim limitations. The
`
`limitations 1(f) and also at 16(e), which require
`
`performing -- just say performing short range
`
`wireless communications while both terminals are
`
`locked point to steps 801 and 802 in Figure 8, and
`
`the corresponding description at Column 6, Line 63,
`
`to Column 7, Line 8 in the '586 patent; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 8
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 9
`
`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. Is it correct that steps 801 and 802
`
`provide support for the short range wireless
`
`communications in limitations 1(f) and 16(e)?
`
` A. That is my -- that is my intention, unless
`
`I made a typo.
`
` Q. Let take a look at the '586 patent, in that
`
`case. Let's go to paragraph -- I'm sorry, Column 6,
`
`Line 63, and Column 7, Line 8.
`
` Did you review those sections?
`
` A. Not yet.
`
` Yeah, okay, I did.
`
` Q. I'll repeat my question. Is it correct
`
`that steps 801 and 802 provide support for the short
`
`range wireless communication in limitations 1(f) and
`
`16(e)?
`
` MR. PLUTA: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I definitely -- it's
`
`for wireless -- short range wireless communication,
`
`and it's also referring to embodiment one. So it's
`
`same configuration, not repeating again.
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. Dr. Vojcic, what is the purpose of the
`
`communication performed at steps 801 and 802?
`
` MR. PLUTA: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, it's a long story, but
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 9
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
`it's the -- the idea is to identify the terminals
`
`within the range of short range communication so that
`
`they could eventually -- they could eventually
`
`establish communication and be unlocked for purposes
`
`described in the '586 patent.
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. So to make sure I'm understanding you
`
`correctly, the purpose is to identify an in-range
`
`available device?
`
` A. Device -- or devices, rather.
`
` Q. Or devices. Okay.
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. Does the '586 patent describe any specific
`
`information that's communicated at steps 801 and 802?
`
` A. In just steps 801 or 802?
`
` Q. Any specific information that's
`
`communicated at steps 801 and 802.
`
` A. Doesn't explicitly show how communication
`
`is -- is communicated, but from the step 802, it
`
`implies that some exchange is -- of information is
`
`communicated because it has to determine -- sorry,
`
`sorry, sorry. I was looking at wrong figure. Just a
`
`moment.
`
` Yeah, it has to determine whether the --
`
`whether a mobile terminal in the neighborhood is
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 10
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
`registered. So it implies that some information is
`
`exchanged, and I don't remember exactly embodiment
`
`one how it was described there, where it was
`
`transcribed in more detail.
`
` Q. Okay, let's look at the embodiment of
`
`Figure 1. If you can turn to Column 4 -- yes,
`
`Column 4, Line 1, to Column 4, Line 13.
`
` A. That's Figure 2?
`
` Q. Yes, if you turn back to --
`
` A. Yes, yeah. Yeah.
`
` Yeah, it says that -- searches for mobile
`
`terminal in which the short range wireless
`
`communications are established by receiving the radio
`
`waves. And again, in the next paragraph, the mobile
`
`terminal 1 determines whether there is a mobile
`
`terminal in the neighborhood and it is previously
`
`registered mobile terminal.
`
` So it also -- it's similar, actually,
`
`language as in figure -- as for Figure 8. So which
`
`implies that there was communication already
`
`established and that there was some exchange of
`
`information to determine whether it is registered.
`
` Q. So for steps 801 and 802 and analogous
`
`steps 202 and 203 of Figure 1, which are referenced,
`
`there's no specific information that's described as
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 11
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`being communicated?
`
` A. There is no specific information that shows
`
`that it's being communicated, but it -- it -- it
`
`shows that there was communication for determination
`
`whether these mobile terminals in the range of short
`
`range wireless communication were registered. So
`
`there was some communication.
`
` And also, if you look specifically in this
`
`just last part that you looked, that communication
`
`was established, which, by itself, implies that there
`
`was communication of control messages that could be
`
`used for connection establishment between pairs of
`
`transceivers. You know, that may be different
`
`messages in different file standards, but, you know,
`
`at least a couple of messages involved in actions.
`
` Q. Just general control messages communicated
`
`on an available device, but no specific information?
`
` A. Not to locate. Not to locate. It could --
`
`well, it could determine that they're in the range by
`
`receiving the inputs, right. But since they
`
`established communication, that inherently implies
`
`that that was the exchange of messages.
`
` In addition to this checking of whether
`
`they are registered, which means there is some
`
`exchange of information there.
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 12
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 13
`
`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. Checking who's registered. It happens at
`
`step eight oh --
`
` A. 802, I think.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to switch gears for a
`
`moment, and -- to Kirkup. You can pull that out.
`
`And in particular, I'd like to refer to the sections
`
`in Kirkup that describe Figure 2.
`
` A. Sorry, you were breaking up a little bit.
`
`A section that describes...?
`
` Q. Figure 2. Turn to Paragraph 76 of Kirkup.
`
` A. Oh, just this reminds me. I forgot to
`
`mention, I want to report a typo that I had in my
`
`declaration. And let me see which paragraph it was.
`
`If I may.
`
` Q. Absolutely.
`
` A. Yeah, so it's last line in Paragraph 143.
`
`Instead of unlocked, should read locked.
`
` Q. Okay. Let me go to that.
`
` A. Okay. I am at Paragraph 76.
`
` Q. Okay. So Paragraph 76 -- in Paragraph 76,
`
`Kirkup states that the authentication process
`
`depicted in Figure 2 may begin either at the PC 110
`
`or at the handheld electronic device 120. Is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's what it says, yeah.
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 13
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 14
`
`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. So do you agree that Figure 2 broadly
`
`captures these alternative authentications where the
`
`process begins at either the PC or the handheld
`
`electronic device?
`
` MR. PLUTA: Object to form.
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. I'm sorry, could you answer the question?
`
` A. You are asking whether I agree that the
`
`authentication initiation may begin at either the PC
`
`or handheld device?
`
` Q. My question was whether Figure 2 broadly
`
`captures these alternative embodiments where the
`
`process begins either at the PC or a handheld
`
`electronic device?
`
` MR. PLUTA: Renewing my objection. And can
`
`you guys hear me okay?
`
` THE WITNESS: Now, yes. I didn't hear the
`
`objection.
`
` MR. PLUTA: Okay. I'll speak up.
`
` THE WITNESS: My understanding is that it
`
`generally allows this authentication process to start
`
`at either place, to be initiated at either place.
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. Well, just to clarify, it is method 200 as
`
`depicted in Figure 2?
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 14
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 15
`
`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 didn't understand the question. About
`
`200?
`
` Q. You said it allows the process to begin
`
`either at the PC or the handheld electronic device.
`
`Could you clarify that it is the method 200 that is
`
`depicted at Figure 2?
`
` A. No. I meant authentication initiation is
`
`it. So authentication initiation may begin at either
`
`the HED or the PC.
`
` Q. And is authentication initiation depicted
`
`in Figure 2?
`
` A. Could you speak up? Not speak up, but
`
`speak little bit slower?
`
` Q. Sure. Is authentication initiation part of
`
`Figure 2?
`
` A. Yes, it is.
`
` Q. And so when you say authentication
`
`initiation can begin at the handheld electronic
`
`device or the PC, would you agree that Figure 2
`
`depicts implementations where the handheld electronic
`
`device begins the initiation and where PC begins the
`
`authentication initiation?
`
` A. Either of them could initiate.
`
` Q. In the method of Figure 2?
`
` A. That -- yes.
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 15
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. Thank you.
`
` Turning now to Paragraph 78. Paragraph 78
`
`states that, At step 210, the handheld electronic
`
`device 120, or PC 110, depending on whether the
`
`authentication initiation occurred at the handheld
`
`electronic device 120 or the PC 110.
`
` A. Hold on, hold on. I'm not following. You
`
`said Paragraph 78. Which is this table of, in my
`
`copy, table of Claims 14, 16.
`
` Q. Paragraph 78 of Kirkup?
`
` A. Oh, all right. Yes.
`
` Please. Go ahead, Counsel.
`
` Q. Paragraph 78 states, At step 210, the
`
`handheld electronic device 120, or PC 110, depending
`
`on whether the authentication initiation occurred at
`
`the handheld electronic device 120 or PC 110 checks
`
`whether communication link 115 has been established.
`
` Is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Do you agree that Figure 2 captures at
`
`least two alternative implementations, one in which
`
`the PC performs the check and second in which the
`
`handheld electronic device performs the check?
`
` A. That's not explicitly -- that's not
`
`explicitly stated in this Paragraph 78, but it's
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 16
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 17
`
`possible.
`
` Q. So Figure 2 does cover an embodiment where
`
`the PC performs the check?
`
` A. That's possible.
`
` Q. And Figure 2 captures an implementation
`
`where the handheld electronic device performs the
`
`check?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I'd just say that's possible.
`
` Q. Continuing in Paragraph 78 of Kirkup,
`
`Kirkup explains that the authorization input may
`
`either be a coded or uncoded, and then gives examples
`
`of that. Do you agree that Kirkup covers an
`
`implementation -- sorry. Withdraw that question.
`
` Do you agree that Figure 2 depicts an
`
`implementation where the authorization input at
`
`step 220 is a coded input and an implementation where
`
`the authorization input at step 220 is an uncoded
`
`input?
`
` MR. PLUTA: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: It's too long question. I
`
`couldn't really follow.
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. Kirkup says the authorization input may
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 17
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 18
`
`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 be coded or uncoded; is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Does Figure 2 depict an implementation in
`
`which the authorization input is coded?
`
` A. Yeah, that's allowed by Paragraph 79.
`
` Q. And does Paragraph 79 cover an
`
`implementation -- does Figure 2 cover an
`
`implementation in which the authorization input is
`
`uncoded?
`
` A. It does, yes.
`
` Q. Please go to Paragraph 83 of Kirkup.
`
` A. 83?
`
` Q. Eight three.
`
` A. I am there.
`
` Q. Kirkup states, Authentication method 200
`
`may alternatively be performed so as to check the
`
`establishment of the communication link 115 after the
`
`authorization input has been requested and validated,
`
`and gives steps 220, 225, but before accessing user
`
`authentication code at step 230.
`
` Is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So that would change the order in which the
`
`steps are performed? Would it change the order
`
`moving step 210 in the flow chart down below step
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 18
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
`225?
`
` A. Well, I am not sure if it would go below
`
`225, but certainly after -- after the authorization
`
`input. I mean, it's not -- it's not specific, where
`
`exactly. The check could happen before authorization
`
`input is valid or after input authorization is valid.
`
`But certainly saying after authorization input,
`
`right.
`
` Q. Okay. So Figure 2 covers an implementation
`
`in which the step 210 occurs after step 225, and the
`
`implementation in which step 210 occurs after
`
`step 220 but before step 225? Is that what you're
`
`saying?
`
` A. Just a moment. Just so I can look at it
`
`more carefully.
`
` Actually, does say in parenthesis, after
`
`225, so you're -- you're incorrect in your first
`
`question.
`
` Q. So just to clean up the record there,
`
`Figure 2 contemplates an implementation in which the
`
`order of steps is completely changed so that step 210
`
`moves down the flow chart below step 225; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Turning to Paragraph 120 in your
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 19
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`declaration.
`
` A. I am there.
`
` Q. You cite Paragraph 82 of Kirkup and you
`
`say, Kirkup also teaches a configuration when the
`
`second-level function authorization input is not
`
`required.
`
` Is that correct?
`
` A. That's what I said.
`
` Q. And then in Paragraph 122 of your
`
`declaration, you have an illustration of Figure 2
`
`that's annotated in accordance with this disclosure
`
`at Paragraph 82 of Kirkup; is that correct?
`
` A. That's -- that was the intent.
`
` Q. So in the figure, annotated Figure 2 that
`
`occurs at Paragraph 122 of your declaration, you
`
`assume that the handheld electronic device is
`
`unlocked, and assume that the handheld electronic
`
`device does not require a second-level authorization
`
`input; is that correct?
`
` A. That's -- that's correct. But that was
`
`sort of hypothetical scenario that it's unlocked
`
`because I explained in multiple places, including
`
`previous, you know, several paragraphs, that it's my
`
`understanding that in Kirkup, in Figure 2, when it's
`
`applied to wireless for sure, and in some other
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 20
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 21
`
`embodiments too, it's locked. Then Figure 2 starts.
`
` Q. Is it your opinion that Figure 2
`
`contemplates a scenario where a handheld electronic
`
`device is unlocked, when Figure -- when the
`
`authentication method at Figure 2 begins?
`
` A. No. No. My understanding is that it's
`
`locked. And here what I was trying to -- I forgot
`
`exactly what I was saying, but I was sort of trying
`
`to say even if it is unlocked, as Dr. Shoup was
`
`trying to suggest, you know, what would happen in
`
`that case? And I forgot exactly now the discussion,
`
`but -- that was here, but I believe there was some
`
`still deficiencies.
`
` Q. Turning back to Paragraph 120 of your
`
`declaration.
`
` A. Sorry, 2020?
`
` Q. Paragraph 120.
`
` A. 120. I'm there.
`
` Q. You say, Kirkup teaches a configuration
`
`when the second-level function of the authorization
`
`input is not required.
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And looking at the annotation of Figure 2
`
`that occurs directly above Paragraph 120 -- I guess
`
`that's part of Paragraph 118 -- you have an
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 21
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
`annotation that says, handheld electronic device is
`
`already unlocked when the authentication process
`
`begins; is that correct?
`
` A. I don't see that. You said Paragraph 118?
`
` Q. The annotation of Figure 2 that occurs
`
`directly above Paragraph 120 on Page 59.
`
` A. I am not following. So I'm -- you are
`
`sending me to which paragraph?
`
` Q. Can you turn to Page 59 of Exhibit 2022?
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. Do you see the figure at the top of that
`
`page, the annotated version of Figure 2?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. I think I may see the problem. Can you
`
`turn -- do you have the Page 59 that says Page 59 of
`
`106 at the bottom right-hand corner?
`
` A. Page 59 says Page 62 of 106.
`
` Q. Can you turn back to -- three pages to the
`
`one that says Page 59 of 106?
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. Do you see the annotated version of
`
`Figure 2 at the top of that page?
`
` A. Yes. Yes, I do. Above the Paragraph 120?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Okay.
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 22
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 23
`
`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. So the annotation there says, Handheld
`
`electronic device is already unlocked when the
`
`authentication process begins; is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So turning to Paragraph 122, where we were
`
`before, the previous annotated version?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. The same annotation appears there; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. Oh, yeah. I misread. So it says unlocked.
`
` Okay, so my previous comment for
`
`hypothetical scenario was for locked. Yeah, I
`
`misread. Yeah, it's -- it's same -- it's same
`
`annotation, I agree, for the unlocked case.
`
` Q. So for the annotated Figure 2 that occurs
`
`in Paragraph 122, you assume that the handheld
`
`electronic device is unlocked and assume that the
`
`handheld electronic device does not require a
`
`second-level authentication input; is that correct?
`
` A. That's -- that's one of the embodiments
`
`that's -- these are two different aspects: Unlocked
`
`and that doesn't require authentication input.
`
`That's sort of different issue.
`
` Q. And --
`
` A. Because unlocked could work with multiple
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 23
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`embodiments.
`
` Q. So when the particular embodiment that you
`
`depict in the annotated version of Figure 2 that
`
`occurs at Paragraph 122, that implementation does
`
`away with steps 220, 223, and 225 entirely; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So based on the paragraphs we've discussed,
`
`would you agree that the method 200 depicted by
`
`Figure 2 is not limited to a single specific process,
`
`but rather catches multiple alternative
`
`implementations?
`
` MR. PLUTA: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's possible. It's
`
`possible that the process of Figure 2 could capture
`
`some of other embodiments, or multiple embodiments.
`
`But not all.
`
`BY MR. SNADER:
`
` Q. Captures the embodiments we've discussed
`
`previously?
`
` A. You mean that authorization is acquired or
`
`authorization is not acquired? Is that what you
`
`mean? We discussed previously? If that's what you
`
`meant -- if that's what you meant, yes.
`
` Q. And also it covers implementations in which
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 24
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the authorization input is validated after accessing
`
`the user authentication code and before accessing the
`
`user authentication code?
`
` A. I have to think about that. Probably so.
`
` Q. Turning back to your --
`
` A. Yeah, that would be variant of -- that
`
`would be a variant of alternative to the figure above
`
`Paragraph 120.
`
` Q. Okay. Turning to Paragraph 114 of your
`
`declaration, one one four.
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. Starting at this paragraph, you describe
`
`two different implementations in Kirkup that you
`
`refer to as Scenario 1 and Scenario 2; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And in Paragraph 114, you note that,
`
`Scenario 1 in Kirkup occurs when the handheld
`
`electronic device is already unlocked when the
`
`authenticating process for a user of PC 110 commences
`
`as described in Figure 2
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Is it correct that your description of
`
`Scenario 1 assumes an unlocked handheld electronic
`
`device when the Figure 2 method begins?
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 25
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 26
`
` A. That's correct. That's my understanding,
`
`actually, how this works for multiple embodiments,
`
`and in particular in the wireless environment.
`
` Q. Okay. And it is your opinion that
`
`Scenario 1 cannot satisfy the three claim conditions
`
`that are required in Claims 1, 9 and 16 of the '586
`
`patent, at least because the handheld electronic
`
`device is unlocked when the Figure 2 method begins?
`
`Is that correct?
`
` A. Did you say doesn't satisfy those
`
`scenarios?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Not satisfy.
`
` Q. Does not satisfy.
`
` A. That's correct. That's my understanding.
`
` Q. Turning to Paragraph 126 of your
`
`declaration.
`
` A. I am there.
`
` Q. At Paragraph 126, you note that, Scenario 2
`
`in Kirkup occurs when the handheld electronic device,
`
`while still in the locked state, transmits the
`
`authentication code for the locked PC 110; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. So Scenario 2 differs from Scenario 1 in
`
`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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1060 Page 26
`
`
`
` BRANIMIR VOJCIC, PhD 1/28/2021
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
`that the handheld electronic device is locked when it
`
`transmits the authentication code to the PC; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. Just a moment.
`
` I would like you please to repeat the
`
`question.
`
` Q. Scenario 2 differs from Scenario 1 in that
`
`the handheld electronic device is locked when it
`
`transmits the authentication code to the PC; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's one -- yeah, that's one possible
`
`scenario that I assumed in this paragraph.
`
` Q. Turning to Paragraph 128 of your
`
`declaration.
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. You quote from Paragraph 57 from Kirkup and
`
`you conclude that it can be read in one of two ways;
`
`is that correct?
`
` A. That's what I said.
`
` Q. At Paragraph 129 of your declaration, you
`
`describe the first way that this paragraph can be
`
`interpreted, and you characterize it as describing
`
`the scenario in which a handheld electronic device is
`
`already unlocked before the communication link is
`
`established as a part of the auth