UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`
` LTD.; and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`
` AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
` NEODRON LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` ____________________________/
`
`No. IPR 2020-00267
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
`'173 Patent
`
`Remote Zoom Proceedings
`
`Pittsfield, Massachusetts
`
`Tuesday, August 25, 2020
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
` Job No. 4212727
`
`24
`
` REPORTED BY:
`
` LESLIE ROCKWOOD ROSAS, RPR, CSR 3462
`
`25
`
` Pages 1 - 88
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 1 of 108
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`
` LTD.; and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`
` AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
` NEODRON LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` ____________________________/
`
`No. IPR 2020-00267
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
`'173 Patent
`
`Remote Zoom Proceedings
`
`Pittsfield, Massachusetts
`
`Tuesday, August 25, 2020
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
` Job No. 4212727
`
`24
`
` REPORTED BY:
`
` LESLIE ROCKWOOD ROSAS, RPR, CSR 3462
`
`25
`
` Pages 1 - 88
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 1 of 108
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`
` LTD.; and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`
` AMERICA, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. No. IPR 2020-00267
`
` NEODRON LTD.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ____________________________/
`
` Videotaped deposition of BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON,
`
`PH.D., taken on behalf of the Respondent, Remote Zoom
`
`Proceeding, at Pittsfield, Massachusetts, beginning at
`
`1:04 p.m. and ending at 4:34 p.m., on Tuesday,
`
`August 25, 2020, before Leslie Rockwood Rosas, RPR,
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 3462.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 2 of 108
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` O'MELVENY & MYERS
`
` BY: MARC J. PENSABENE, ESQ.
`
` Times Square Tower
`
` 7 Times Square
`
` New York, New York 10036
`
` 212.326.2070
`
` mpensabene@omm.com
`
` BY: KEVIN MURRAY, ESQ.
`
` 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`
` Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`
` 213.430.6226
`
` kmurray@omm.com
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS LENOVO AND MOTOROLA:
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
` BY: ALIZA GEORGE CARRANO, ESQ.
`
` 901 New York Avenue, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
` 202.408.4148
`
` aliza.carrano@finnegan.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 3 of 108
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S ( C o n t i n u e d ) :
`
`F O R H E W L E T T - P A C K A R D :
`
` D L A P I P E R
`
` B Y : B R I A N K . E R I C K S O N , E S Q .
`
` 4 0 1 C o n g r e s s A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 5 0 0
`
` A u s t i n , T e x a s 7 8 7 0 1 - 3 7 9 9
`
` 5 1 2 . 4 2 6 . 6 3 1 6
`
` b r i a n . e r i c k s o n @ d l a p i p e r . c o m
`
`F O R T H E P A T E N T O W N E R :
`
` R U S S A U G U S T & K A B A T
`
` B Y : C H R I S T I A N W . C O N K L E , E S Q .
`
` 1 2 4 2 4 W i l s h i r e B o u l e v a r d , 1 2 t h F l o o r
`
` L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 0 2 5
`
` 3 1 0 . 8 2 6 . 7 4 7 4
`
` c c o n k l e @ r a k l a w . c o m
`
`A l s o P r e s e n t : D a v i d W a l c k , V i d e o g r a p h e r
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 4 of 108
`
`
`
` I N D E X
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2020
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`
`BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
` BY MR. CONKLE 9
`
` QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
`
` (NONE)
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 5 of 108
`
`
`
` DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
`
` BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173 B2, 9
`
` 4/30/13
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Dr. Benjamin 9
`
` B. Bederson in Support of
`
` Petition For Inter Partes
`
` Review of U.S. Patent
`
` 8,432,173
`
`Exhibit 1003 Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson 10
`
` curriculum vitae
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent Application No. 10
`
` US 2004/0252109 A1, 12/16/04
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,229,456 B1, 10
`
` 05/08/01
`
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,559,301, 10
`
` 09/24/96
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 6 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
` Pittsfield, Massachusetts; Tuesday, August 25, 2020
`
` 1:04 p.m.
`
` --oOo--
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are going 01:04:27
`
`on the record -- good afternoon. We are going on the
`
`record at 1:04 p.m. on August the 25th, 2020.
`
` Please note that the microphones are sensitive
`
`and may pick up whispering, private conversations, and
`
`cellular interference. 01:04:44
`
` Please turn off all cell phones or place them
`
`away from the microphones, as they can interfere with the
`
`deposition audio.
`
` Audio and video recording will continue to take
`
`place unless all parties agree to go off the record. 01:04:54
`
` This is Media Unit 1 of the video-recorded
`
`deposition of Benjamin Bederson, taken by counsel for the
`
`Respondent in the matter of Samsung Electronics Company
`
`LTD., et al., versus Neodron LTD., filed in the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent 01:05:12
`
`Trial and Appeals Board, Petition Number IPR 2020-00267.
`
` This deposition is being held through Veritext
`
`Virtual. The witness is located in Pittsfield,
`
`Massachusetts.
`
` My name is David Walck, and I'm the 01:05:32
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 7 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`videographer. The court reporter is Leslie Rockwood
`
`Rosas, and we are from the firm Veritext Legal Solutions.
`
` I'm not related to any party in this action, nor
`
`am I financially interested in the outcome.
`
` Counsel and all present will now state their 01:05:49
`
`appearances and affiliations for the record. If there
`
`are any objections to proceeding, please state them at
`
`the time of your appearance, beginning with the noticing
`
`attorney.
`
` MR. CONKLE: Christian Conkle of Russ August & 01:05:59
`
`Kabat for patent owner.
`
` MR. PENSABENE: Marc Pensabene and Kevin Murray
`
`of O'Melveny & Myers for the petitioners.
`
` MS. CARRANO: Aliza Carrano from the law firm of
`
`Finnegan, Henderson on behalf of petitioners Lenovo and 01:06:13
`
`Motorola.
`
` MR. ERICKSON: Brian Erickson with DLA Piper on
`
`behalf of Hewlett-Packard.
`
` THE REPORTER: This is the court reporter.
`
` Dr. Bederson, would you please raise your right
`
`hand. Thank you.
`
` You do solemnly state that the evidence you
`
`shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole
`
`truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes. 01:06:40
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 8
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 8 of 108
`
`
`
`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 REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
`
` You may proceed.
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: Good afternoon, Mr. Bederson. 01:06:48
`
` A. Good afternoon.
`
` Q. Is there any reason that you can't give your
`
`best testimony today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to start by talking about claim 01:06:58
`
`construction. Oh, sorry.
`
` I'll introduce Exhibits 1001 through 1003 and
`
`1005 through 1007. Those have all been uploaded to the
`
`online Exhibit Share.
`
` And Dr. Bederson, do you have access to all of 01:07:21
`
`those either online or on -- in paper?
`
` A. Both ways. I've downloaded the exhibits you
`
`shared electronically, and I also brought my own paper
`
`copies and unmarked -- unmarked paper copies.
`
` (Exhibit 1001, U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173 B2, 01:07:36
`
` 4/30/13, marked for identification.)
`
` (Exhibit 1002, Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B.
`
` Bederson in Support of Petition For Inter Partes
`
` Review of U.S. Patent 8,432,173, marked for
`
` identification.) 01:07:41
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 9 of 108
`
`
`
`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 1003, Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
` curriculum vitae, marked for identification.)
`
` (Exhibit 1005, U.S. Patent Application No. US
`
` 2004/0252109 A1, 12/16/04, marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` (Exhibit 1006, U.S. Patent No. 6,229,456 B1,
`
` 05/08/01, marked for identification.)
`
` (Exhibit 1007, U.S. Patent No. 5,559,301,
`
` 09/24/96, marked for identification.)
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: Okay, that's great. Whatever is 01:07:43
`
`most convenient for you.
`
` So as I was about to say, I'd like to begin
`
`with -- with discussing claim construction.
`
` What -- did you begin -- in forming your
`
`opinions regarding the -- the '173 patent, what claim 01:08:04
`
`constructions did you apply, if any?
`
` A. In my declaration, starting at paragraph 54, I
`
`described the -- described what my -- how I approached
`
`claim construction and my analysis. And as I said in
`
`that paragraph 54, quote: "I do not believe that any 01:08:46
`
`explicit claim construction is required to resolve the
`
`validity issues in this petition."
`
` I then went on to also recognize that there is a
`
`ITC investigation involving this patent, where in that
`
`venue, there were some constructions issued, and I 01:09:09
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 10
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 10 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`explained that I identified some of those constructions
`
`below as potentially relevant.
`
` So I was aware of those constructions, but I
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of all of the
`
`terms in the claims as a person of ordinary skill at the 01:09:26
`
`time of the patent would have understood them.
`
` Q. Would -- so understanding that in forming your
`
`opinions, you -- you did apply the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, would applying the explicit constructions
`
`from -- that you quoted from the ITC investigation change 01:09:46
`
`your -- any of your opinions in any way?
`
` A. As I said, I was aware of those constructions,
`
`and I did not see any of those constructions that were
`
`inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, but I
`
`did not particularly analyze them to see, you know, how 01:10:12
`
`the scope might have changed, but I -- compared to the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, but I did not see any
`
`inconsistencies.
`
` So I guess the direct answer to your question is
`
`there was nothing in those constructions that I think -- 01:10:26
`
`that I can think of that would have changed my opinion.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
`
` Would you turn to paragraph 33 of your
`
`declaration. So that's page 25 of Exhibit 1002. And
`
`just for -- for future reference, I will try to always 01:11:03
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 11
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 11 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`use the Bates Number -- the Bates-Stamped pagination on
`
`the bottom, not -- on the very bottom, not the -- so in
`
`other words, this particular page is marked both page 19
`
`and page 25. I will try to refer to it as page 25.
`
` Does that make sense? 01:11:24
`
` A. Yes, I will do the same. And I think you asked
`
`me to refer to paragraph 33 on this page 25.
`
` Q. Correct. And you understand that there are --
`
`are three different grounds of invalidity asserted in
`
`this petition; correct? 01:11:36
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. And, you know, you haven't -- so there are three
`
`bullets in claim 33. They're not expressly called out as
`
`ground 1, ground 2, and ground 3, but these three bullets
`
`correspond to each of the three grounds respectively; 01:11:53
`
`correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And as regards ground 1, the only prior
`
`art reference that you rely on for your opinion is the
`
`Trent reference, T-R-E-N-T; correct? 01:12:09
`
` A. That is the only specific prior art reference I
`
`referenced in ground 1, but, of course, I also considered
`
`the knowledge of a person of skill in the art as well.
`
` Q. Okay. But you understand that there's a
`
`difference between a prior art reference and the 01:12:27
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 12
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 12 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`background knowledge of a POSITA, even, you know, as
`
`based on documents; correct?
`
` A. Yes, that's correct. And I was relying on that
`
`prior art reference, Trent, as I said.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you. 01:12:42
`
` A. For ground 1.
`
` Q. And for ground 2, you relied on Trent, and in
`
`addition, a second reference called Engholm,
`
`E-N-G-H-O-L-M; correct?
`
` A. So for ground 2, I relied on the prior art 01:12:58
`
`references, Trent and Engholm, as you said. And as I
`
`said in this bullet ended -- further in light of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA.
`
` Q. Okay. And again, just -- just informally
`
`speaking, Trent and Engholm are the only prior art 01:13:13
`
`references per se that you relied on for ground 2;
`
`correct?
`
` A. As I just said, Trent and Engholm are the prior
`
`art references I relied on for ground 2, but I also
`
`relied on the knowledge of a POSITA. 01:13:27
`
` Q. Okay. Understood.
`
` And for ground 3, the -- you relied on Trent and
`
`Engholm, but this time with a different primary reference
`
`called Bryan, B-R-Y-A-N; is that right?
`
` A. So similarly for the ground 3, I relied on those 01:13:44
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 13
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 13 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`three prior art references -- Bryan, Trent, and
`
`Engholm -- as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
` Q. And do you have an understanding of what the
`
`difference between a primary and a secondary reference is
`
`in the context of obviousness? 01:14:02
`
` MR. PENSABENE: Object to the form of the
`
`question.
`
` THE WITNESS: The legal standards that I applied
`
`regarding obviousness are in a section of my report
`
`titled "Relevant Legal Standards" in paragraphs 22 01:14:48
`
`through 29.
`
` And while I do say in paragraph 27 that I
`
`understand that a prior art reference may be combined
`
`with other references to disclose each element of the
`
`invention, my general understanding is the question is: 01:15:11
`
`Would a person of skill in the art have been motivated to
`
`combine the references with the knowledge of a POSITA in
`
`a way that would have resulted in showing all of the
`
`limitations of the claims, taking into consideration the
`
`various factors that I described such as those in 01:15:45
`
`paragraph 28.
`
` I think the primary reference is sort of a
`
`convenience. It's kind of a starting point. But from an
`
`analysis standpoint, I think I'm free to take into
`
`consideration any aspect from any of the relevant 01:16:04
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 14
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 14 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`references.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: So taking ground 2 as an
`
`example, the statement is that the various claims are
`
`rendered obvious by Trent in view of Engholm.
`
` Is that different from a statement -- a 01:16:34
`
`statement that you didn't make, that they would be
`
`rendered obvious by Engholm in view of Trent?
`
` MR. PENSABENE: I'll object to the form of the
`
`question.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: And again, I'm not asking about 01:16:47
`
`the law; I'm asking about the analysis that you
`
`conducted.
`
` A. Well, as you said in your question, I did not
`
`perform an analysis that I described as being Engholm in
`
`view of Trent. So I don't have any opinions about such a 01:17:02
`
`hypothetical analysis and whether they may or -- may or
`
`may not have been the same as what I did analyze, which
`
`is Trent in view of Engholm.
`
` Q. You spoke a moment ago about the motivation of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to combine 01:17:32
`
`references.
`
` In forming your opinions, what objective did you
`
`assume -- what objective, if any, did you assume that a
`
`POSITA would have in forming a combination?
`
` A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 01:17:58
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 15
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 15 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`"objective," but my analysis is clearly indicated in my
`
`report, where for each ground -- well, for grounds 2 and
`
`3, I specifically described what I considered the
`
`motivations that a person of skill in the art would have
`
`had to combine the relevant prior art. 01:18:22
`
` Q. In -- in performing your motivation analysis,
`
`did you assume that a -- that a POSITA would be trying to
`
`research, develop, design, or test, for example, touch
`
`sensors, human machine interaction interfaces, or graphic
`
`user interfaces? 01:19:11
`
` MR. PENSABENE: I'll object to the form of the
`
`question.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, my -- my motivations are
`
`articulated in the demarcated sections. So I don't think
`
`I can give you a general answer about all of the 01:19:30
`
`motivations that I considered, but I'd be happy to walk
`
`through them with you. Or if you'd like, I could just
`
`look at them to try and answer your question in regards
`
`to a specific motivation to combine that I described.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: Understood. We'll -- we can 01:19:43
`
`discuss that when we get to the grounds 2 and 3.
`
` So let's first -- let's discuss the -- the --
`
`your specific claim analysis for -- in ground 1 for
`
`Trent.
`
` So turning to paragraph 74 of -- of your 01:20:18
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 16
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 16 of 108
`
`
`
`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, the last line of page 51, you say in general
`
`that -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that claims 1, 10,
`
`and 19 are -- I think you said had substance --
`
`substantively identical, but I don't -- it doesn't look
`
`like you actually used that term. So that must be my 01:20:45
`
`insertion.
`
` But these three claims are -- basically with the
`
`exception of the preamble and some formal differences,
`
`claim the same subject matter.
`
` Is that your opinion? 01:20:57
`
` A. Well, what I said in paragraph 74 is that the
`
`claims are drafted in different forms. Claim 1 is a
`
`method claim; claim 10 is a computer-readable medium
`
`practicing the method of claim 1; and claim 19 is an
`
`apparatus that includes a touch screen and a 01:21:18
`
`computer-readable medium of claim 10.
`
` But beyond those differences in form, I said
`
`that there is no meaningful difference between the
`
`independent claims. And I went on to say for those --
`
`that reasons, I would analyze them in a combined fashion. 01:21:34
`
` Q. Okay. So in -- in -- in today's discussion,
`
`I'll generally ask questions regarding claim 1 and -- and
`
`the dependence of claim 1, but we -- well, would you help
`
`me, you know, bring to my attention any issues where
`
`claims 10 and 19 and the associated dependents are, in 01:22:09
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 17 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`fact, different from claim 1?
`
` Sorry, that wasn't a question. Let me -- let me
`
`rephrase that.
`
` Other than the sections of your declaration
`
`specifically parsing out the different -- the different 01:22:39
`
`independent claims, for example, paragraph 75 versus 77,
`
`does anything you say about claim 1 also apply to claims
`
`10 and 19?
`
` A. So aside from the claim limitations that I
`
`addressed in paragraph 75 through 78, I believe my 01:23:07
`
`analysis of the other claim limitations apply equally to
`
`the relevant sec- -- the relevant limitations of claim --
`
`of the corresponding limitations from claims 1, 10, and
`
`19, as indicated in my analysis in the report.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you. And I'm just trying to short 01:23:37
`
`circuit a little bit. So please do speak up down the
`
`road if something comes up where that's not -- where
`
`that's not the case.
`
` So turning to the -- the preamble of claim 1 --
`
`and again, having said all that, understanding that this 01:23:59
`
`is a section that -- that differs between the independent
`
`claims -- Trent is the only prior art reference and also
`
`the only source of evidence document saying whatsoever
`
`the -- that you rely on for the preamble of claim 1; is
`
`that correct? 01:24:21
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 18
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 18 of 108
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` MR. PENSABENE: Object to the form of the
`
`question.
`
` THE WITNESS: For all of ground 1, my opinion is
`
`that the cited claims are rendered obvious by Trent in
`
`light of the knowledge of a POSITA. So the knowledge of 01:24:45
`
`a POSITA is always relevant. But as far as a specific
`
`disclosure for the claim 1 preamble, I relied only on the
`
`disclosure from Trent that I described in paragraph 75.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: In what way is the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA relevant to the preamble of claim 1? 01:25:10
`
` A. I think as I said in my previous answer, I
`
`didn't specifically cite to any knowledge of a POSITA,
`
`but my opinion here for this ground is one of
`
`obviousness. But as I said, the specific disclosure I
`
`presented was only from Trent because I think that was 01:26:24
`
`all that's necessary to show this, since Trent clearly
`
`discloses such a method.
`
` Q. Understood. And of course, there is an element
`
`of absurdity to having this discussion with regards to
`
`this limitation because we are talking about a method 01:26:48
`
`comprising.
`
` Is it your opinion -- well, do you have an
`
`opinion as to whether the preamble of claim 1 is
`
`limiting?
`
` A. No, I don't have any opinion about whether the 01:27:00
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 19 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`preamble to claim 1 is limiting.
`
` Q. Okay. So turning to the preamble of claim --
`
`claim 10. Sorry, I'm now...
`
` Understood. So the preamble of claim 10, which
`
`is, let's see, identical to element B of claim 19. Yeah, 01:27:31
`
`it looks like that's the case. Sorry, that wasn't really
`
`a question; that was me getting caught up on -- on just a
`
`heading here.
`
` Turning to the preamble of claim 10 and
`
`element B of 19 regarding computer-readable 01:28:01
`
`non-transitory storage media, Trent is the only reference
`
`that you rely on to show this limitation; correct?
`
` A. For all of ground 1, as we've already discussed,
`
`Trent is the only specific piece of prior art that I
`
`relied on, but in general, ground 1 -- in ground 1, I 01:28:30
`
`analyzed all of the claims and showed that they are
`
`obvious in light of the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
` In this case, in addition to the Trent
`
`disclosure, I also pointed out that a processor that is
`
`programmed inherently requires a storage medium to store 01:28:50
`
`the --
`
` Q. Okay. So -- so contrasting --
`
` THE REPORTER: Excuse me. To store the what?
`
`To store the?
`
` THE WITNESS: I'll say it again. 01:29:02
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 20
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 20 of 108
`
`
`
`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 processor that is programmed inherently
`
`requires a storage medium to store the program.
`
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: Thank you.
`
` And before we get into that, just to make a 01:29:16
`
`general question. So contrasting paragraphs 77 and 75,
`
`paragraph 77, you refer to, in this case, an inherent
`
`requirement that's relevant to your opinion regarding
`
`Trent. But there's no -- there's no such statement in
`
`paragraph 75. 01:29:44
`
` So it's not your opinion that inherent
`
`disclosure is relevant to the preamble of claim 1; is
`
`that correct?
`
` A. I did not make any explicit inherency arguments
`
`for the preamble of claim 1. 01:30:04
`
` Q. Well, do you have an inherency opinion regarding
`
`claim 1?
`
` MR. PENSABENE: Object to the form of the
`
`question.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: And Sorry. All I mean is you 01:30:22
`
`said you didn't make an explicit inherency argument. Is
`
`there an implicit or is there some other inherency?
`
`That's I-N-H-E-R-E-N-C-Y. Sorry, my spelling is falling
`
`apart.
`
` Is there any inherency argument regarding the 01:30:45
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 21
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 21 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`preamble of claim 1?
`
` A. As I said, I think Trent discloses the preamble
`
`of claim 1 quite clearly itself. But for this and all of
`
`my analysis in ground 1, my opinion is that these
`
`limitations are rendered obvious by Trent in light of the 01:31:07
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. But I did -- certainly did not
`
`write any additional argument here in my analysis
`
`involving inherency.
`
` Q. Okay. And I'm -- all right. We can touch on
`
`that a little bit down the line. 01:31:28
`
` So turning back to the preamble of claim 10, is
`
`it your opinion that Trent discloses -- explicitly
`
`discloses a -- a computer-readable, non-transitory
`
`storage medium?
`
` A. So in paragraph 77, I explained that Trent 01:32:02
`
`discloses that the object position detector includes a
`
`processor programmed to generate an action in response to
`
`motion on a touch sensor. I also explain a trans -- it
`
`says that the present invention can either use its own
`
`resources such as a processor and sensors or share its 01:32:27
`
`resources with another device.
`
` I did not point to any specific disclosure or
`
`explicit disclosure of Trent of a storage medium, but I
`
`did point out that a processor that is programmed
`
`inherently requires a storage medium to store the 01:32:47
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 22 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`program.
`
` And so at least for that reason, Trent discloses
`
`the preamble of claim 10.
`
` Q. What's the basis for your opinion that a
`
`processor that is programmed inherently requires a 01:33:39
`
`storage medium to store the program?
`
` A. Well, based on my entire lifetime of using
`
`programming systems with processors and my understanding
`
`of what a POSITA would know, I don't think there is any
`
`way that a processor can be programmed without involving 01:34:21
`
`a storage medium. And so -- and I've certainly never
`
`seen one.
`
` And based on my understanding of how processors
`
`work, I believe that they would require a storage medium,
`
`and a POSITA would know that. So that is the reason why. 01:34:43
`
` Q. So it's your opinion that all processors
`
`inherently have -- well, is it your opinion that all
`
`processors are inherently associated with a storage
`
`medium?
`
` A. Well, what I said is a processor that is 01:35:10
`
`programmed requires a storage medium.
`
` Q. Right. And would you explain what that -- what
`
`that distinction is?
`
` A. A processor that is programmed has been
`
`instructed to execute certain steps or -- or instructions 01:35:37
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 23
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 23 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`in those programs or those instructions or steps must
`
`come from a storage medium.
`
` Q. But you understand that it -- it's -- it's
`
`possible to also construct a processor that by some
`
`mechanism or the other, for example, by the arrangement 01:36:03
`
`of physical circuits within the processor itself, it is
`
`possible to design a -- a processor that does not require
`
`programming from a storage medium; correct?
`
` A. I'm not aware of any processor that can be
`
`programmed without a storage medium. I don't see how 01:36:29
`
`that could work. In some -- if a processor is executing
`
`instructions, those instructions are coming from some
`
`storage in some form.
`
` Q. Un- -- understood. And thank you for getting us
`
`to the point nicely. 01:36:43
`
` You understand that there are processors that
`
`execute instructions and there are other types of
`
`processors that undertake some sort of operation, but
`
`without recourse to distinct instructions; correct?
`
` MR. PENSABENE: I'll -- I'll object to the form 01:37:09
`
`of the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: My opinion is that a processor
`
`that is programmed requires storage medium. I did not
`
`form an opinion about a processor that is not programmed.
`
`To the extent that's what you're asking about, I did not 01:37:28
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00267
`
`Page 24 of 108
`
`
`
`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
`
`analyze processors that weren't programmed. But for the
`
`reasons I just explained, if a processor has been
`
`programmed, I believe that that programming must come
`
`from some place, and that "some place" would be storage.
`
` Q. BY MR. CONKLE: Okay. Thank you. 01:37:52
`
` Let's turn to -- let's turn to element 1A. And
`
`so 1A, 10A, 19A, and 19C.
`
` And -- and again, we see here that claim 19 is
`
`framed somewhat differently, and what is one limitation
`
`in the other claim is split up into two limitations in 01:38:28
`
`claim 19.
`
` But again, it's your opinion that -- that these
`
`limitations are substantially --
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
