UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`)
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,)
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`)
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`) )
`
`PETITIONERS, )
`)
`VS. ) IPR2020-00515
`) (PATENT NO.
`NEODRON LTD., ) 9,024,790)
`)
`PATENT OWNER. )
`______________________________)
`)
`DELL INC.; DELL PRODUCTS LP; )
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.; )
`AND HP INC.,
`)
`)
`PETITIONERS, )
`)
`VS. ) IPR2020-00731
`) (PATENT NO.
`NEODRON LTD., ) 9,024,790)
`)
`PATENT OWNER. )
`______________________________)
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`REMOTE PROCEEDINGS OF DEPOSITION OF
`BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D.
`THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
`
`JOB NO. CA 4262123
`REPORTED BY: REAGAN EVANS, RPR, RMR, CRR, CCRR,
`CLR, CRC, CA CSR NO. 8176
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`

`

`1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (CONTINUED):
`
`2 3
`
`FOR CO-PETITIONER HP IN IPR2020-00731:
`4 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`5 BY: ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
`6 (APPEARING REMOTELY)
`7 401 B STREET, SUITE 1700
`8 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
`9 (619) 699-2820
`10 ROBERT.WILLIAMS@US.DLAPIPER.COM
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D., TAKEN
`
`2 REMOTELY ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER AT
`
`3 11:03 A.M. (EST), THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2020, AT
`
`4 PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, BEFORE REAGAN EVANS, CA
`
`5 CSR NO. 8176, RPR, RMR, CRR, CCRR, CLR, CRC.
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`6 7
`
`8 FOR PETITIONER SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AND
`
`9 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.:
`
`10 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`11 BY: BRIAN M. COOK, ESQ.
`
`12 (APPEARING REMOTELY)
`
`13 BY: JOHN KAPPOS, ESQ.
`
`14 (APPEARING REMOTELY)
`
`15 400 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 18TH FLOOR
`
`16 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
`
`17 (213) 430-6000
`
`18 BCOOK@OMM.COM
`
`19 JKAPPOS@OMM.COM
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (CONTINUED):
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
`4 BENJAMIN B. BY MR. COOK 7
`5 BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`10 NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION
`11 EXHIBIT 1001 25 UNITED STATES PATENT, PATENT
`12 NO. US 9,024,790, PHILIPP,
`13 DATED MAY 5, 2015, BATES
`14 STAMPED PETITIONER SAMSUNG
`15 EX-1001, 0001 THROUGH 0014
`16
`17 EXHIBIT 1002 26 DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B.
`18 BEDERSON IN SUPPORT OF
`19 PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`20 REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`21 9,024,790, BATES STAMPED
`22 PETITIONER SAMSUNG EX-1002,
`23 0001 THROUGH 0088
`24
`25
`
`Page 5
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`2 3
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`4 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`5 BY: C. JAY CHUNG, ESQ.
`6 (APPEARING REMOTELY)
`7 12424 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 12TH FLOOR
`8 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025
`9 (310) 826-7474
`10 JCHUNG@RAKLAW.COM
`11
`12 FOR PETITIONERS DELL INC.; AND DELL PRODUCTS LP;
`13 LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC; AND HP INC.:
`14 ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`15 BY: LAUREN C. BOLCAR, ESQ.
`16 (APPEARING REMOTELY)
`17 950 F STREET, NW
`18 WASHINGTON, DC 20004
`19 (202) 239-3114
`20 LAUREN.BOLCAR@ALSTON.COM
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`

`1 Massachusetts 01270.
`2 BY MR. CHUNG:
`3 Q Is there any reason why you can't provide
`4 your best testimony today?
`5 A No.
`6 Q What did you do in preparation for today's
`7 deposition?
`8 A I reviewed documents and talked to counsel.
`9 Q And what documents did you review?
`10 A I think primarily it was my declaration and
`11 the documents that I reviewed in the declaration.
`12 Q Is your --
`13 A Sorry.
`14 Q Sorry. Go ahead.
`15 A I think I also reviewed one additional
`16 document, which is the Claim Construction Decision
`17 from ITC -- related ITC case.
`18 Q And do you remember which ITC case?
`19 A I don't remember the number of the case
`20 offhand.
`21 THE REPORTER: I'm hearing a lot of
`22 background noise, maybe a computer or something.
`23 That does have an effect on the words.
`24 Thank you.
`25 ///
`
`1 I N D E X (CONTINUED)
`2 E X H I B I T S
`
`3 4
`
`NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION
`5 EXHIBIT 1005 26 UNITED STATES PATENT, PATENT
`6 NO. 5,525,980, JAHIER ET AL.,
`7 DATED JUNE 11, 1996, BATES
`8 STAMPED PETITIONER SAMSUNG
`9 EX-1005, 0001 THROUGH 0009
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 BY MR. CHUNG:
`2 Q So this IPR is about the '790 Patent;
`3 right?
`4 A My declaration is in support of the
`5 Petition for the IPR U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790.
`6 Q And I'm sorry. Are you reading from
`7 something?
`8 A Yes. I have a copy -- a printed copy of my
`9 declaration with me, along with the documents that I
`10 cited in that declaration.
`11 Q The exhibits to the IPR petition, is that
`12 what you have?
`13 A Correct.
`14 Q Anything else that you have?
`15 A I believe I have that printed claim
`16 construction that I mentioned.
`17 Q Okay.
`18 And can you tell which -- what the case
`19 number is for that?
`20 A Okay.
`21 If I'm remembering it correctly. I thought
`22 I had it. We'll see.
`23 Oh, you know, I guess this is a -- I'm
`24 remembering the timing. I believe this claim
`25 construction was cited in my declaration. So it is
`Page 9
`
`1 PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
`2 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2020; 11:03 A.M. (EST)
`
`3 4
`
` THE REPORTER: Do all counsel agree that I
`5 may swear the witness in remotely?
`6 MR. CHUNG: Agreed.
`7 THE REPORTER: You're on mute, Mr. Cook, or
`8 at least I didn't hear you.
`9 MR. COOK: I'm sorry.
`10 I agree. Yes.
`11
`12 BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, PH.D.,
`13 having been first duly sworn by the reporter, was
`14 examined and testified as follows:
`15
`16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
`17 THE REPORTER: Yes.
`18
`19 EXAMINATION
`20 BY MR. COOK:
`21 Q Good morning, Mr. Bederson.
`22 Can you state your name and address for the
`23 record, please.
`24 A Yes. I'm Benjamin B. Bederson. My home
`25 address is 254 Laflash Road, Windsor,
`
`Page 7
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`

`1 an exhibit. It's ITC Case 337TA1162.
`2 Q Okay.
`3 So other than -- other than the -- your
`4 declaration and the exhibits to the IPR petition in
`5 this case, do you have any other materials in front
`6 of you right now?
`7 A Yes. So I also have the institution
`8 decision for this IPR.
`9 I also have another petition for the
`10 '790 Patent, which was Case IPR 2020-731, with
`11 Petitioners Dell -- well, related Dell companies,
`12 Lenovo, and HP.
`13 And the institution decision for that
`14 petition.
`15 Q Anything else?
`16 A No. I believe that's it.
`17 Q Okay.
`18 So '790 Patent, all the independent claims,
`19 they recite something called Bias, right? Bias in
`20 favor of the first --
`21 THE REPORTER: Of the first what?
`22 MR. CHUNG: First key, k-e-y.
`23 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`24 THE WITNESS: I'm reviewing the
`25 '790 Patent, to be clear, that's the -- I'll call it
`
`Page 10
`
`1 the '790 Patent, the one that I had mentioned which
`2 is U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790.
`3 The first independent claim is Claim No. 1.
`4 And the last limitation is (as read and/or
`5 reflected:)
`6 Analyze to determine a second
`7 active key respective signal values
`8 of the plurality of keys, the
`9 analysis to determine the second
`10 active key of the respective second
`11 signal valve used of the plurality
`12 of keys being biased in favor of
`13 the first key.
`14 So that claim uses the term "biased in
`15 favor of the first key."
`16 BY MR. CHUNG:
`17 Q So what does "bias" mean in the context of
`18 the '790 Patent?
`19 A So this is a term that was -- sorry.
`20 The word "bias" is part of a term that was
`21 construed in the claim construction order in the
`22 parallel 1162 ITC investigation that I mentioned.
`23 And I applied that construction in my
`24 analysis. And I described that construction in my
`25 declaration in paragraph 60 where the construction
`Page 11
`
`1 is -- well, the construction of the -- the whole
`2 thing that is being construed is analyze, analyzing
`3 to determine a second active key respective second
`4 signal values of the plurality of keys, the analysis
`5 to determine second active key of the respective
`6 second signal values of the plurality of keys being
`7 biased in favor of the first key.
`8 And I interpret this term based on that
`9 court's construction to mean analyze, analyzing to
`10 determine a second active key respective second
`11 signal values of the plurality of keys, the analysis
`12 to determine the second active key of the respective
`13 second signal values of the plurality of keys being
`14 biased or skewed in favor of, but not locked to the
`15 previously determined first active key.
`16 Q Right.
`17 So the construction itself has the word
`18 "bias"; right? Biased or skewed in favor of.
`19 So my question is what does "bias" mean in
`20 the context of '790 Patent, including the
`21 construction that you just stated?
`22 A Well, obviously I did not specifically
`23 construe the word "bias." The court did not. I
`24 don't have a definition for you.
`25 But my opinion describes my analysis of the
`Page 12
`
`1 claim limitation that used the word "bias."
`2 And so in that analysis, I explain how I
`3 understand that term and how the art that I looked
`4 at includes that whole -- discloses that limitation,
`5 including the use of -- including the use of bias.
`6 Q So you don't have a further explanation
`7 about what the word "bias" means in the context of
`8 the '790 Patent?
`9 MR. COOK: Objection. Form.
`10 THE WITNESS: Well, I do summarize some of
`11 my opinion about bias in paragraph 90 of my
`12 declaration where I say (as read and/or reflected:)
`13 Thus, the analysis of the
`14 second signal values of the
`15 plurality of keys is biased in
`16 favor of, but not locked to, the
`17 first active key because the first
`18 preselected key remains
`19 preselected, if another key's
`20 signal exceeds it but does not
`21 exceed the high threshold, but the
`22 first preselected key can be
`23 replaced by another key, that other
`24 key's signal exceeds the first by
`25 more than the amount by which the
`
`Page 13
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`

`1 first preselected key is below the
`2 high threshold.
`3 BY MR. CHUNG:
`4 Q Okay.
`5 So, in your opinion, Dr. Bederson, does the
`6 biasing require any comparison between the second
`7 key with the first key -- first, what you call,
`8 first preselected key?
`9 MR. COOK: Object to form.
`10 THE WITNESS: Well, Claim 1 that we've been
`11 talking about, as written, just has a broad
`12 requirement, which is to analyze and determine the
`13 second -- a second active key, respective second
`14 signal values of the plurality of keys, the analysis
`15 to determine the second active key of the respective
`16 second signal values of the plurality of keys being
`17 biased in favor of the first key.
`18 So the claim, as written, really doesn't
`19 give any more detail about how that bias can be
`20 calculated.
`21 I think generally it would involve some
`22 relationship between the second key or the signal
`23 values of the second key and the signal values of
`24 the first key.
`25 But what that specific bias is depends a
`
`1 Q Okay.
`2 So you mentioned Jahier. So -- and we also
`3 discussed your declaration paragraph 90, which is
`4 about Jahier.
`5 And my question is: Does Jahier make any
`6 comparison between key signals -- signal values?
`7 In other words, the, what you're calling,
`8 first signal in Jahier and second signal in Jahier,
`9 does Jahier make comparison between those two signal
`10 values?
`11 A So I summarize the relevant part of
`12 Jahier's disclosure in paragraph 89 where I say that
`13 (as read and/or reflected:)
`14 Jahier discloses that during a
`15 subsequent key scanning cycle, once
`16 a first key has been preselected as
`17 the current preselected key I, a
`18 second key may replace the first as
`19 the preselected key if its sensor
`20 value exceeds that of the currently
`21 preselected key by an amount
`22 greater than the amount by which
`23 the sensor signal value of the
`24 currently preselected key is lower
`25 than the high threshold.
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 little bit on the construction.
`2 So I explained my analysis what I called
`3 claim limitation 1[b] that starts (as read and/or
`4 reflected:)
`5 Control logic operatively
`6 coupled to the plurality of keys
`7 and configured to --
`8 I explain my analysis there, but I -- part
`9 of that analysis is that if the board interprets
`10 this control logic limitation to have the means plus
`11 function constructed, adopted in the parallel ITC
`12 proceedings, then I would understand this and the
`13 following limitations of the claim to require the
`14 structure shown in Figure 5a or in Figures 5a and
`15 5b.
`16 And I went on to explain how Jahier
`17 discloses the structure shown in 5a, which is a flow
`18 chart showing logical operations carried out in a
`19 preferred method of the invention when key 1 is
`20 initially active.
`21 BY MR. CHUNG:
`22 Q Let me ask you this.
`23 A I'm sorry.
`24 And that includes a -- an approach to
`25 computing bias.
`
`1 And I go on to include a diagram that I
`2 created that illustrates this where, again, the
`3 second or inactive key is greater than the high
`4 threshold. The first or active key is in between
`5 the low threshold and the high threshold.
`6 And so the inactive key is greater than the
`7 active key by at least delta, what I call delta,
`8 which is the amount that the active key is less than
`9 the high threshold.
`10 So Jahier discloses that the inactive key
`11 exceeds the active key by at least this amount
`12 delta.
`13 Q So are you saying that there -- in Jahier,
`14 there is a comparison of the value for inactive key
`15 compared to the value for active key?
`16 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`17 MR. CHUNG: And for the court reporter,
`18 Jahier is spelled J-a-h-i-e-r.
`19 THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`20 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure exactly what you
`21 mean by the word "comparison," but in my analysis, I
`22 showed very clearly that Jahier discloses a -- an
`23 approach where it determines that the inactive key
`24 is greater than the active key by more than this
`25 amount that I called delta.
`
`Page 15
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`

`1 BY MR. CHUNG:
`2 Q Okay.
`3 So you're referring to your figure that's
`4 on page 53 on your declaration; right?
`5 A That is correct.
`6 Q And this figure on page 53 of your
`7 declaration, that's not something that's directly
`8 from Jahier; right?
`9 That's something you created?
`10 A As I explained, this is a figure that I
`11 created. This is an illustration of Jahier's
`12 disclosure.
`13 Q But the figure is not actually from Jahier;
`14 right?
`15 A I believe I just said I created this figure
`16 as an illustration of Jahier's disclosures.
`17 Q Now, I want to take a look at your
`18 declaration discussing Jahier with respect to
`19 claim 13 of the '790 Patent.
`20 And which starts on page 55 of your
`21 declaration. I want to -- I want to focus your
`22 attention on claim element 13[a], which is
`23 paragraph 97 of your declaration, which says -- in
`24 which you say (as read and/or reflected:)
`25 Jahier discloses and/or
`
`Page 18
`
`1 renders obvious this limitation.
`2 And then you refer to claim element 1[c];
`3 right?
`4 BY MR. CHUNG:
`5 Q I'm sorry.
`6 Did you --
`7 A I'm sorry.
`8 That's right.
`9 Q Okay.
`10 And my question is: So you mentioned the
`11 word "obvious" here, and I just want to know, you
`12 don't disclose any support for obviousness for claim
`13 limitation 13[a] or claim -- claim limitation 1[c];
`14 right?
`15 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`16 THE WITNESS: Well, claim limitation 1[c],
`17 which I described in paragraphs -- sorry, in
`18 paragraph 87, is referred to in my analysis of claim
`19 limitation 1[b] in paragraphs 75 through 86, in
`20 part, because claim limitation 1[b] -- sorry -- my
`21 analysis of claim limitation 1[b] includes the means
`22 plus function analysis where this limitation refers
`23 to the subsequent limitations.
`24 And I believe in claim limitation -- in my
`25 analysis of claim limitation 1[b], I do describe
`
`Page 19
`
`1 some explicit obviousness arguments.
`2 BY MR. CHUNG:
`3 Q Right.
`4 But I'm talking about claim limitation
`5 1[c]. You don't have any obviousness disclosure for
`6 claim limitation 1[c]; right?
`7 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`8 THE WITNESS: Well, as I just said, claim
`9 limitations 1[b] and 1[c] relate to each other. And
`10 1[b] includes the obviousness arguments, which
`11 incorporate claim limitation 1[c].
`12 BY MR. CHUNG:
`13 Q So your opinion is that claim limitation
`14 1[b] incorporates -- or rather claim limitation 1[c]
`15 incorporates claim limitation 1[b]?
`16 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`17 THE WITNESS: I think I said the other way
`18 around, which is that claim limitation 1[b]
`19 references -- well, actually, claim limitations
`20 1[c], 1[d] and 1[e].
`21 And in claim limitation 1[b], I explicitly
`22 describe some obviousness arguments.
`23 BY MR. CHUNG:
`24 Q Okay. Let me ask you this then.
`25 So claim limitation 13[a], do you disclose
`Page 20
`
`1 an obviousness opinion in this declaration for claim
`2 limitation 13[a]?
`3 A Well, in my paragraph 95, which is first
`4 part of my analysis of Claim 13, I say that (as read
`5 and/or reflected:)
`6 Claim 13 includes
`7 substantially the same analyzing
`8 and designing steps I recited in
`9 Claim 1, and I have been informed
`10 that it was not construed as a
`11 means-plus-function term in the
`12 related 1162 ITC investigation.
`13 Thus, it is my opinion that Claim
`14 13 is anticipated or rendered
`15 obvious for the same reasons
`16 discussed above with respect to
`17 Claim 1.
`18 So, again, all of Claim 13 recites to
`19 Claim 1, which does include some obviousness
`20 arguments.
`21 Q That's not my question, Dr. Bederson.
`22 My question is very specific.
`23 Are you ready?
`24 A I'm ready.
`25 Q For claim limitation 13[a], do you disclose
`Page 21
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`

`1 obviousness opinion for claim limitation 13[a]?
`2 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`3 THE WITNESS: I think I've already answered
`4 that, which is that my analysis of claim
`5 limitation 13[a] specifically recites to claim 1[c],
`6 which I've already described its relationship to the
`7 other parts of claim limit -- Claim 1.
`8 And, furthermore, Claim 13[a] is part of my
`9 overall analysis of Claim 13 where I specifically
`10 related it to the anticipation and obviousness
`11 arguments that I made with respect to Claim 1.
`12 BY MR. CHUNG:
`13 Q So is it your opinion that Claim 13
`14 incorporates claim limitations 1[a] and 1[b]? Is
`15 that your opinion?
`16 A I didn't say that Claim 13 incorporates the
`17 claims -- the claim limitations from Claim 1.
`18 I said it is my opinion that Claim 13 is
`19 anticipated or rendered obvious for the same reasons
`20 discussed above with respect to Claim 1.
`21 Q Okay.
`22 I'm going to go back to paragraph 97 of
`23 your declaration.
`24 You refer to claim limitation 1[c] for
`25 Claim 13[a]; right?
`
`1 Claim 1.
`2 BY MR. CHUNG:
`3 Q So you believe there's a relationship
`4 between claim limitation 13[a] and claim
`5 limitation 1[b]? Is that your opinion?
`6 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`7 THE WITNESS: Well, there's a relationship
`8 in my analysis for the reasons that I've described.
`9 BY MR. CHUNG:
`10 Q Okay.
`11 The keys in Jahier include both the touch
`12 sensor and a pressure sensor; right?
`13 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`14 BY MR. CHUNG:
`15 Q And I'll refer you to Figure 1 of Jahier if
`16 you want, as well as Column 1 of Jahier.
`17 A Well, I summarized Jahier in paragraphs 61
`18 through 71 of my declaration. And in paragraph 62,
`19 I explained that (as read and/or reflected:)
`20 The "capacitive tactile
`21 keyboard" disclosed in Jahier has
`22 multiple capacitive sensors and a
`23 pressure sensor.
`24 Q Right.
`25 So all the embodiments in Jahier include
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 A That's right and --
`2 Q And you're not referring to Claim 1[b] in
`3 reference to paragraph 97; right?
`4 A Sorry. I actually got cut off.
`5 I was still responding to your previous
`6 question.
`7 Q All right.
`8 Go ahead.
`9 A I said that's right in paragraph 97, which
`10 is my analysis of claim limitation 13[a], I said
`11 that Jahier discloses and/or renders obvious this
`12 limitation for the reasons I set forth above in
`13 connection with Claim 1[c] incorporated here by
`14 reference.
`15 Q You're not referring to claim
`16 limitation 1[b] in paragraph 97; right?
`17 MR. COOK: Objection to form.
`18 THE WITNESS: Well, in paragraph 97, I just
`19 read it, it clearly, specifically references claim
`20 limitation 1[c], but earlier I described the
`21 relationship between claim limitation 1[c] and 1[b].
`22 And furthermore, I explained how, in
`23 paragraph 95, I described that it is my opinion that
`24 Claim 13 is anticipated or rendered obvious for the
`25 same reasons discussed above with respect to
`
`Page 23
`
`1 both the capacitive touch sensor and the pressure --
`2 pressure-measuring sensor; right?
`3 MR. COOK: I don't mean to interrupt here,
`4 but you just refer to the declaration a lot.
`5 Do you want to mark that as an exhibit so
`6 we have it and the court reporter has it?
`7 MR. CHUNG: Do you want me to introduce the
`8 exhibit?
`9 Is that what you mean?
`10 MR. COOK: Yeah. I think that would be
`11 helpful for the court reporter.
`12 MR. CHUNG: Sure. Sure. I can do that.
`13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Could you repeat
`14 your question?
`15 MR. CHUNG: Just one second, let me just
`16 upload some of the exhibits that we're talking about
`17 so that it's -- for the court reporter.
`18 THE REPORTER: And I can reread the
`19 question when you get ready.
`20 MR. CHUNG: So I uploaded to the exhibit
`21 system what's been premarked. It's already marked
`22 as Exhibit 1001, which is the '790 Patent.
`23 (Whereupon Bederson Exhibit 1001
`24 was marked for identification and
`25 attached hereto.)
`
`Page 25
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`

`1 MR. CHUNG: Exhibit 1002, which is
`2 Dr. Bederson's declaration.
`3 (Whereupon Bederson Exhibit 1002
`4 was marked for identification and
`5 attached hereto.)
`6 MR. CHUNG: And Exhibit 1005, which is the
`7 Jahier reference.
`8 (Whereupon Bederson Exhibit 1005
`9 was marked for identification and
`10 attached hereto.)
`11 BY MR. CHUNG:
`12 Q And my question from before was the
`13 embodiments, all the embodiments in Jahier include
`14 both a capacitive touch sensor as well as a
`15 pressure-measuring device; right?
`16 A I don't recall if Jahier uses the language
`17 "capacitive touch sensor."
`18 I know it describes it as a capacitive
`19 tactile keyboard. And as I explained, Jahier
`20 discloses the -- discloses that capacitance values
`21 are measured from each key on the keyboard.
`22 And agree it also discloses a pressure
`23 sensor.
`24 Q Okay.
`25 So Jahier discloses -- also discloses
`
`1 what it describes as a logic parameter, valid
`2 selection equals selection cross-validation.
`3 Q I see.
`4 In your opinion regarding Jahier with
`5 respect to the '790 Patent, you didn't focus on
`6 selection in Jahier or validation in Jahier; right?
`7 MR. COOK: Objection. Form.
`8 THE WITNESS: Well, as I said, what I was
`9 looking for is to find out whether Jahier discloses
`10 the claims of the '790 Patent. And I found that it
`11 does.
`12 I think I just said that one particularly
`13 relevant part of Jahier is that the preselected key
`14 of Jahier is just like the active key of the '790
`15 Patent. And I've summarized this in paragraph 67 of
`16 my declaration.
`17 But I agree that Jahier also discloses
`18 other things as well.
`19 BY MR. CHUNG:
`20 Q Right. So your opinion is --
`21 A I'm sorry. I'm not done yet.
`22 I think I do consider the pressure sensor,
`23 which is part of the validation elements of Jahier.
`24 And I describe the pressure sensor in some of my
`25 obviousness arguments.
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 preselection selection and validation; right?
`2 A Well, as I explain in my analysis of
`3 Jahier, it discloses a -- it discloses different
`4 states, including a preselection state that, I
`5 believe, is comparable to the active key of the '790
`6 Patent.
`7 Q My question is this, Dr. Bederson:
`8 Jahier -- in addition to preselection, Jahier also
`9 discloses selection and also validation; right?
`10 I can refer you to Column 4 of Jahier, line
`11 15.
`12 A I think that's right. Jahier discloses a
`13 number of things, including the claim limitations of
`14 the '790 Patent for the reasons I explained.
`15 And it also includes a disclosure of
`16 something that it calls selection and validation.
`17 Q In fact, Jahier discloses that on Column 4,
`18 line 15, that a valid selection has to have both a
`19 selection and validation; right?
`20 A As I said, I think what's relevant for my
`21 analysis is whether Jahier discloses the claims of
`22 the '790 Patent. And I explained why it does.
`23 I agree that Jahier also discloses other
`24 things, including the concept of selection and
`25 validation. And I see here in line 15 there is a --
`Page 27
`
`1 BY MR. CHUNG:
`2 Q What are your opinions regarding pressure
`3 sensors in your obviousness analysis with respect to
`4 Claim 13?
`5 MR. COOK: Objection. Form.
`6 THE WITNESS: When I was talking about my
`7 obviousness opinions regarding pressure sensor, I
`8 was actually thinking more about Claims 5, 12 and
`9 18.
`10 But in Claim 13, I also refer to a number
`11 of disclosures of Jahier that describe programming
`12 where -- and programs. And I think I refer to the
`13 pressure sensor because that is one of the places
`14 that Jahier uses the term "program."
`15 BY MR. CHUNG:
`16 Q Okay.
`17 Are you finished, Dr. Bederson?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q So do you have -- do you have an
`20 opinion -- you know, setting aside what you
`21 mentioned about paragraph 96, I believe in your
`22 declaration about pressure, do you have any opinions
`23 disclosed in your declaration about pressure --
`24 pressure sensors or pressure data with respect to
`25 claim element 13[a]?
`
`Page 29
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00515
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`

`1 A So in claim limitation 13[a], which I
`2 believe we've already talked about, I refer to claim
`3 limitation 1[c].
`4 And furthermore, as I already explained, my
`5 opinion in Claim 13 is that it is anticipated or
`6 rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed with
`7 respect to Claim 1.
`8 So I would have to refer to all of Claim 1
`9 to answer that question.
`10 Q Let me ask you this, Dr. Bederson.
`11 So in Jahier, you're pointing only to the
`12 preselection as the determination of a key as a
`13 first active state, not a selection under Jahier;
`14 right?
`15 A Well, my opinion's in my declaration. So
`16 we'll have to look at any specific section of it to
`17 give you my opinion of it.
`18 But as I said, generally, I point to the
`19 preselected key of Jahier as being just like the
`20 active key of the '790 Patent, which I think is
`21 relevant for much of my analysis.
`22 Q Right.
`23 For 13[a], which is about analyzing to
`24 determine a first active key respect the first
`25 signal values of the plurality of keys.
`
`1 Q That's not my question, Dr. Bederson.
`2 My question is this: For the assigned
`3 limitation of the '790 Patent, which is in all the
`4 independent claims, you're pointing to the
`5 preselection in Jahier and not selection in Jahier;
`6 right?
`7 A Well, I was just explaining my analysis of
`8 Jahier. And I think at the moment we're talking
`9 about claim limitation, effectively, 1[d].
`10 And in claim limitation 1[d], I explained
`11 how it works, where you can -- Jahier describes that
`12 a signal from a second key can be greater than the
`13 first key in a way that it is -- well, we'll get to
`14 the bias part -- but where the second key has the
`15 same requirements as the '790 Patent.
`16 But, yes, in this case, I agree that
`17 this -- the part of Jahier that I am talking about
`18 is the preselection -- what Jahier calls the
`19 preselection state.
`20 Q For the next claim limitation, which is
`21 about analyze to determine a second active key, for
`22 that limitation, which is the last limitation in all
`23 the independent claims of the '790, you're also
`24 pointing to preselection in Jahier, not selection;
`25 right?
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 For that limitation, you're pointing to
`2 preselection in Jahier, not selection; right?
`3 A Well, my analysis of claim 13[a], as I
`4 said, refers to my claim -- my analysis of claim
`5 limitation 1[c] in paragraph 87, but I agree that
`6 that analysis primarily points to Jahier's
`7 description of preselection.
`8 Q For the following limitation about
`9 assigning based at least on the respective first
`10 sensor values of the plurality of key, the first key
`11 as the first active key, for that limitation, you're
`12 also pointing to the preselection in Jahier, not
`13 selection; right?
`14 A Well, as I explain in these sections,
`15 Jahier discloses the ability to, in their language,
`16 preselect a key, and then if another key has a
`17 value, which is greater than the first value -- than
`18 the first key's value, as long as the first key is
`19 in between the low threshold and the high threshold
`20 and the second key is greater than the high
`21 threshold, then the preselection can change from the
`22 first key to the second key, which is just like the
`23 '790 Patent's ability to change the active key from
`24 one key to another key, based on its values and
`25 including there being a bias.
`
`Page 31
`
`1 A First o