HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`--------------------------------x
` APPLE, INC.,
` IPR2020-00861
`Petitioner,
` IPR2020-00862
`vs.
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`)
`Patent Owner.
`--------------------------------x
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`** HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL **
`
`VIDEOTAPED VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`EXPERT WITNESS
`JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
`
`May 21, 2021
`9:02 a.m. (CST)
`
`Stenographically Remotely Reported By:
`Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`Job No.: 002298
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 1 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`--------------------------------x
` APPLE, INC.,
` IPR2020-00861
`Petitioner,
` IPR2020-00862
`vs.
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`)
`Patent Owner.
`--------------------------------x
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`** HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL **
`
`VIDEOTAPED VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`EXPERT WITNESS
`JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
`
`May 21, 2021
`9:02 a.m. (CST)
`
`Stenographically Remotely Reported By:
`Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`Job No.: 002298
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 1 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 2
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES
`
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
` STEPHANIE SIVINSKI, ESQ.
` HAYNES & BOONE LLP
` 2323 Victory Avenue - Suite 700
` Dallas, Texas 75219
` 214.651.5078
` stephanie.sivinski@haynesboone.com
` -and-
` DAVID O'BRIEN, ESQ.
` HAYNES & BOONE LLP
` 600 Congress Avenue - Suite 1300
` Austin, Texas 78701
` 512.867.8457
` david.obrien@haynesboone.com
`
` PRIYA VISWANATH, ESQ. [a.m. session]
` COOLEY LLP
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
` 650.849.7023
` pviswanath@cooley.com
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 2 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`REMOTE APPEARANCES (cont'd)
`
`Page 3
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` JONATHAN LINK, ESQ.
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard - 12th floor
` Los Angeles, California 90025
` 310.826.7474
` jlink@raklaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`KEVIN CROWLEY, Videographer, TransPerfect
`
`---o0o---
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 3 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`WITNESS: JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`BY MS. SIVINSKI ........................... 6
`BY MR. LINK ............................... 245
`
`MOTIONS TO STRIKE None
`INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER None
`DOCUMENT/INFORMATION REQUESTS None
`
`------------- REFERENCED EXHIBITS ----------------
`
` EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 2001 Declaration of John C. Hart,
` Ph.D., Re: '332
` Declaration of John C. Hart,
` Ph.D., Re: '898
`Exhibit APPL-1001 U.S. Patent 10,356,332
`Exhibit APPL-1001 U.S. Patent 10,230,898
`Exhibit APPL-1005 U.S Patent Application
` Publication US 2012/0026366
` Golan
`Exhibit APPL-1006 U.S. Patent 8,081,206, Martin
`Exhibit APPL-1010 Unexamined Patent Application
` Publication IP-2011-55246,
` Togo
` ---o0o---
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`678
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 4 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN C. HART, Ph.D. - May 21, 2021
` ---------------
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`on the record. Today's date is May 21, 2021. The
`time is 9:02 a.m. Central time.
` This is the video-recorded deposition of
`John C. Hart in the matter of Apple, Incorporated
`versus Corephotonics Limited. This is in the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office, IPR2020-00861.
` This deposition is taking place via web
`videoconference, with all participants attending
`remotely.
` The videographer is Kevin Crowley. The
`court reporter is Mayleen Ahmed.
` Counsel, could you please identify
`yourselves and whom you represent beginning with the
`questioning attorney followed by the reporter
`swearing in the witness.
` Thank you.
` MS. SIVINSKI: Good morning. Stephanie
`Sivinski with Haynes & Boone. I represent Apple.
`And with me today is my colleague David O'Brien also
`with Haynes & Boone, and my colleague Priya Visanath
`from Cooley, and we also represent Apple.
` MR. LINK: Jonathan Link with the law
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 5 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
`firm of Russ, August & Kabat on behalf of the Patent
`Owner, Corephotonics.
` THE REPORTER: I'm going to ask that you
`please raise your right hand.
` Do you solemnly swear under penalty of
`perjury that you are Dr. John C. Hart, and the
`testimony you are about to give in the matter now
`pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
`nothing but the truth?
` THE WITNESS: I do.
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
` MS. SIVINSKI: So, before we get
`started, I wanted to note that this deposition is
`also noticed for IPR 2020-00862. So it will be a
`deposition in two different matters.
` ----------------
` JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` ----------------
` EXAMINATION
`BY MS. SIVINSKI:
` Q. Okay. Good morning, Dr. Hart. It's
`good to see you again.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Okay. So I know that you have given
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 6 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
`testimony in a remote deposition before because we
`met in a remote deposition context.
` Tell me where you are testifying from
`today.
` A. I'm in Champaign, Illinois.
` Q. And is there anyone else in the room
`with you?
` A. No, there is not.
` Q. Okay. And just like the last time we
`met over a remote deposition, can you agree not to
`communicate with others while we're conducting this
`deposition?
` A. Yes, I can agree.
` Q. And do you have access to any notes
`where you're testifying from?
` A. No. I have printed out copies of my two
`declarations, Dr. Durand's two declarations, and all
`of the patents involved.
` Q. Okay. And those are clean copies,
`right?
` A. That's correct. No notes.
` Q. Okay. And just like last time, I loaded
`some documents in the "Chat" feature in Zoom, and I
`know you are able to grab those. And if you need
`any other documents to review while we're proceeding
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 7 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`today, just let me know, and I can add some more to
`the chat.
` Currently in the chat should be copies
`of your declarations in the two IPRs, the two
`patents at issue, and the references I think we'll
`be talking most about today.
` Okay. Any reason you can't give
`truthful or accurate testimony today?
` A. No reason.
` Q. And can you agree to answer pending
`questions before we take a break?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you don't understand a question,
`will you let me know?
` A. Yes, I will.
` Q. Right. So as I mentioned earlier, this
`deposition is for IPR 2020-861 and 862.
` Do you understand that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And I loaded copies of the declarations
`you submitted in both those IPRs into the chat.
` Do you recognize those documents?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Let's start with the Declaration you
`submitted in the 861 IPR.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 8 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` As you sit here today, are there any
`corrections you need to make to that declaration?
` A. I think there's any number of typos and
`grammar issues that probably could be corrected, but
`I did not see anything substantive I would want to
`correct.
` Q. Okay. So, then, same question for the
`86- -- the Declaration you submitted in the 862 IPR.
` Anything that you'd want to correct to
`that Declaration before we get started?
` A. Same answer. Nothing substantive.
` Q. So for the 861 IPR, that covers
`U.S. Patent 10,230,898, right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And have you read the '898 patent?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. And if I refer to it as the "'898
`patent," will you understand what I'm talking about?
` A. Yes, I will.
` Q. Okay. And the 862 IPR covers patent --
`U.S. Patent No. 10,356,332.
` Do you understand that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. And is it okay if I call that
`the "'332 patent"?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 9 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` A. Yes, that's fine.
` Q. And have you read the '332 patent?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Do you understand that the '332 patent
`is a continuation of the '898 patent?
` A. I believe so. Certainly, there are
`similar subject matters, and much of the content of
`the narrative is the same.
` Q. Well, would you agree with me that the
`two patents share specification?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And as you mentioned, there's
`significant overlap between the subject matter of
`the patents. So if your answer -- as we go through
`today, if your answer applies only to one of the
`patents, will you agree to let me know that?
` A. Okay. I can do that.
` Q. What is the earliest priority date that
`you used in your analysis of the '332 and the '898
`patents?
` A. Let's see.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. I believe it's 2015. I'm just seeing if
`I can find...
` (Witness reviewing document.)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 10 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` I'm sorry. June 26, 2016.
` Q. So I'm -- can you take a look at your
`'332 Declaration, paragraph 34.
` Let me know when you're there.
` A. Okay.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` Ah, August 13, 2015.
` Q. Okay. So just to make a clear record,
`I'll ask you the question again now that you looked
`at the paragraph in front of you.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. What is the earliest priority date you
`have used in your analysis of the '332 and the '898
`patents?
` A. So for the '332, it was August 13, 2015.
`And let me just verify that for the '898.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` Yeah, August 13, 2015.
` Q. How much time did you spend on your
`Declaration or your work with respect to the
`861 IPR?
` A. I did --
` MR. LINK: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: Thank you. Sorry.
` A. I did not check my records for that. I
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 11 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`believe it was on the order of 60 hours.
` Q. And how much time did you spend working
`on the 862 IPR?
` A. I worked on them concurrently.
` Q. So the 60 hours would apply to both the
`861 and the 862 IPRs?
` A. Yes. Due to the overlap.
` Q. Did you write your declarations in those
`IPRs?
` A. Yes, I did. I was provided some
`material; for example, the legal terms and
`definitions. And I adapted those. But I wrote the
`opinions. All the opinions on my own.
` Q. Other than Corephotonics' lawyers,
`did you talk to anyone in conducting your work on
`the 861 and 862 IPRs?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. And other than Corephotonics' lawyer,
`did you talk to anyone in preparing for your
`deposition today?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. You have rendered opinions in patent
`cases before, right?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. And you have rendered opinions in patent
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 12 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`cases involving the concept of obviousness before,
`right?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Have you ever opined that a patent was
`obvious?
` A. So in the past I have, you know, been on
`the side -- you know, I've written reports regarding
`invalidity and infringement, and I've also written
`reports regarding validity and non-infringement. So
`I believe I would -- yeah, non-infringement. So I
`would have argued an obvious -- obviousness case in
`one of those.
` Q. Do you recall how many times you have
`concluded that a patent was obvious?
` A. No, I don't have a -- I don't have a
`count in my head. Certainly more than once, but I
`don't -- I don't know how many times.
` Q. Less than ten?
` A. Probably. I think it's probably less
`than half of the cases I've done, and I don't think
`I've done more than 20 cases.
` Q. Do you have a recollection for any
`specific proceeding in which you found that a patent
`was obvious?
` A. No. I didn't review notes for that.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 13 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`And in preparation for this case, I focused my
`attention on the matter before us. I'd have to look
`back to see what I -- what those -- what those prior
`cases involved to refresh my memory on those.
` Q. Right. So let's talk about some of your
`experience.
` In paragraph 9 of your '332 declaration,
`you describe a project that is -- and your work on
`that project is available on InvertNet.org, right?
` A. Yeah. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Okay. Is there a name that we can use
`to describe that project as we talk about it today?
` A. I think "InvertNet" is fine for -- for
`that.
` Q. Okay. So did the InvertNet project
`involve video images?
` A. Not -- not directly. The point of that
`project was to store still images and make still
`images available over the Internet, and those still
`images required significant image analysis and
`processing. But in the process of acquiring them,
`you know, there were steps that involved video
`images.
` Q. Okay. What were the steps that involved
`video images?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 14 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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. Moving the camera, observing the output
`from the camera as it was moving.
` Q. Have you worked on any other projects
`other than InvertNet that involved video images?
` A. Yes. Quite a few. I believe a
`significant number of the publications in my vita
`involve video images.
` Q. And have any of those video-related
`projects involve video capture using a dual-aperture
`camera?
` A. Not -- not to my recollection. I don't
`believe I -- I don't believe any of them were
`specifically on that subject.
` Q. So I'm assuming you would agree with me
`that the InvertNet project involved image
`processing, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Where -- were those image processes
`steps performed in the image capture device itself
`or on a computer after the images were captured?
` A. There's not much distinction. You know,
`especially if you look at the form factor of a cell
`phone, you have, you know -- you have to
`differentiate the portions of a cell phone doing a
`processing versus the portion of the cell phone
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 15 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`doing the acquisition.
` And where that happens, these -- these
`configurations were -- had a different form factor,
`but they also had a separation of an acquisition
`device and a computational device.
` In all of these cases, things like image
`analysis and processing happens on the computational
`device and not on the acquisition device.
` Q. Did the InvertNet project involve using
`a cell phone to capture images?
` A. No. It involved a small CCD camera
`similar to, you know, a CCD camera that would be
`found in a cell phone.
` These things have various form factors.
`We needed a small camera so that it could be
`maneuvered nimbly across an insect tray in that
`particular example. So it was a small CCD camera,
`not a large SLR, for example. But it was not a cell
`phone.
` Q. Have you been involved in any projects
`where the image capture device was a cell phone?
` A. So yes, certainly. Many of the projects
`that I worked on listed in the publications of my
`vita worked on images that -- and those -- the
`source of those images may have been cell phones and
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 16 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
`could have been implemented with a cell phone.
` Q. Okay. So you said that they could have
`been implemented with a cell phone. Have you worked
`on any projects where the images were actually
`acquired using a cell phone?
` A. That's why I said they could have been
`acquired. I didn't -- I'd have to check my notes on
`those publications. I don't believe the
`publications specifically state how the images were
`acquired, just that the images were acquired.
` Those publications are an algorithms and
`methods and don't get into the specifics of the form
`factor of -- of their implementation.
` So they -- you know, many of them can be
`implemented on a cell phone, and that would have
`been obvious to the -- to the reader that they could
`have been implemented on a cell phone.
` Q. So in paragraph 9 of your '332
`Declaration, you say that the InvertNet project
`required fusion of 51,791 images.
` How did you perform that fusion?
` A. Okay. So I used the term "fusion"
`there. That term "fusion" is not -- you know, not
`the same term used in, for example, '332 or '898.
`Some of the steps are the same in that I had
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 17 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`overlapping images. I did a comparison of the
`overlapping images, found pixels that they had in
`common, and performed stitching.
` I don't recall if those images changed
`their point of view. In, for example, the '898 and
`'332, the fusion step would involve altering the
`point of view of one of the images to match the
`other.
` I don't think that that would -- that
`step was performed in InvertNet. So my term
`"fusion" there was not referring to the fusion step
`used in '898 or '332.
` Q. In the InvertNet project, would you move
`the camera in between capturing images of the insect
`trays?
` A. Yes. There was a robot assembly that
`moved the camera and so the camera would -- would
`hover over a section of the insect tray, take one or
`more pictures, and then move to a new location and
`then take one or more pictures, and it would scan
`over the entire insect tray in order to get a -- a
`very high-resolution image of the insect tray.
` Q. And would the point of view of the
`camera change when you moved it to capture another
`portion of the insect tray?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 18 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` A. Yes. The camera would move to capture
`another portion. This reminds me, one other step
`that we performed that I didn't mention in this
`paragraph is that we also did three-dimensional
`reconstructions of the insects using the data
`obtained from the multiple camera positions which
`would have provided the ability to view the insect
`from a separate point of view. So that was
`performed also.
` Q. Okay. So were you, then, for the
`InvertNet project, fusing images that were taken
`from different points of view?
` A. So as I said before, my use of the term
`"fusion" is -- is not referring to the term "fusion"
`used in '332 or '898. The images that we took were
`not adjusted when they were made available on the
`InvertNet website; they were not adjusted to the
`others' point of view. But they were stitched and
`overlapped, and used some pixel from -- from each of
`a pair of images.
` But there were some subsequent work
`where we did create three-dimensional models of the
`insects and did render those insects from a unique
`point of view.
` Q. So when you performed the fusion in the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 19 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`InvertNet project, did you use registration to
`perform that fusion?
` A. So the fusion that we performed in this
`particular example -- not the '898 or '332 -- did
`involve a registration step.
` Q. So you would agree with me that
`registration is something that a POSITA would
`understand in August of 2015, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And would a POSITA -- well, a POSITA
`would understand how to use registration in the
`context of still-image processing in August of 2015,
`right?
` A. So in August of 2015, a POSITA would
`have understood registration, but also that
`registration was an expensive step.
` We certainly understood that
`registration was an expensive step because we had to
`scan a lot of these drawers, and it was a lengthy
`process both in scanning and processing in order to
`get everything stitched appropriately.
` So certainly a POSITA -- a POSITA
`understood that, that registration was a step in
`particular to the fusion operations we were
`describing here, but that it was also an expensive
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 20 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
`step.
` Q. And would a POSITA know in 2015 how to
`use registration in the context of video image
`processing?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And why did you use registration in the
`InvertNet project?
` A. In order to align images, if we have a
`pair of images and we want those images to sit
`side-by-side in a larger image, and we want to avoid
`the appearance of a seam, then you use a
`registration algorithm to align the images so that
`one edge of them matches up with the edge of the
`other. And, in fact, they would overlap. And then
`you would stitch together, stitch them together
`using some path of pixels to minimize the seam
`artifact.
` Q. So you mentioned that fusion is used
`in '898, or mentioned in the '898 and the '332
`patents. Is fusion performed in the claims of
`either one of those patents?
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. So I'm not seeing the term "fusion" in
`my quick scan of the claims.
` Claim 2 talks about a global
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 21 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`registration operation, for example.
` Q. And you're looking at the '898 patent?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Were you done with your answer? I'm
`sorry if you were waiting on me.
` A. I'm not --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- yet. I don't see any --
` Q. Okay. Understood.
` A. If there's a specific mention of
`"fusion" in the claims, I'm not seeing it in my
`initial scan of them.
` Q. Okay.
` A. But the -- the claims do include, for
`example, the term "global registration."
` Q. And would a POSITA understand from the
`word "global registration" that fusion is being
`performed?
` A. Yes. In part, by reading the
`specifications of the patents.
` Q. Are you looking at a particular section
`of the specification of either patent?
` A. Well, certainly, in the '898 patent, it
`mentions "fusion"; it mentions manipulating the view
`of one of the images to match the point of view of
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 22 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`the other image; and then also details a global
`registration process used to assist in that step.
` Q. So you might have sort of answered this.
`But why would a POSITA understand from seeing the
`term "global registration" that fusion was being
`performed?
` A. Because global registration is an
`expensive process, and you wouldn't invest the
`effort in implementing and performing that process
`if it wasn't for a reason. And that reason is to
`align those two images and adjust the point of view
`to the other -- to match the other.
` The whole point of '898 -- and we could
`go back to the abstract, is -- is that it talks
`about a no-switching criteria. And that
`no-switching criteria is designed to minimize
`situations where you would see an artifact when
`switching from one camera to the other.
` And when -- when you're not performing
`that, those switching criteria, and you are
`switching from one camera to the other, this
`narrative teaches that you want to minimize the
`artifacts, any jump that happens from switching from
`one camera to the other.
` And that fusion process of adjusting the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 23 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`point of view of the other camera to the first
`camera minimizes that jump artifact that you might
`see.
` Q. So what is the relationship between
`switching between one camera to another and fusion?
` A. So there's a no-switching criteria used
`in the '898 and the '332. And that's -- that's
`talking about whether you're going to use -- you're
`going to move between processing the input of one of
`the cameras versus processing the input of the other
`camera.
` So I'd have to see the context of what
`you mean by "switching" to be able to speak
`specifically of that. Because what the '898 refers
`to, when it talks about that "no-switching
`criteria," is that it's continuing to use the same
`camera instead of using and processing the input of
`another camera.
` Q. So in the context of the '898 and '332
`patents, what is the relationship between switching
`from one camera to another and fusion?
` A. I'd have to see the specific claim or
`usage of the term "switching" in the '898.
` "Switching" and "fusion" appear many
`times, and so I need to see the context of how they
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 24 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`were being used in the -- in the specification or in
`the claims to be able to talk specifically about
`that.
` Q. Would a POSITA understand, after reading
`the '898 and '332 patent, that switching is
`discussed in multiple contexts?
` A. No, I didn't say that. There's --
`there's a column 10 on no switching. I don't have
`in front of me an index of every time the term
`"switching" is used.
` "Switching" could have been used in
`reference to prior work or the background. I'd have
`to see the specific instance of switching you were
`talking about.
` I think a POSITA reading the '898 would
`understand from the narrative how the term
`"switching" was being used in the context of that
`portion of the narrative. And, similarly, for the
`claims, a POSITA would understand from each of the
`claims, how the term "switching" was being used in
`the context of that claim.
` Q. Would you agree with me, for example,
`that claim 3 of the '898 patent recites a
`no-switching criterion?
` A. Yes. Claim 3 recites a no-switching
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 25 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
`criterion.
` Q. Right. And claim 3 also discusses
`global registration, which, as we've talked about,
`would indicate to a POSITA that fusion was being
`used, right?
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. I don't believe I have any opinions on
`claim 3. I certainly didn't do an analysis of what
`claim 3 would apply to or would not apply to, so I
`don't have any opinions on -- on claim 3 to that
`extent.
` I can say that claim 3 does include the
`terms "no-switching criterion" and "global
`registration," but I don't have any opinions on
`claim 3.
` Q. Do you have any opinions on claim 2?
` A. I don't believe I included any opinions
`on claim 2. My focus was in response to
`Dr. Durand's declaration and -- regarding this IPR.
` And those focused on claims 1, 4, 8
`through 11; 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22 -- and 21
`and 22 on the '898.
` Q. I think you might have been listing
`claims for the '332, because the '898 only goes to
`claim 20.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 26 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` A. Yeah, I -- I have two reports here.
`Yes, 1, 4, 8 through 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20.
` Q. But you told me earlier that you read
`the '898 patent, right?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. And you are a POSITA?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you were a POSITA at the time of the
`invention of the '898 patent?
` A. Yes, I was.
` Q. So as a POSITA reading claims 2 and 3,
`which discuss both "switching" and "global
`registration," what is the relationship in that
`context between switching and fusion?
` MR. LINK: Objection. Asked and
`answered.
` A. In order to express an opinion, and an
`expert opinion in a deposition such as this
`regarding the IPR, I would need to study that
`question, examine what a POSITA would know at the
`time in 2015.
` I'd need to go through the specification
`in order to, you know, make any -- any opinions
`similar to the opinions I did provide, for example,
`claims 1 and 4, I would need to do that same process
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1041 / Page 27 of 286
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
`for claims 2 and 3 in order to form such an opinion.
` Q. So other than the specification, what
`would you need to look at to answer my question
`about the relationship between switching and fusion
`as discussed in the context of claims 2 and 3 of
`the '898 patent?
` A. Well, I would need -- I'd need to be
`able to invest the time I spent on the other claims
`and their analysis.
` I'd want to look at the literature what
`was -- you know, what was being referred to in
`global registration than what was known by a POSITA
`at the time then.
` You
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
