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
`
` C O N F I D E N T I A L
`
` VIDEOTAPED VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
` EXPERT WITNESS
`
` FRÉDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` Thursday, July 1, 2021 - 9:00 a.m. (EST)
`
`Reported By:
`
`Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`
`Job No.: 2681
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 1
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`---------- REFERENCED DOCUMENTS (cont'd) ----------
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`APPL 1006 U.S. Patent 8,081,206 (Martin) 30
`APPL 1022 U.S. Patent 8,896,697 (Golan) 11
`APPL 1040 Declaration of Frédo Durand, 8
` Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner's Reply re: '898
` Patent ('861 IPR)
`
` Declaration of Frédo Durand,
` Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner's Reply re: '332
` Patent ('862 IPR)
`
`Exhibit 2001 Declaration of John C. Hart, 19
` Ph.D., Re: '898 Patent
` ('861 IPR)
`
` ---o0o---
`
`Page 5
`
` DEPOSITION OF FRÉDO DURAND, Ph.D. - July 1, 2021
` ---------------
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record
`on July 1, 2021 at approximately 9:00 a.m. Eastern
`Time for the remote video deposition of Dr. Frédo
`Durand in the matter of Apple, Inc. versus
`Corephotonics Ltd., IPR No. 2020-00861 and IPR
`No. 2020-00862.
` My name is Valerie Beltran, and I am the
`videographer.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves
`for the record, beginning with the party noticing
`this proceeding.
` MR. LINK: Good morning. Jonathan Link
`of the law firm of Russ, August & Kabat on behalf of
`the Patent Owner, Corephotonics.
` MS. SHI: Hong Shi from Haynes & Boone,
`representing Petitioner, Apple, and the witness.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
` Will the court reporter please swear in
`the witness.
` 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 Frédo Durand, and the testimony
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 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
`
`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
`
`Page 3
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES
`
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
` HONG SHI, ESQ.
` DAVID O'BRIEN, ESQ.
` HAYNES & BOONE LLP
` 600 Congress Avenue - Suite 1300
` Austin, Texas 78701
` 512.867.8400
` hong.shi@haynesboone.com
` david.obrien@haynesboone.com
`
`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:
`VALERIE BELTRAN, Videographer
` ---o0o---
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`WITNESS: FRÉDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`BY MR. LINK ............................... 6
`
`MOTIONS TO STRIKE None
`INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER None
`DOCUMENT/INFORMATION REQUESTS None
`
` ---o0o---
`
`-------------------- EXHIBITS ----------------------
`
`DEPOSITION
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`DURAND 1 "$15M equity round for camera 62
` startup Corephotonics,"
` 1/16/17, Optics.org
` (Dr. Durand report, footnote 4)
`
`--------------- REFERENCED DOCUMENTS -------------
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`APPL 1003 Declaration of Frédo Durand, 9
` Ph.D. re: '898 Patent
` ('861 IPR)
`
` Declaration of Frédo Durand,
` Ph.D. re: '332 Patent
` ('862 IPR)
`
`APPL 1005 U.S Patent Application 21
` Publication US 2012/0026366
` (Golan)
`
`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
`
`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
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 2
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
`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
`
`you are about to give in the matter now pending
`shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
`the truth?
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
` ----------------
` FRÉDO DURAND, Ph.D.
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` ----------------
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Durand. How are you
`today?
` A. Good morning. I am well.
` Q. Good. Good. We have met earlier in
`another deposition, so good to see you. It will
`just be useful to go over a couple of points about,
`you know, as I ask questions, let's try -- and you
`give answers, we'll try and be mindful of each other
`to not talk over each other, particularly with doing
`this online.
` If any question is unclear, please let
`me know, and maybe we can figure out why it's
`unclear, and I can re-ask in a clarifying manner.
` Okay?
`
`Page 7
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. And if you need a break,
`just ask. I'll just want to make sure that you
`answer any pending questions before we go to that
`break. Okay?
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is there any reason you can't give
`truthful testimony today, no medication or anything
`like that?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Do you have any written or
`printed notes with you today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Any notes on your computer or
`anything like that?
` A. No, not that I can see.
` Q. All right. Is there anyone there in the
`room with you?
` A. No.
` Q. All right. And can you agree not to
`discuss your deposition with anyone while I'm asking
`you these questions?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. All right. Great.
` Did you prepare for your deposition
`
`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
`
`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?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Okay. What did you do to prepare for
`it?
` A. I reviewed some of the documents
`including my initial declaration, my reply, some of
`the patents, and I had some meetings with my
`counsel.
` Q. Okay. Other than your meetings with
`counsel, did you talk to anyone else about this
`deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. I want to make sure I get the
`right ones here. I'm going to be putting into the
`chat the two declarations that you've provided in
`support of Apple's reply.
` Can you let me know when you have those
`downloaded?
` A. I have them.
` (Exhibit APPL 1040 introduced.)
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. Okay. If you can take a quick look at
`those and just confirm that those are, in fact, the
`declarations that you provided in support of the
`Petitioner's reply for both the '861 IPR and the
`
`Page 9
`
`'862 IPR?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Great.
` MS. SHI: Counsel?
` MR. LINK: Yes.
` MS. SHI: May I request -- because these
`reply declarations are based on the original
`declarations as well, for the completeness of
`Dr. Durand's reference, could you also provide the
`original declarations?
` MR. LINK: Sure. Absolutely.
` (Exhibit APPL 1003 introduced.)
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. If you can let me know, Dr. Durand, when
`you have gotten those?
` A. I have them.
` Q. Okay. Great.
` So I would like to turn -- have you turn
`to the reply declaration. And if I refer to them as
`your -- or differentiate them between your "initial
`declaration" and your "reply declaration," will that
`help us understand what we're talking about?
` A. Yes. That will be helpful.
` Q. Okay. All right. So I wanted to look
`at your reply declaration that was directed to the
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 3
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
`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
`
`'898 patent.
` A. '898. Yes. So that's, yes, the '861.
` Q. '861 IPR for the --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- '898 patent. Okay. Great.
` I want to start really quickly at
`paragraph 5 in your dec- -- in your reply
`declaration.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All right. And in the second sentence,
`you refer to another patent by the same inventors
`with the same assignee.
` Now, when you say "same inventors," are
`you saying this other patent has the same inventors
`as those in the '898 patent?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
` For the -- Counsel, could you also
`provide the document that you're referring to?
` MR. LINK: I'm trying to understand just
`what this is before I can give him any of the
`documents. So that's just what I'm trying to get --
`get at right here.
` MS. SHI: Dr. Durand, I just want to
`caution you before you answer, to give complete and
`accurate answer. If you need to review certain
`
`Page 11
`
`documents, we can ask for those documents.
` MR. LINK: And, Counsel, the time for
`coaching the witness was prior to the deposition
`here. That's -- no need for that now.
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. So I'm trying to understand, Dr. Durand,
`can you -- can you explain that sentence there?
` What do you mean when you say another
`patent and by the "same inventors"? What is that in
`relation to?
` A. Can I see --
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
` A. Can I see the '697? I mean, this refers
`to the '697 patent, right?
` Q. Sure. Let me see. Let me...
` (Exhibit APPL 1022 introduced.)
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. There, I just put that into the chat.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. Yes. So this patent is a patent by
`Golan and other inventors also assigned to
`Next Vision, as is the patent ending in '366 also by
`Golan, et al. That's the -- that's the comparison
`between inventors and assignees that's referred to
`in my sentence.
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. All right. So you're referring to the
`'697 patent, and then saying it has the same
`inventors and the same assignee as the Golan
`reference, which is the basis for your
`unpatentability positions in these two IPRs; is that
`correct?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Compound.
` A. Yes. The '697 patent has the same
`inventors as the Golan patent that I refer to in my
`original declaration, and assignee Next Vision
`Satellite Systems Ltd.
` Q. And so that we can maybe make this
`easier to refer to them, when we use the term
`"Golan," you mean the reference that was the basis
`for your positions; that is, the publication ending
`in the '366; is that correct?
` A. The beginning of paragraph 5, when I
`talk about Golan's teaching, I refer to teachings in
`the '366 patent.
` Q. All right.
` MS. SHI: To make the record clear,
`Counsel, are you referring to Exhibit 1005?
` MR. LINK: Yes. Yes.
` Q. So -- and maybe I should -- let's put it
`this way, Dr. Durand.
`
`Page 13
`
` When we use the term "Golan," can we
`agree that we're talking about Exhibit 1005?
` A. In general, yes. Except with --
` MS. SHI: Counsel -- sorry.
` Q. And then I was going to say that if we
`were to refer to Exhibit 1022 as the "'697 patent,"
`would that be helpful? That way we don't have to go
`back and forth as to what "Golan" means.
` A. Yes. That sounds good.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I'll ask questions if I --
` Q. Sure.
` A. -- need clarification, depending on
`context.
` Q. Perfect.
` MS. SHI: Counsel, have you shared
`Exhibit 1005?
` MR. LINK: I have not yet.
` MS. SHI: Thank you.
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. With respect to the '697 patent,
`Dr. Durand, does that disclosure describe the same
`imaging systems as are found in Golan Exhibit 1005?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Out of the
`scope.
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 4
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
`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. There are differences between the
`imaging systems of the '697 and the '36 -- the '366
`Golan patents.
` Q. What are those differences?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Out of the
`scope of the declaration.
` A. So in paragraph -- in paragraph 5 of my
`reply, I describe how other patents and products by
`the team in the Golan '366, '366 patent, apply to --
`to applications beyond the mobile device realm.
`And, for example, with -- among aerial vehicles, the
`particular imaging system of this particular '697
`patent has some differences.
` For example, they only discuss one image
`sensor, but the broad point is that Golan and
`Next Vision were interested in applying their family
`of imaging technologies to applications outside of
`mobile devices.
` Q. But the teachings of Golan '366 were not
`applied to the device or inventions in the '697
`patent, for example, correct?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Compound.
`Out of the scope of the declaration. Asked and
`answered.
` A. The teachings of Golan '366 apply to a
`
`Page 15
`
`broad set of areas. It could include mobile
`devices; it could include UAVs. It's not that --
`the '366 patent is not, strictly speaking, involved
`in the '697 patent.
` Q. So the inventors of the '697 patent
`didn't apply the imaging system in the Golan '366
`patent, correct?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Calls for
`speculation. Asked and answered. Out of the scope.
` A. Sorry. I'm not sure I understood the
`question.
` Q. Well, the inventors of the '366 Golan
`patent publication and the inventors of the '697
`patent are the same, correct?
` A. Yes, they are the same.
` Q. So the inventors of the '697 patent were
`aware of the teachings of the '366 Golan patent
`publication, correct?
` A. They are the same people.
` Q. So they would have been aware, correct?
` A. Yes.
` MS. SHI: Objection. Calls for
`speculation.
` Q. And yet, in describing the invention in
`the '697 patent, those inventors did not apply the
`
`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
`
`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
`
`imaging system that was described in the '366 Golan
`publication, correct?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Asked and
`answered. Vague. Calls for speculation.
` A. The '697 patent deals with different
`challenges as the '366 patent, and I use it to
`illustrate that a POSITA would understand that the
`team in the Golan '366 patent was interested in
`applications beyond the mobile device realm.
` Q. While they may have been interested in
`devices or applications beyond the mobile advice --
`mobile device, they, in fact, did not apply the
`teachings of the '366 Golan patent to the invention
`in the '697 patent, correct?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Asked and
`answered.
` A. Again, the Next Vision company and the
`inventors were working on products, including their
`-- their micro cam family that dealt with aerial
`imaging. I list a number of products in that, in
`that range, and I list the patent by the team in
`order to illustrate that they were not limited to
`applications in the mobile device realm.
` Q. Are the inventors of the '697 patent
`POSITAs; that is, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`Page 17
`
`art?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`speculation. Out of the scope of the declaration.
` A. I do not -- I have no opinion about the
`qualifications of the inventors in the -- in the --
`in this patent.
` Q. Is there any place in your reply
`declaration that is this Exhibit 1040, with respect
`to the '861 IPR that you identify in the '697
`patents, a teaching of the imaging system that is
`found in the '366 Golan publication?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
` A. Again, my point with this reference, the
`'697, is merely to illustrate that disclosures, all
`the disclosures and products from the Golan team
`apply to applications beyond mobile devices, which
`would confirm a POSITA's understanding that Golan is
`applicable in many imaging areas.
` Q. That, actually, didn't answer my
`question at all. So let me get to my point.
` You have to agree that the inventors of
`the '697 patent did not apply the teachings of the
`'366 Golan publication to their invention in the
`'697 patent, right?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Asked and
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 5
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
`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
`
`answered.
` A. The '697 patent does not use technology
`from the '366 patent.
` Q. Moving on in your declaration for the
`'861 IPR to paragraph 11. If you could move to
`that, please.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Are the skills to make an imaging --
`strike that. Let me start over.
` Are the skills to make an image-capture
`device the same as the skills to take a photograph?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
` A. A basic understanding -- sorry.
` What are the two -- can you repeat the
`two types of skills you were --
` Q. Sure.
` A. -- asking about?
` Q. Let me make it maybe more concrete.
` Are the skills to make a camera the same
`as the skills to take a photograph with that camera?
` A. I believe that one needs some
`understanding of how to take photographs in order to
`make cameras.
` Q. What's your basis for that opinion?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
`
`Page 19
`
` A. Can I see Dr. Hart's declaration, since
`we're discussing his paragraphs 31 and 32, I
`believe?
` Q. Sure. Let me pull that up here.
` A. Have you put it in the chat?
` Q. I have not yet because, of course, my
`document system here decided that now is the time to
`go very slow. So I apologize.
` A. No problem. I'm usually the one slowing
`things down when translating documents.
` Q. I had it open and ready, and now I'm
`just getting the little spinning circle. So I
`apologize.
` Sorry about that delay. I just
`downloaded that for you.
` (Exhibit 2001 introduced.)
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. In your reply declaration, Dr. Durand,
`you refer to paragraphs 31 and 32 of Dr. Hart's
`declaration. Is that where you wanted to look at
`first here?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So...
` (Witness reviewing document.)
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` It doesn't make sense to me to hear that
`one would be able to -- will have -- would be able
`to work in imaging systems on a basic understanding
`of aperture, exposure, lens choices. Certainly, in
`my computational photography class, we discussed
`these issues.
` I mean, you need -- you need -- you need
`some baseline understanding of the impact of the
`technical parameters that you're exposing to users
`of the system.
` Q. When you defined the level of ordinary
`skill in the art in your initial declaration for the
`'861 patent [sic], did you describe that knowledge?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
` A. I described that a POSITA would have two
`or three years of experience in imaging systems,
`including optics and image processing.
` Q. Well, but -- and you're referring to
`paragraph 17 in your initial declaration for the
`'861 patent [sic], right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. But you say in there that "a POSITA
`would include someone who had, as of the claimed
`priority date of the '898 Patent, a bachelor's or
`the equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer
`
`Page 21
`
`engineering or a related field" -- oh -- "and 2-3
`years of experience in imaging systems including
`optics and image processing."
` Is that what you're referring to there?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. All right.
` So it's your position now that inherent
`in that is some understanding of photography, taking
`pictures? Is that what you're saying now?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Objection.
`Misstates testimony.
` A. It was my opinion then, and it is still
`my opinion now, that it includes a basic
`understanding of photography, yes.
` Q. Okay. In your reply declaration for the
`'861 IPR, starting on page 8 at paragraph 14, you go
`on to discuss the Golan reference, which is
`Exhibit 1005. Do you see that?
` A. Paragraph 14? Yes.
` (Exhibit APPL 1005 introduced.)
` Q. Okay. And you go on to discuss Golan
`until, it looks like, paragraph 22.
` Do you see that?
` A. Paragraph 22 of my response?
` Q. Yeah.
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 6
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
`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.
` Q. I'd like you to take a look, then, at
`your reply declaration for the '862 IPR. And
`specifically, if I can have you turn to page 8
`and -- in that as well.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And in this reply declaration, you
`discuss Golan starting at paragraph 14 as well,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, again, you go on through
`paragraph 22 in your discussion of Golan, is that
`correct, in this reply declaration for the '862
`patent [sic]?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any substantive difference in
`your analysis of Golan in the declaration -- reply
`declaration for the '861 IPR and your analysis of
`Golan in your reply declaration for the '862 IPR?
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. I think the technical arguments are
`mostly the same.
` Q. Let's stick with the -- your reply
`declaration for the '861 IPR. I'd like you to turn
`to paragraph 16.
`
`Page 23
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. You say that a POSITA would have --
`well, actually, let's step back.
` You're responding to Dr. Hart's
`assertion that a typo in Golan would have, in your
`words, somehow rendered "the entire reference
`incomprehensible to a POSITA"; is that correct?
` A. Dr. Hart appears to argue that the typo
`would somehow make this reference incomprehensible
`to a POSITA, yes.
` Q. And you say you disagree because a
`POSITA would have immediately recognized that typo
`and have understood the appropriate correction.
` Is that accurate?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Dr. Durand, are you a POSITA?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you recognize this error in
`Golan?
` A. I don't recall exactly.
` Q. Was it -- did you recognize this error
`prior to Dr. Hart providing his declaration in this
`'861 IPR?
` A. I believe I had noticed it early. It
`didn't seem to be a big issue at the time.
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Did you notice it prior to writing your
`initial declaration in support of the '861 IPR?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Okay. Why didn't you address it in your
`initial declaration in support of the '861 IPR?
` A. Because it was -- it was a minor typo,
`and I didn't think that it -- it was a big deal. I
`didn't feel there was -- it was an obstacle to
`understanding the teachings.
` Q. And in paragraph 18, you say that a
`POSITA would have -- understand Golan's example to
`be about 10 degrees instead of the 60 degrees that's
`explicitly taught in Golan, correct?
` A. A POSITA would have understood
`Golan's example of narrow field of view to be about
`10 degrees.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And your basis for that is because a
`POSITA would have understood that "wide field of
`view equals narrow field of view times 6" actually
`indicates tangent of wide field of view over 2 is
`equal to tangent of narrow field over 2 divided
`by 6; is that right?
` MS. SHI: Objection. vague.
`
`Page 25
`
` A. Well, in general, a POSITA would have
`understood that Golan's imaging system includes a
`narrow field of view and a wide field of view. So
`that the narrow field of view would be understood by
`a POS- -- POSITA to be narrower than the wide field
`of view. So it can't be the same.
` And -- and, indeed, Golan used an
`example of a factor of 6 in the zoom.
` Q. All right. But at paragraph 18 in your
`reply declaration for the '861 patent, you say a
`POSITA would have understood that the example of
`paragraph 9 of Golan, "a wide field of view equals
`narrow field of view times 6," indicates tangent of
`the wide field of view over 2 equals the tangent of
`the narrow field of view over 2 times 6; is that
`right?
` A. Yes. In terms of zoom and magnification
`factor, it's -- if one wants to be more precise,
`it's a good idea to work on tangents.
` Q. And using this more precise computation
`results in a narrow field of view of 10.98 degrees;
`is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Where does Golan's disclosure use
`tangents?
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 7
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
`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
`
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` Q. And, Dr. Durand, just for the record,
`I'm done talking about the -- what it was, the '697
`patent.
` A. '697?
` Q. So when I talk about Golan from here on
`out, unless I say otherwise, I'm referring to the
`Exhibit 1005 of Golan. Okay?
` A. I mean, in general, a POSITA would have
`no problem translating between angles and tangents.
`I mean, it's the bread and butter of optics.
` I do not believe that -- I don't think
`that Golan uses tangents explicitly. But any POSITA
`with basic experience in imaging system would be
`able to express any of these quantities in terms of
`angle or in terms of tangent.
` Q. Were the inventors of Golan POSITAs?
` MS. SHI: Objection. Calls for
`speculation. Asked and answered.
` A. I don't know the inventors in Golan
`individually. I don't think I've given an opinion
`about whether they were POSITAs.
` Q. If the inventors in Golan didn't use
`"tangent" to describe this relationship, why would
`another POSITA use "tangents"?
`
`Page 27
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`speculation. Asked and answered.
` A. Well, like I mentioned, I think it's a
`basic skill in optics to be able to express
`quantities like this as your tangent, in terms of
`tangents, in terms of angles, in terms of degrees,
`or in terms of gradient. This is -- this is really
`basic optics.
` MS. SHI: Counsel, may we have a ten- --
`-- ten-minute break here?
` MR. LINK: Yeah, we can take a break.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is --
` MS. SHI: Thank you.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is
`9:50 a.m., and we are going off the record.
` (Recess taken.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is
`10:04 a.m., and we're back on the record.
` MR. LINK: Excellent.
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. Dr. Durand, I'd like to turn to
`paragraph 23 of your reply declaration in support of
`the '861 IPR.
` And, actually, I'm going to correct
`that. I'd like you to turn to paragraph 24 of your
`
`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
`
`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
`
`reply declaration in support of the '861 IPR. So
`the next paragraph.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Okay?
` A. "At the time of the '898 patent"?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes. Yes.
` Q. So this is where you go into your
`arguments as to why a POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine Golan and Martin, correct?
` A. Yes. Which deals with the motivation to
`combine Golan and Martin.
` Q. All right. And this discussion goes on
`until paragraph 44 in your reply declaration,
`correct?
` A. Yes. This part goes to 44.
` Q. All right. Wonderful.
` And I'd like you to turn to your reply
`declaration in support of the '862 IPR. And,
`specifically, paragraph 24 of that declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And again, this is the start of your
`discussion on -- in support of your statement that a
`POSITA would have been motivated to combine Golan
`and Martin, correct?
`
`Page 29
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, again, this discussion goes on
`through paragraph 44 of this reply declaration for
`the '862 IPR; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is there any substantive
`difference in your analysis of the motivation to
`combine Golan and Martin in your reply declaration
`for the '861 IPR and your analysis of the motivation
`to combine Golan and Martin in your reply
`declaration for the '862 IPR?
` A. I believe the technical arguments are
`mostly the same.
` Q. You said "mostly the same" in your
`answer. Are there any differences that you're aware
`of?
` A. No. No, they aren't. I'm not sure the
`text is strictly the same --
` Q. Sure.
` A. -- but the technical arguments are the
`same.
` Q. No. And I -- just to be clear, they
`look the same to me. Yes, there may be a different
`wording or something, but it looked like the
`substance was the same. I wanted to make sure that
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 8
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`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
`
`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
`
`we were in agreement on that.
` Okay. Let's then go back to the -- your
`reply declaration for the '861 IPR. And I'd like to
`have you turn to paragraph 28, please.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All right. In the second sentence
`there, you state that Martin does not limit critical
`alignment as a step of display, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in support of that, you cite to
`Martin at column 6, line 6 through 9, right?
` A. Yes.
` (Exhibit APPL 1006 introduced.)
`BY MR. LINK:
` Q. And I dropped the Martin reference into
`the chat there. So if you want to download that so
`we can kind of talk about that.
` A. Okay. I have it.
` Q. Specifically, I want to look at that
`part of Martin that you cited to, line 6 through 9
`in column 6. If you could turn to that.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All right. The rest of that paragraph
`describes display of the parallax images before and
`during the user-assisted critical alignment, right?
`
`Page 31
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. So in general, there are two aspects to
`Martin's invention, the first of which is a method
`for generating an autostereoscopic display. But,
`importantly, the second aspect is a system for
`generating a set of aligned parallax images. And in
`both cases, the images may be display