UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`
`--------------------------------x
` APPLE, INC.,
` )
` ) IPR2020-00905
` ) IPR2020-00906
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` Patent Owner.
`--------------------------------x
`
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`
` VIDEOTAPED VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
` EXPERT WITNESS
`
` JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
`
` April 29, 2021
`
` 9:02 a.m. (CST)
`
`Reported By:
`
`Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`
`Job No.: 1961
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 1 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES (cont'd)
`
`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, TransPerfect,
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN C. HART, Ph.D. - April 29, 2021
` ---------------
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record
`on April 29, 2021, at approximately 9:02 a.m.
`Central time for the remote video deposition of
`Dr. John Hart in the matter of Apple, Inc. versus
`Corephotonics Ltd., IPR No. 2020-00905 and
`2020-00906.
` 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.
` MS. SIVINSKI: Good morning. My name is
`Stephanie Sivinski, with Haynes and Boone, for
`Apple. And I'm joined today by my colleagues Mike
`Parsons and Bethany Love, also with Haynes and
`Boone, and then Priya Viswanath from Cooley LLP.
` MR. LINK: My name is Jonathan Link with
`the law firm of Russ, August & Kabat, on behalf of
`the Patent Owner, Corephotonics.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
` Will the court reporter please swear in
`the witness.
` THE REPORTER: I'm going to ask that you
`
`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
`
` 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-
` MICHAEL PARSONS, ESQ.
` BETHANY LOVE, ESQ.
` HAYNES & BOONE LLP
` 6000 Headquarters Drive - Suite 200
` Plano, Texas 75024
` 972.739.8611
` michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
` bethany.love@haynesboone.com
`
` PRIYA VISWANATH, ESQ.
` COOLEY LLP
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
` 650.849.7023
` pviswanath@cooley.com
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`WITNESS: JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`BY MS. SIVINSKI ........................... 6
`
`MOTIONS TO STRIKE None
`INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER None
`DOCUMENT/INFORMATION REQUESTS None
`
`------------- REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ----------------
`
` EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit APPL 1001 U.S. Patent 10,225, 479 9
`Exhibit APPL 1005 U.S. Patent 7,859,588, 58
`Exhibit APPL 1013 "Computer Vision, 125
` Algorithms and
` Applications," Szeliski
`Exhibit APPL 1023 U.S. Patent 8,908,041 134
`Exhibit 2001 Declaration of John C. 8
` Hart, Ph.d
`
`Exhibit 2015 Declaration of Duncan 52
` Moore
`
`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
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 2 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`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
`
`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
`
`please raise your right hand.
` Do you solemnly swear under penalty of
`perjury that you are Dr. John 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.
` ----------------
` JOHN C. HART, Ph.D.
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` ----------------
` EXAMINATION
`BY MS. SIVINSKI:
` Q. All right. Good morning, Dr. Hart.
` How are you?
` A. Good morning. I'm fine.
` How are you?
` Q. I'm good. Thanks.
` Okay. Have you given testimony in a
`remote deposition before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Okay. So you're familiar with Zoom and
`the chat function for downloading exhibits and those
`sorts of things?
`
`Page 8
`
` A. No.
` Q. All right. So I know that you sat for
`depositions before, but just so we can all be on the
`same page, a few rules.
` Can you agree to answer pending
`questions before we take a break?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you don't understand a particular
`question, do you agree to let me know so I can
`clarify my question?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you understand you're testifying
`today about a Declaration that you submitted in two
`different IPRs?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And those would be IPR2020-905 and
`IPR2020-906?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I loaded a copy of the Declaration
`that you submitted in those IPRs into the chat
`function.
` (Exhibit 2001 introduced.)
`BY MS. SIVINSKI:
` Q. Does that document look like the
`Declaration that you submitted?
`
`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, I am.
` Q. Where are you testifying from today?
` A. My daughter's bedroom in Champaign,
`Illinois. This is where I conduct the business,
`including expert services. I mean, not from my
`daughter's bedroom but from Champaign, Illinois.
` Q. Yeah. Understood. We're all very, very
`fancy these days with our -- with our office digs.
`Okay. Good.
` Is there anyone else in the room with
`you?
` A. No, there's not.
` Q. Okay. And will you agree not to
`communicate with others, including Corephotonics'
`attorneys, while questions are pending?
` A. Understood and agreed.
` Q. Great.
` Do you have any access to notes from
`where you're sitting today?
` A. No, I do not. I mean, there are notes
`on my computer, but I am not accessing those notes.
`I will not access those notes.
` Q. All right. Thank you.
` Is there any reason that you cannot give
`truthful and accurate testimony today?
`
`Page 9
`
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. As you sit here today, is there anything
`you need to correct about that Declaration?
` A. I think there are minor spelling errors
`and so on throughout, but -- but I believe the
`meaning and -- there's no substance -- substantive
`corrections I would -- I would want made at this
`point.
` Q. Perfect.
` (Exhibit APPL 1001 introduced.)
`BY MS. SIVINSKI:
` Q. All right. And I've also loaded a copy
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479, and that is the
`patent at issue in these IPRs.
` Do you recognize that document that I've
`loaded in the chat?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And have you read that patent?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Memorized it?
` Okay. Is it okay if I call that the
`'479 patent today?
` A. Yes. That'll be fine.
` Q. All right. If you will turn with me to
`pages -- page 2 of your Declaration. I just want to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 3 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`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
`
`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
`
`go over some of the summaries of your opinions
`there.
` Do you see on page 2 and extending
`through page 4 of your Declaration, a bullet-pointed
`list of materials?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Are these the materials that you
`considered in drafting your Declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you read all of these materials?
` A. Yes. There's also item C on page 5 that
`I also considered. It's not materials. It's just
`the level and skill of a person having ordinary
`skill in the art.
` Q. Understood. Thank you for that
`addition.
` Is all of the analysis you performed for
`these IPRs reflected in your Declaration?
` A. The opinions based on that analysis are
`-- are reported in my opinion -- in this
`Declaration.
` Q. How many hours did you spend on your
`work for this Declaration?
` A. Somewhere between 50 and 60 hours.
` Q. And did you write your Declaration?
`
`Page 12
`
`design aspects of the 905 and 906 IPRs?
` A. I don't have an opinion that I'm aware
`of at the moment that characterized Dr. Moore's
`deposition in that particular ways.
` Is -- is there a statement in my
`Declaration stating that?
` Q. Well, I -- I am planning on asking you
`questions today that are slightly broader than your
`Declaration.
` So my question is whether you would
`agree with me that that's the case, whether or not
`you stated it in your Declaration.
` Would you agree with me that Dr. Moore's
`declaration is directed towards the lens design
`elements of the 905 and 906 IPRs?
` A. I'm not going to pigeonhole Dr. Moore's
`declaration in any way. I did refer to Dr. Moore's
`declaration in, for example, patents describing lens
`designs.
` Q. Okay. Well, let me ask this question.
` Do you consider yourself a lens design
`expert?
` A. I wasn't asked to declare myself as a
`lens design expert in the -- in preparing these
`opinions. I have experience in lens design. I have
`
`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, I did.
` Q. Other than your lawyers -- and I don't
`want to know any conversations between you and
`Corephotonics' lawyers -- did you talk to anyone in
`preparing for your deposition today?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. And other than Corephotonics' lawyers,
`did you talk to anyone in preparing this
`Declaration?
` A. I'm not sure I understand the difference
`between that question and the question you asked
`before it.
` Q. Sure. So it might be the same answer,
`but with one, I was talking specifically about the
`preparation for your deposition. And with this
`second question, I'm asking more broadly about your
`work in this case and your preparation of your
`Declaration.
` A. Oh. So I've not spoken to anybody else
`in the preparation for both.
` Q. So are you aware that Dr. Moore has also
`submitted a declaration for the 905 and 906 IPRs?
` A. Yes, I am.
` Q. Okay. And would you agree with me that
`Dr. Moore's declaration is related to the lens
`
`Page 13
`
`training in optics and understand, you know, the
`physics of lenses, the characteristics of lenses.
` I have not, you know, physically built
`any lenses. My work on lenses has been more
`theoretical. I'm certainly an expert in ray
`tracing, and ray tracing is an element of lens
`design.
` So I don't believe I have an opinion in
`the report that claims to -- where I'm an expert in
`lens design, but I did understand lens design and
`was able to understand Dr. Moore's report.
` Q. Okay. Would you -- do you think
`Dr. Moore is an expert in lens design?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. And I'm not intending to limit
`the scope of his declaration. I'm just trying to
`get a general understanding that Dr. Moore has
`submitted opinions about lens design in these cases.
` Would you agree with that?
` A. Yes, I would.
` Q. And that your Declaration is focused
`more on the image processing aspects of the '479
`patent?
` A. I think the opinions I offer have --
`have included both, but, certainly, I believe
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 4 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`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
`
`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've -- I've offered perhaps more opinions on -- on
`the other aspects than lens design.
` Q. Are you familiar with the software
`that's used in connection with lens design, for
`example, Zemax?
` A. Yes, I'm aware of it.
` Q. Have you ever used it?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you review any Zemax files in
`connection with your work for the 905 and 906 IPRs?
` A. Only by name and in -- in their
`reference in Dr. Moore's reports and the other
`documents in my materials that I considered.
` Q. Do you know what a Zemax black box model
`is?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you describe what a Zemax black
`model is -- black box model is for me?
` A. Yes. It describes the design of the --
`of the lens -- of a lens system in such a way that
`you can see the effects of the lens system without
`revealing the details of the lens system design.
` Q. And what is your understanding of what
`Zemax black box models are used for?
` A. I think in this case, a Zemax black box
`
`Page 16
`
` So I -- I don't have an opinion that
`says it's impossible.
` Q. Okay. Well, specifically with respect
`to the Zemax black box models that you talk about in
`your Declaration, would it be possible to copy a
`lens design from those Zemax black box models?
` A. I don't believe I have an opinion
`stating that.
` Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you for your
`understanding whether that would be possible, as you
`sit here today.
` A. I don't -- I don't believe I was asked
`to consider that. I -- I did not give an opinion
`that said that that was not possible, and that's the
`extent of my opinion.
` Q. Can you turn with me to paragraph 133 of
`your Declaration.
` Are you there? Sorry.
` Are you there?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Perfect.
` In paragraph 133, you conclude that,
`quote -- that:
` "Petitioner copied the invention of the
` '479 patent (among other Corephotonics
`
`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
`
`model was provided to demonstrate the effectiveness
`of an invention to somebody seeking to eventually
`utilize that invention without revealing the details
`of -- of the specific implementation.
` Q. And this is perhaps an obvious question,
`but why would someone want to use a Zemax black box
`model in your experience?
` A. If they would like to understand how
`something works, but are not yet at a stage to need
`to understand the details of -- of how something was
`built or how something was implemented, just the
`effects without understanding the process.
` Q. Would someone be able to copy a lens
`design after reviewing just a Zemax black box model?
` MR. LINK: Objection. Outside the scope
`of his declaration.
` A. I think it's certainly possible. You
`know, another example of a black box might be the
`machine code that -- when somebody is writing a
`program, for example, Microsoft Word, that -- that
`machine code can be decompiled and
`reverse-engineered.
` Reverse-engineering is a broad field
`that -- that works in -- in a variety of cases and a
`variety of implementations.
`
`Page 17
`
` technologies, which Petitioner also appears
` to have copied) is strongly implied by the
` course of conduct between the parties and the
` timing of petitioner's announcement of their
` dual-aperture camera in their iPhone 7
` series..."
` Do you see that portion of your
`Declaration?
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. Okay. Is your conclusion that Apple
`copied the invention of the '479 patent based on the
`evidence you discuss about Zemax black box models?
` A. I believe that sentence is saying that
`Petitioner's actions strongly implied that they
`created what appeared to be technology that copied
`the technology provided to them by Core --
`Corephotonics. I don't believe this sentence speaks
`to any, any one piece that -- that allowed me to
`form -- form that opinion over any other piece.
` But the black box technology was one of
`the pieces that was provided by Corephotonics to
`Petitioner.
` Q. So I'm not sure I understand your
`answer.
` Does the fact that Corephotonics
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 5 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`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
`
`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
`
`provided a black box model to Apple in your mind
`make it more likely that -- that Apple copied the
`invention of the '479 patent?
` A. So the opinion I provided in my
`Declaration is that Petitioner appears to have
`copied the -- the invention. And Petitioner
`appeared to have copied the invention, based on the
`course of conduct between the parties and the timing
`of Petitioner's announcement and the details of the
`dual-aperture camera in the iPhone 7 that was
`demonstrated in fall of 2016 that includes materials
`that Petitioner received.
` I'm not pointing to any one piece that's
`responsible for the -- that strong implication that
`that copying happened. I am stating that, you know,
`the sum of that evidence strongly implies that the
`invention was copied because a duplicate of the
`invention appears to have been released in the
`iPhone 7.
` Q. And I understand what the sentence of
`your Declaration says, but what I'm asking is: The
`fact that Corephotonics shared a black box Z model
`with Apple, is that some of the evidence that you
`conclude strongly implies that the invention was
`copied?
`
`Page 20
`
`specifically and form a specific opinion on that
`particular question.
` Q. So if I understand what you just said,
`you didn't form a specific opinion whether it would
`be possible.
` Did you form a specific opinion on
`whether Apple had actually copied Corephotonics'
`Zemax black box model?
` A. I don't have an opinion stating that --
`tat Petitioner copied the model, based on that one
`piece of evidence.
` Q. All right. We will talk more about
`these files in later segments, but I think we might
`get into confidential information. So I'm going to
`move away from this for now so we can sort of
`consolidate our confidential discussions.
` Well, actually, sorry, one more general
`question.
` Have you ever reviewed a Zemax black box
`model before?
` A. No, not in detail.
` Q. All right. So let's talk about your
`Declaration with respect to the 905 IPR.
` So are you aware that Apple has
`submitted a proposed claim construction for 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
`
` MR. LINK: Objection. Asked and
`answered.
` A. And I considered all of the evidence,
`including the fact that that black box model was --
`was provided in -- in constructing my opinion in
`paragraph 133.
` Q. Is it your opinion that someone could
`copy a lens design from a black box model?
` MR. LINK: Objection. Asked and
`answered.
` A. I don't have a specific opinion stating
`that. I also don't have a specific opinion stating
`that somebody could not do that.
` Q. So you don't have an opinion either way
`about whether it would be possible to copy a lens
`design from a black box Zemax model, right?
` A. I do not have an opinion because I
`wasn't asked in that level of detail to examine
`that -- that particular question in -- to form a
`separate opinion.
` My opinion is that it appears that
`Petitioner copied the invention, and I considered
`all of the materials that Petitioner had. And --
`and so that's certainly within the realm of
`possibility, but I did not examine that question
`
`Page 21
`
`limitation "fused image with a point of view of the
`Wide camera"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I take it from your Declaration that
`you disagree with Apple's proposed construction for
`that limitation, right?
` A. Yes. I don't believe constructions are
`needed for any of the terms. I found them to be
`quite clear in plain and ordinary understanding for
`a POSITA at the time.
` Q. Have you formed any opinion about
`whether claim 1 of the '479 patent is obvious under
`Apple's claim construction?
` A. I did not use Apple's claim construction
`in my analysis of any of the claims.
` Q. So if the Board finds that Apple's
`construction is proper, you don't have an opinion
`about whether the proposed -- or the construction --
`or the combinations that Apple submitted render the
`'479 patent obvious?
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A. I was seeing if there was a section of
`my report that had the specific text in it, but I
`believe if any further information becomes available
`on any of -- any of these materials, that I would
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 6 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`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
`
`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
`
`want to further amend my report.
` Q. But just to make sure that I understand
`the answer to my question, if the Board finds that
`Apple's construction is proper, you have not
`rendered an opinion in this Declaration about
`whether the combinations Apple has submitted render
`the '479 patent obvious, correct?
` A. I'm not a lawyer. I believe in the
`pages of the -- of the declaration I provided, I
`only considered the plain and ordinary meanings
`of -- of those terms for the claims.
` If -- if it turns out that the Board
`wants to recognize a different construction for
`those claims, then I would want to amend the report
`to provide further opinions, based on that analysis.
` Q. Okay. And just to be clear, you -- when
`you say you considered the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the terms, that is not the construction
`that Apple proposed, right, in your -- in your
`opinion?
` MR. LINK: Objection. Vague.
` A. So at the end -- I believe it's at the
`end of paragraph 46.
` "In my opinion, a POSITA would
` understand the term to mean 'fused image in
`
`Page 24
`
` So there's a few extra terms there just
`to clarify the plain and ordinary meaning that a
`POSITA would understand from that -- from that set
`of terms.
` I believe that is the plain and ordinary
`meaning of -- of that term, but I'm providing a few
`extra terms there to clarify it to make sure that
`the Board and anybody else would understand how that
`should -- how that would be understood by a POSITA
`and how it's different than what was being offered
`by Dr. Durand.
` Q. Okay. Let me ask my question again,
`because I don't think you quite gave an answer to
`it.
` You applied the following construction
`when rendering the opinions in your Declaration,
`"fused image in which the positions and shapes of
`objects reflect the POV of the Wide camera,"
`correct?
` A. That's correct, in that that's the
`understanding that I used to -- to analyze the
`patents. I believe that is the plain and ordinary
`meaning of those -- of those terms.
` So I don't believe a construction is
`necessary, that that text is there to inform 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
`
` which the positions and shapes of objects
` reflect the POV of the Wide camera.'"
` So that's what I used for "fused image
`with the point of view of the Wide camera," and that
`disagrees with what was offered by Dr. Durand.
` And then -- and then the plain and
`ordinary meaning I applied to the second
`construction is quite lengthy. It's summarized
`in -- well, paragraphs 47 through 49, because it's
`more of a grammatical issue.
` So I'll just state, you know, my
`opinions in 47 through 49 explain the plain and
`ordinary meaning I understood from -- when viewed
`as -- by a POSITA at the time, what -- what that
`claim term referred to.
` Q. Okay. So the last sentence of
`paragraph 46 of your Declaration is the construction
`that you used in rendering your opinions for this
`Declaration, right?
` A. "Fused image in which the positions and
`shapes of objects reflect the POV of the Wide
`camera."
` And the original claim construction was
`"fused image with the point of view of the Wide
`camera."
`
`Page 25
`
`Board and anybody else of my understanding -- of my
`opinion of what a POSITA understands those terms to
`mean.
` So, yes, I used -- I used that
`interpretation of that, which I believe a POSITA
`would understand is the plain and ordinary meaning
`of that term.
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
` So I want to take a look at a portion of
`the specification of the '479 patent in column 5.
` And I'm specifically looking at the
`second paragraph in column 5, which runs from about
`line 11 to line 33.
` Do you see that paragraph?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And in that portion of the
`specification, it says:
` "If the output image retains the Wide
` image shape, then it has the Wide perspective
` POV."
` Do you see that?
` A. Which line are you at?
` Q. 16. The lines in this paragraph, of
`course, don't match up very well to the line number,
`but it is around line 16.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 7 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`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
`
`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. Understood. Approximate is fine. And
`yes, I see that:
` "If the output image retains the Wide
` image shape, then it has the Wide perspective
` POV."
` Where "POV" would stand for point of
`view.
` Q. Okay. And then the next sentence right
`after that says:
` "If it retains the Wide camera
` position, then it has the Wide position POV."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that the
`specification is providing two components or two
`types of Wide POV, perspective and position, in
`those two sentences?
` A. I don't believe I have an opinion. If I
`do, I don't have it in front of me, but I don't
`recall a specific opinion on those two sentence
`specifically -- sentences specifically.
` The opinion I have is on the terms used
`in -- in the claims, for example, claim 1.
` In claim 1:
` "[W]herein the camera controller is
`
`Page 28
`
`point of view of a Wide camera. They don't speak of
`any position or perspective. They speak of point of
`view.
` What I see in column 5 is talking about
`the point of view. It's referring to both the
`position and the perspective of the point of view.
` Q. Is your conclusion about what claim 1
`means based on the specification of the '479 patent?
` A. Yes. And how a POSITA would understand
`that specification.
` Q. Okay. Is your opinion about how claim 1
`-- how a POSITA would understand claim 1 based on
`column 5 of the specification?
` A. It's based on the entire specification,
`but, certainly, column 5 was included in that
`analysis. In fact, I cite to it, you know, these --
`these specific terms, in paragraph 43 of my report.
` Q. So do you have an understanding of how a
`POSITA would understand perspective POV and position
`POV?
` A. Can you repeat that question? I'm
`sorry.
` Q. Sure. That's okay.
` You -- you testified earlier that you --
`well, let me rephrase that.
`
`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
`
` further operative to output the fused image
` with a point of view ... of the Wide camera
` by mapping [the] Tele image pixels to
` matching pixels within the Wide image."
` And I don't see a distinction there
`between "position" and "perspective." I see "point
`of view."
` Q. Okay. Well, you would agree with me
`that the specification makes a distinction between
`"perspective" point of view and "position" point of
`view, right?
` A. Yeah. There's two sentences there. one
`is speaking of position. The other is speaking of
`perspective.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Both refer -- both refer to point of
`view.
` Q. Right. So, again, would you agree with
`me that the specification sets out two types of Wide
`POV, perspective and position?
` A. I didn't provide an opinion stating
`that. What I provided an opinion on was how claim 1
`should be interpreted -- the terms of claim 1 should
`be interpreted.
` The terms of claim 1 simply speak of a
`
`Page 29
`
` I understood your testimony earlier that
`you didn't have an opinion specifically about
`perspective POV versus position POV, correct?
` A. Well, so paragraph 45, you know:
` "The '479 patent refers to
` 'combination' possibilities where an output
` image reflects only some aspects of a given
` POV..."
` But when it refers to "Wide POV,"
`without clarification, without talking about
`perspective or position, it's referring to the
`complete Wide POV, both perspective and position.
` Q. Based on the text of paragraph 45 of
`your Declaration, would you agree with me that the
`specification of the '479 patent lists at least two
`aspects of POV, Wide perspective POV and Wide
`position POV?
` A. The specification does, you know,
`describe Wide perspective POV and Wide position POV.
`I've cited to that in paragraph 45. Paragraph 45
`concludes, though, that when Wide POV is being used
`without the terms "perspective" or "position," it's
`referring to both.
` Q. Okay. So your opinion is that in order
`to retain the Wide POV, an output image must reflect
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`APPL-1037 / Page 8 of 78
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
`both the Wide perspective POV and the Wide position
`POV?
` A. Yes. That's -- that's what's stated in
`paragraph 45.
` Q. And what is the basis of that
`conclusion?
` A. What's provided in the specification;
`how a POSITA would understand it. This section of
`the specification is talking about the -- about
`point of view. It's talking about the point of view
`for the Wide imaging system, and it's also
`decomposing "point of view" in terms of perspective
`and position.
` And any POSITA would understand that a
`decomposition -- when you decompose something,
`you're talking about two aspects of one thing. And
`then if you later refer to that one thing that has
`previously been decomposed, analyzed as having two
`components, you would expect that one thing to have
`both components.
` The -- the language in -- in column 5
`are quite clear that -- that we're talking about one
`thing that has two components. And when we refer to
`that one thing, it -- it requires those two
`components, "those two components" meaning the
`
`Page 32
`
` You listed column --
` MR. LINK: Objection. Compound. Sorry.
` MS. SIVINSKI: It's okay.
` Q. You pointed to column 13. And are you
`referring to the citation that begi