UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` U.S. PATENT NUMBER 8,095,879
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., §
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS §
`AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE, §
`INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`vs.
`§ CASE NO. IPR 2021-00144
`§
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, §
`§
` Patent Owner.
` §
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
` EXPERT ORAL DEPOSITION
` DR. CRAIG S. ROSENBERG
` May 20, 2022
`
` EXPERT ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. CRAIG S.
`ROSENBERG, produced as a witness at the instance of
`the Petitioner and duly sworn, was taken in the
`above-styled and numbered cause on the 20th day of
`May, 2022, from 11:06 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., before
`Michelle Hartman, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
`for the State of Texas and Registered Professional
`Reporter, reported by computerized stenotype machine
`via Zoom videoconference, pursuant to the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
`the record or attached hereto.
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT 1053
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00144
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` U.S. PATENT NUMBER 8,095,879
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., §
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS §
`AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE, §
`INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`vs.
`§ CASE NO. IPR 2021-00144
`§
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, §
`§
` Patent Owner.
` §
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
` EXPERT ORAL DEPOSITION
` DR. CRAIG S. ROSENBERG
` May 20, 2022
`
` EXPERT ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. CRAIG S.
`ROSENBERG, produced as a witness at the instance of
`the Petitioner and duly sworn, was taken in the
`above-styled and numbered cause on the 20th day of
`May, 2022, from 11:06 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., before
`Michelle Hartman, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
`for the State of Texas and Registered Professional
`Reporter, reported by computerized stenotype machine
`via Zoom videoconference, pursuant to the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
`the record or attached hereto.
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT 1053
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00144
`
`
`
`2
`
` APPEARANCES
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` Ms. Tiffany C. Miller
` DLA PIPER LLP
` 401 B Street
` Suite 1700
` San Diego, California 92101-4297
` Telephone: 619-699-2700
`E-mail: tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` Mr. Parham Hendifar
` LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
` 1880 Century Park East
` Suite 815
` Los Angeles, California 90067
` Telephone: 310-307-4510
`E-mail: hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Mr. Philip Graves, NeoNode in-house counsel
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`DR. CRAIG S. ROSENBERG
`Examination by Ms. Miller .........................4
`Signature Page .................................143
`Signature Page .................................144
`Court Reporter's Certificate ....................145
`
` EXHIBITS
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1005 Patent Number 5,249,296 9/28/93 109
` by Tanaka
`Exhibit 1050 U.S. Patent 8,095,879 B2 16
` 1/10/12 by Goertz
`Exhibit 2007 Second Declaration of Craig 8
` Rosenberg, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 2022 Declaration of Ulf Martensson 120
`Exhibit 2023 Declaration of Joseph Shain 121
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`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 COURT REPORTER: I am on the
`record. On the record, can Counsel please state
`appearances.
` MS. MILLER: Tiffany Miller from DLA
`Piper on behalf of Petitioners.
` MR. HENDIFAR: Parham Hendifar
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax for patent owner NeoNode.
` MR. GRAVES: Philip Graves with Hagens
`Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP for patent owner NeoNode.
` DR. CRAIG S. ROSENBERG,
`having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Good morning,
`Dr. Rosenberg.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. You provided a declaration in support
`of the patent owner in IPR 2021-144 for the Patent
`Number 8,095,879; is that correct?
` A. Yes. Can -- you said 2021-00144; is
`that correct?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes, that is correct.
` Q. Thank you. Have you been deposed
`before?
` A. I have.
`
`4
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. Approximately how many times?
` A. I believe 42 times previously.
` Q. When was the last time you were
`deposed?
` A. Roughly a month ago.
` Q. And were all those depositions in the
`capacity as an expert witness?
` A. They all were.
` Q. Is there any reason why you cannot give
`your complete and full testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Can you tell me about your computer
`setup that you're working with today.
` A. Yes. I am working with a Windows 11
`computer. I have Zoom open. I have a PDF reader
`with a clean copy of my second declaration, the file
`history, Hirayama Ren, and the '879 Patent on a PDF
`reader.
` Q. Do you have any e-mail or chat
`functionality open on that computer?
` A. I do not.
` Q. Do you have any other electronic
`devices with you in the room?
` A. I have a Smartphone, a cellphone here,
`but it is on airplane mode and I will not be
`
`5
`
`
`
`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
`
`referencing it.
` Q. Do you have any hard-copy documents
`with you?
` A. I do. I also have a clean copy of the
`patent and a clean copy of my declaration.
` Q. What did you do to prepare for today's
`deposition?
` A. I met with Counsel to discuss --
` MR. HENDIFAR: I object.
` Doctor, please don't state what we
`discussed. You can just state that you met with
`Counsel.
` THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, I wasn't
`intending to.
` A. Just over the last two days, I met with
`Counsel to discuss the case.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) And who did you meet
`with?
` A. With Parham Hendifar and Philip Graves.
` Q. Did you talk with anyone else to
`prepare for today's deposition?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Who -- who has retained you in this
`matter?
` A. NeoNode, the patent owner.
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. And do you have a separate retention
`letter for the IPRs versus the district court case?
` A. I do --
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection as to
`privilege. I don't believe that information is
`discoverable.
` So I instruct the witness not to
`answer that question.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) When were you retained
`for the IPR?
` A. I can give you an answer as to when I
`was first retained, but I'm not sure exactly when I
`was asked to work on the IPR. It was sometime after
`I was first retained.
` Q. Okay. When was -- when were you first
`retained for the IPR?
` A. Again, I don't know when I was first
`retained on the IPR, but I was first retained around
`March of 2020, first contacted and engaged to work on
`the case on behalf of NeoNode. I think the IPR work
`came a little bit later than March of 2020.
` Q. Who contacted you?
` A. My recollection, it was Philip Graves.
` Q. I would like you to refer --
` A. Actually, I would like to amend that
`
`7
`
`
`
`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
`
`answer. I was contacted through IMS Expert Services,
`who is an expert witness search firm that I'm working
`through and they -- they contacted me about this
`opportunity and set up the interview with Philip
`Graves. So technically it was IMS that contacted me.
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
` (Exhibit 2007 introduced)
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) If I could have you
`refer to your declaration, which is Exhibit 2007 in
`this proceeding.
` A. Yes, I have it in front of me.
` Q. Are those still your opinions that are
`reflected in that declaration?
` A. They are, yes.
` Q. Do you have any changes or corrections
`to those opinions?
` A. I believe when reviewing this
`declaration, I did come across a couple of minor
`typos, but aside from that, no. I'm not sure if I
`can -- I'm sort of scanning through it right now to
`see if I could quickly find -- I know there was a
`date that was wrong in one place. There was -- oh,
`under my skill and expertise, that was incorrect. I
`think that is -- one moment.
` Well, actually, I'm wrong about that.
`
`8
`
`
`
`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
`
`That's correct, I think there was a date somewhere
`said like 2058 when it should have been 2007 or
`something is my recollection.
` Q. You also sent in a declaration on
`behalf of NeoNode in a separate IPR proceeding,
`correct?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: Correct.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) I'm not sure -- okay.
`Are you aware of any -- any errors or corrections to
`the declaration you submitted in that other
`proceeding --
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) -- for NeoNode?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection as to form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, there may have
`been an error in my -- the area of my expertise in
`one of those ones, but I would have to go through it
`sort of paragraph by paragraph to know -- to be able
`to point -- point those out.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) So let's dig in to your
`opinions for the -- for the '879 Patent. Did you
`construe any claim terms as part of your work?
` A. I did not.
` Q. What did you consider as the relevant
`
`9
`
`
`
`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
`
`date for your analysis of the '879 Patent?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I considered the filing
`date. I used the filing date of September 10th, 2002
`in paragraph 26 of my declaration. My opinions are
`from the matter of a POSEDA as of this date.
`However, my opinions do not change if the priority
`date is slightly changed.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) If I use the term
`"POSEDA," will you understand I'm referring to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art for the '879
`Patent at that December 2002 date?
` A. Yes, I will.
` Q. So that date in mind, was a PDA running
`Windows CE something a POSEDA would have known about?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I guess my answer is
`most likely, yes. However, I didn't dig into the
`history of PDAs and the history of Windows CE and
`when that product was first released and on what
`devices. So, you know, I really like to speak -- I
`didn't research that. So most likely yes is my best
`answer, but that wasn't part of my analysis to know
`when the release date of Windows CE was or when that
`was first used on PDAs.
`
`10
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Windows CE had a touch
`user interface, correct?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think I would
`characterize it as hardware devices may or may not
`have a touch interface. Software such as Windows CE,
`which is an operating system, may provide some
`additional support for a hardware device with a touch
`interface; but again, that isn't something that I
`researched, so I would need to research that to say
`definitively yes or no, whether Windows CE, the
`operating system, supported hardware devices with
`touch interfaces.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Windows CE supported a
`drag gesture, correct?
` A. A drag, is that what you said?
` Q. Yes.
` MR. HENDIFAR: Excuse me. Objection:
`Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, really the same
`answer as before, I don't believe windows CE is -- is
`listed anywhere in the declaration. Here I haven't
`done analysis of Windows CE, so you're asking me to
`speak from memory from, you know, over 20 years ago
`and -- and I like to be more sure of my -- my facts
`
`11
`
`
`
`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
`
`on that, so --
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) So then --
` A. -- (inaudible) my analysis.
` Q. So is it fair to say that you did not
`analyze PDAs with Windows CE in the 2002 time frame
`to form your opinions in this matter?
` A. My understanding of this matter was to
`respond to the petitioners, to the opinions of
`Dr. Bederson, to look at the prior art that he
`presented, look at the mappings that he presented and
`respond to that. If Dr. Bederson had make arguments
`around Windows CE, I guarantee you I would have
`looked into it.
` Q. So I will ask the question again.
` Is it fair to say that you did not
`analyze PDAs with Windows CE in the 2002 time frame
`to form your opinions in this matter?
` A. I did not, because Dr. Bederson and
`petitioners were not making the claim that Windows CE
`was anticipatory or rendered this patent obvious.
` Q. Are you familiar with palm devices
`running the Palm operating system from the 2002 time
`frame?
` A. In general, I am familiar with the Palm
`devices at a high level. PalmPilot I believe was one
`
`12
`
`
`
`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
`
`of their models. But again, the same answer as
`before, I did not dig into the history of Palm
`devices or Palm OS, which was the operating system
`that ran on them, because they weren't positioned as
`being anticipatory or rendering obvious the patents.
`So at a high level, I'm familiar with them, but I'm
`not familiar with the details or when -- what they
`supported or when that -- when that functionality was
`released.
` Q. Was a Palm device running a Palm
`operating system something a person of ordinary skill
`would have known about?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I would say in general,
`yes. And I -- like I just testified, also knew
`about -- know about them, but I haven't studied the
`specific features and when those specific features
`were released.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Palm devices running
`the Palm operating system in the 2002 time frame
`provided a touch user interface; is that correct?
` A. Did you say -- in the what time frame?
` Q. 2002.
` A. I can say that I used a Palm device and
`I recall using it with a stylus and it did have a
`
`13
`
`
`
`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
`
`touchscreen that I recall was a resistive touchscreen
`versus a capacitive touchscreen, but again, I can't
`tell you the -- I don't know the exact date that
`those products came out. So I guess I could answer
`your question that, yes, the Palm devices had a
`touchscreen, but I can't tell you the release date of
`that.
` Q. And Palm devices running the Palm
`operating system, those devices supported a drag
`gesture, correct?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I did not analyze that.
`They may have or they may not have, but I recall
`using a calendar on them, an address book, but I
`can't recall one way or another if there were a
`drag-and-drop UI interface to that.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Did you analyze whether
`Palm devices with the Palm operating system in the
`2002 time frame supported a swipe gesture?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
`Objection: Form and asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: I did not. Again,
`because Dr. Bederson and Petitioners were not
`bringing up Palm devices. They were not bringing up
`Windows CE devices. I certainly would have looked
`
`14
`
`
`
`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
`
`into them if they were making arguments about those
`devices being anticipatory or rendering the subject
`patent obvious.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Did you analyze the art
`that was relied on by the examiner in the file
`history as part of your analysis in this case?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: Can you be specific as
`to which art? I know I looked at some, but there may
`have been a very long list of art that was put in
`front of the examiner.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) I believe there was a
`reference called Carlson that referred to the pen in
`the operating system. Did you analyze that prior
`art?
` A. Not that I recall. And again, I don't
`recall Dr. Bederson or arguments by the Petitioner
`that I have seen that are making arguments as to why
`Carlson -- is that the name you used, Carlson?
` Q. (Nods).
` A. -- was anticipatory or rendered
`obvious. So I am trying -- my understanding is my
`responsibility is to be responsive to the arguments
`of Petitioner and Petitioner's expert.
` (Exhibit 1001 introduced)
`
`15
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Let's turn to the '879
`Patent, and I believe that is Exhibit 1001. Do you
`have that in front of you, Dr. Rosenberg?
` A. I do, yes.
` Q. If I could have you look at Figure 1.
`What is that figure illustrating?
` A. So in column one, line 22 it says,
`"Figure 1 is a schematic and highly simplified view
`of a touch sensitive area on a mobile handheld
`computer unit."
` Q. And then column three, lines 51 through
`54, the specification recites, "Figure 1 illustrates
`a user interface for a mobile handheld computer unit.
`The user interface, according to the present
`invention, is specifically adapted to computer units
`comprising a touch-sensitive area 1 which is divide
`into a menu area 2 and a display area 3."
` Did I read that correctly?
` A. Yes, you did.
` Q. And the menu area 2 presents a
`representation of a first function 21; is that right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And the menu area 2 also presents a
`representation of a second function 22 and a third
`function 23; is that right?
`
`16
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. I would agree with that.
` Q. Those representations are illustrated
`in the menu area 2 in Figure 1; is that right?
` A. Yes, they are.
` Q. And those are shown as a plus sign for
`representation figure -- sorry, representation number
`21, correct?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And looking at Figure 1, that menu area
`2 is separate from a display area 3; is that right?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: The patent uses the term
`"divided" into a menu area and a display area.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) The menu area 2 is
`illustrated roughly the same in all of the figures
`where -- where the menu area 2 is depicted; is that
`correct?
` A. Are you asking are the figures
`relatively consistent about the menu area in terms of
`its size of some attribute? If you could be a little
`bit more specific.
` Q. If I could direct your attention to,
`for example, Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 5 on
`Sheet 1 of the drawings in the patents.
` A. I see those.
`
`17
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. The menu area 2 in Figure 1 with
`representations 21, 22, and 23, that menu area is
`depicted in the same way in Figures 3 and 5; is that
`correct?
` A. I would agree with that.
` Q. Turning to claim one in the '879
`Patent, does claim one require a touch-sensitive area
`with a menu area?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection as to form
`and scope.
` THE WITNESS: So as I'm reading claim
`one. If you can just restate your question again,
`please.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Does claim one require
`a touch-sensitive area with a menu area?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: A touch-sensitive area
`with a menu area, is that how you phrased it?
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Yes.
` A. So you're describing two separate
`areas; is that right?
` Q. Well, the specification that we just
`read recites that the touch-sensitive area 1 is
`divided into a menu area and a display area, correct?
`
`18
`
`
`
`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.
` Q. So does the claim require a
`touch-sensitive area that includes a menu area?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the claim requires
`a touch-sensitive area in which a representation of a
`function is provided. So if we were to tie that back
`to Figures 1, 3, or 5, we see that area 2 at the
`bottom of the screen in those three figures is the
`touch-sensitive area in which a representation of a
`function is provided.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Does -- the
`representation of a function that's recited in claim
`one, does that need to be displayed in a -- or,
`excuse me, does that need to be presented in a menu
`area --
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) -- according to the
`claim?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the words "menu"
`or "menu area" are not in claim one, if that answers
`your question.
`
`19
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) When you were analyzing
`claim one, did you consider the claim to require the
`representation of the function to be presented in a
`menu area?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I didn't analyze that
`specifically because the word "menu area" was not
`there; and because, to the best of my knowledge, this
`wasn't brought up by the Petitioners or Dr. Bederson,
`I didn't turn my attention specifically to your
`question about the representation of function needing
`to be in a menu area, given that menu area isn't part
`of claim one, so I haven't done that analysis.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Does claim one recite a
`display anywhere?
` A. It does speak about allowing the
`computer to present a user interface for a mobile
`handheld computer unit. So I think one of skill in
`the art would understand that in this device, which
`is presenting information digitally to the user, that
`a display would necessarily be needed to present a
`visual user interface.
` Q. Does the claim require a display that
`has a touch user interface?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`
`20
`
`
`
`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
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the claim requires
`a touch-sensitive area, and as I just spoke, I
`believe that it would be -- a POSEDA reading this
`claim would understand that this is a visual user
`interface. So therefore, it would have a display,
`and it talks about a touch-sensitive area as well.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Does the claim require
`the touch-sensitive area be over the display?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Because Petitioners and
`Dr. Bederson did not present this argument, I, being
`responsive to their arguments, have not analyzed
`that. I have not dug into that yet.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Looking at the claim
`that recites -- excuse me, claim one that recites, "a
`multistep operation: The multistep operation
`comprising an object touching the touch-sensitive
`area at a location where the representation is
`provided," and then II, "the object gliding along the
`touch-sensitive area away from the touch location."
` That is the language recited in the
`claim, correct?
` A. Your question was: Is that recited in
`
`21
`
`
`
`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
`
`the claim? Is that what --
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes, I believe you -- you read that
`accurately, or close to exactly.
` Q. Does that multistep operation in claim
`one require that the object move or glide along a
`display area?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: Thinking of the
`technology at the time and even current technology, I
`cannot envision an implementation that wouldn't have
`an object gliding along a display area. We're not
`talking about a physical object. We are talking
`about objects that are on the display. So I don't
`know how you could get an object on the display that
`is not a physical object without gliding along the
`display.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) In claim one, the
`multistep operation refers to an object touching the
`touch-sensitive area. What do you understand that
`object to be?
` A. My understanding is in most cases that
`would either be a stylus or a finger.
` Q. Is the claim limited -- does the claim
`limit that object to a finger or could it be
`
`22
`
`
`
`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
`
`something different, like a pen?
` A. Yes, when I said "stylus," that is a --
`that means a pen, an object your hold in your hand.
` Q. So for claim one, the object could be a
`finger or a pen or a stylus, correct?
` A. Well, again, claim -- in column three,
`lines three through six, it says, "The user interface
`is also adapted to be operated by one hand where the
`object can be a finger, such as a thumb of a user of
`the computer unit."
` And then in column six, lines around
`11, "The user interface is adapted to be one hand
`where the object can be a finger, such as a thumb
`shown in the figures of a user of the computer unit."
` It goes on to say, "It should be
`understood that the present invention might also be
`used with another object, such as a pen or other
`pointing device."
` Q. So you would agree for claim one the
`object could be a finger or a pen, correct?
` A. I do.
` Q. If we look at Figure 2 of the '879
`Patent --
` A. I see it.
` Q. -- and you reproduced this figure in
`
`23
`
`
`
`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
`
`your declaration, correct?
` A. I believe I did. Would you like me to
`find that?
` Q. It is in paragraph 42 in your
`declaration, correct?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. All right. What type of gesture is
`Figure 2 illustrating?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: A gliding -- a gliding
`along the touch-sensitive area, which is -- according
`to the intrinsic evidence is also a swipe gesture.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) What is it about the
`gesture of Figure 2 that makes the swipe gesture?
` A. Well, the object, and in this case it
`is a thumb, is sliding along the touch-sensitive
`area. I mean, that's -- I mean, I have paragraphs in
`my declaration about -- I don't want that to be
`construed that any sliding along is a swipe gesture.
`I analyzed the difference between how swipe is more
`specific than move and talk about the intrinsic
`evidence in support of that as well.
` Q. Would a person of ordinary skill have
`considered the gesture shown in Figure 2 a stroke?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: That is not a term that
`I have come across either in this litigation, or even
`in user interface design in general, so I wouldn't
`necessarily agree with that.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Would a person of
`ordinary skill have considered the gesture shown in
`Figure 2 a drag gesture?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: No. They would not.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) Why not?
` A. Well, if we turn to my declaration,
`there is a couple of paragraphs. I would like to
`point you to 61 and 67. Let me find them. I want to
`start with 67, I think. I think it was toward the
`last -- the last sentence.
` So the last sentence of paragraph 67,
`"In a drag-and-drop operation, the user generally
`perceives some form of an object or function as
`behaving as if it is being dragged by the movement of
`the stylus pen." I will add finger as well to that.
` "Sometimes an operating system
`provides visual feedback by actually showing the
`object moving on the screen, together with the pen."
` In 61, it is saying something similar
`
`25
`
`
`
`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
`
`with slightly different words. "From the perspective
`of the user, an object is being logically dragged and
`behaves as it is being dragged with the movement of
`the stylus and/or a finger." It is being moved from
`one place to another.
` And going back to Figure 2 of the
`'879, they're not describing any drag and drop. We
`are not moving an object from one location to another
`and the intrinsic evidence of '879 specifically and
`in the file history is -- is distinguishing drag and
`drop. If we look at paragraph 54 and 55 of my
`declaration, the applicant is making it clear that
`gliding away is distinct from drag and drop.
` And if we look at page 170 of the
`prosecution history, there is even a chart that the
`applicants talking about the claimed invention is the
`novel touch and glide user interface as distinguished
`from Hoshino, the prior art in front of the examiner
`at that time, which they describe as a drag and drop.
` So the patent owner during the course
`of prosecution of the patent is making it very clear
`they're not talking about drag and drop. Figure 2 is
`not talking about drag and drop.
` Q. Is a drag gesture different from a
`drag-and-drop gesture?
`
`26
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I haven't fully
`analyzed that, but the drag gesture would necessarily
`mean that you are moving some -- you're logically
`moving something -- I say logically to mean that it
`doesn't have to update. You don't have to show the
`duplication during the dragging, but from the user's
`point of view, from the system's point of view,
`something is being moved during the drag.
` The drop element just means that
`you're letting it go and it remains wherever you've
`let it go. So I guess one could say that the drag
`gesture of a drag and drop is the first part of it
`and the dropping is letting it go.
` I suppose you could turn off the
`system, you know, before you lift your finger or lift
`the stylus and essentially enact the drop so only a
`drag would happen, but oftentimes in user interface
`the terms are used synonymously. Drag this file to
`the trash or drag and drop this file to the trash.
`From a POSEDA's point of view, they would mean the
`same thing.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) For a drag gesture, you
`would agree that the action of the user is consistent
`
`27
`
`
`
`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
`
`with what's shown in Figure 2?
` A. Correct.
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form and
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: There is a paragraph I
`am looking for in my declaration that I think will
`speak to your question, so let me please find it.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) It may be paragraph 65
`in which you refer to gliding away in a drag-and-drop
`gesture.
` A. Yes, that is the paragraph I was
`looking for. Thank you.
` Q. And in paragraph 65 you state, "The
`distinction between gliding away in a drag-and-drop
`gesture is material, even though they may have
`overlapping movements."
` Did I read that right?
` A. Yes. In the same way that the slide
`touch and the slide off in Ren are essentially pen in
`the air, pen on the screen, pen sliding along the
`screen, pen in the air. If you were just to look at
`those, the slide touch and slide off are identical;
`but as you can see, you know, from Ren, they're very
`different. Drag and drop is different from gliding
`or swiping, in the same way that slide touch is
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`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
`
`different from slide off.
` Q. And is that because the user interface
`responds to the gesture in a different way?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think that is part of
`it, yes, the user interface does respond to the
`gesture in a different way. The system responds to
`the gesture in a different way. Different things
`will happen as a result of the -- the programmer can
`program a very different action between a swipe and a
`drag and drop.
` And so the system, the user interface,
`these are different gestures that will be interpreted
`in different ways, even though they may share some
`similarities. They may share some similarities but
`that doesn't mean that they are similar.
` Q. (BY MS. MILLER) So for the action shown
`in Figure 2 -- well, strike that.
` Does Figure 2 inform the reader as to
`how the user interface or the system is responding to
`that gesture?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Objection: Form.
` THE WITNESS: If you're asking does
`Figure 2 in isolation tell a POSEDA what's going on
`in the system, perhaps not. But n
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
