` 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