Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________________________
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
` AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE, INC.
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` NEONODE SMARTPHONE, LLC
` Patent Owner.
` ____________________________
`
` Case IPR 2021-00144
` Patent 8,095,879
` ____________________________
`
`REMOTE EXPERT DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN BEDERSON, Ph.D.
` FEBRUARY 28, 2022
` 8:03 a.m.
`
` Diana Janniere, CSR-10034
`
` Magna Legal Services
` 866-624-6221
` www.MagnaLS.com
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________________________
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
` AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE, INC.
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` NEONODE SMARTPHONE, LLC
` Patent Owner.
` ____________________________
`
` Case IPR 2021-00144
` Patent 8,095,879
` ____________________________
`
`REMOTE EXPERT DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN BEDERSON, Ph.D.
` FEBRUARY 28, 2022
` 8:03 a.m.
`
` Diana Janniere, CSR-10034
`
` Magna Legal Services
` 866-624-6221
` www.MagnaLS.com
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Page 162
`
`lift off?
` Q Okay.
` A That is what Sears uses that I described in
`Paragraph 54.
` Q Okay. If the user lands -- if the user's
`pen lands on the delete button 78 on Figure 5B of
`Hirayama '878, and then he immediately lifts off the
`pen without moving the pen, would a POSITA understand
`that gesture to be a tapping gesture?
` A Yes, I believe they would.
` Q Now, if the user lands the pen on the delete
`button, then drags the pen to outside of the delete
`box, and then lifts off the pen, would that be
`considered a tapping gesture?
` MS. MILLER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think I formed a
`specific opinion about that. I certainly -- in some
`systems, that would not result in activating the
`button. So it probably would not be considered a tap.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q One last one. And I don't mean to challenge
`you. This is just for me to have this done off my
`plate.
` So if the user lands the pen just outside of
`the delete button 78, drags the pen inside of 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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Page 163
`delete button; and then lifts off the pen from the
`delete button, would a POSITA ordinarily understand
`that to be tapping?
` MS. MILLER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think both of those are
`examples where based on Ren's disclosure, those could
`be ways of selecting the delete button; but I don't
`think I formed a specific opinion about whether that
`would be considered a tap.
` What I looked at is what Hirayama '878 said,
`which is the tip of the stylus touches the key, and
`touch is very clearly a broad word that very
`distinctly includes tap, as I described it.
` And I've disclosed that in some of the art
`that I included for -- with the things that a person
`of skill would know, including Allard, which describes
`a touch of a touch screen; and then goes on to say
`that the feature that the touch wouldn't actually be
`activated until he released the button.
` So that's a clear indication that is
`consistent with my understanding that the term "touch"
`includes the interaction that we just described as
`tap.
` Q I would appreciate if you don't distract
`from my question. The question was actually very
`
`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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Page 164
`
`straightforward.
` As an expert, is it your opinion that a
`POSITA would understand the gesture that is landing
`the pen just outside of the delete button, dragging it
`under the delete button, and then lifting it off;
`would a POSITA ordinarily understand that gesture to
`be a tap gesture?
` MS. MILLER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: So, again, that's not
`something that I specifically formed an opinion about
`in my report. I didn't need to.
` Because as I said, I showed why Hirayama
`'878 does disclose the tap. I didn't have to go and
`analyze the range of things that might not disclose a
`tap.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q As you indicated, you don't know whether or
`not that gesture is disclosed as a tap?
` MS. MILLER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think, as I already said,
`based on the disclosures of Ren, at least it is a
`possible form of selection, I did not analyze that
`for whether it means the word tap or not.
` I think it probably doesn't, but, I mean,
`sitting here today, it probably doesn't; but it
`
`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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Page 165
`doesn't matter because for the all reasons I've said,
`Hirayama '878 does disclose tap.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q What does it mean to be the shell of an
`operating system?
` A You broke up a little bit. Do you mind
`repeating the question?
` Q What does it mean to be the shell of an
`operating system?
` MS. MILLER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: So I described the term shell
`upon an operating system in my analysis of Claim 15.
` For example, in Paragraphs 170 and 171,
`regarding the Hirayama combination, and while I did
`not offer a construction for that term; and don't have
`a definition to give you today; I noted that that is
`something that was not described at all in the patent
`beyond just reciting the term.
` But I did give examples, based on my own
`experience, of what a person of ordinary skill would
`have understood that to include and showed how
`Hirayama discloses that.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q Sitting here as an expert, do you know what
`the shell of an operating system means in the field?
`
`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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 5
`
`
`
` REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
`
`Page 186
`
` I, Diana Janniere, a Certified Shorthand Reporter,
`in and for the State of California, do hereby certify:
`
` That the foregoing witness was by me remotely duly
`sworn; that the remote deposition was then taken
`before me at the time and place herein set forth; that
`the remote testimony and remote proceedings were
`reported stenographically by me and later transcribed
`into typewriting under my direction; and that the
`foregoing is a true record of the remote testimony and
`remote proceedings taken at that time.
`
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I subscribed my name
`this 2nd day of March, 2022.
`
` _____________________________
` Diana Janniere, CSR No. 10034
`
`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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2029
`Page 6
`
`
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
