· · · · · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · · · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`· · · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`Page 1
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·C O N T E N T S
`
`Page 3
`
`·2· · EXAMINATION
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · By Mr. Johnson, pages 6, 263
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · By Mr. Louwagie, page 259
`
`·5· · EXHIBITS
`
`·6
`
`·7· · NUMBER/DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·8· · Paper 9............................................ 245
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · Decision Granting Institution
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·of Inter Partes Review
`
`11· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1101.......................· 27
`
`12· · · · · · · · · US RE45,415 E
`
`13· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1105....................... 174
`
`14· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 4,917,782
`
`15· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1106....................... 160
`
`16· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 4,039,439
`
`17· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1107....................... 230
`
`18· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 5,324,398
`
`19· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1108....................... 234
`
`20· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 5,439,576
`
`21
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(continued...)
`
`·1· · EXHIBITS:
`
`Page 4
`
`·2· · NUMBER/DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1109....................... 237
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 3,984,303
`
`·5· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1111....................... 222
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 6,296,756 B1
`
`·7· · Tennant Company Exhibit 1112.......................· 91
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · United States Patent 3,891,535
`
`·9· · OWT Ex. 2109.......................................· ·8
`
`10· · · · · · · · · Declaration of Dr. Ralph E. White
`
`11· · · · · · · · · Executed on 6/16/21
`
`12· · OWT Ex. 2116....................................... 119
`
`13· · · · · · · · · Declaration of Dr. Ralph E. White
`
`14· · · · · · · · · Executed on: 11/19/21
`
`15· · OWT Ex. 2117....................................... 121
`
`16· · · · · · · · · Declaration of Dr. Ralph E. White
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·Executed on: 11/19/21
`
`18· · OWT Ex. 2179....................................... 125
`
`19· · · · · · · · · Tennant Bubble Size Measurements
`
`20
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · * * * * *
`
`21· · · · ACCESS TO THE ELECTRONIC ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT FILE
`
`· · · · · · ·HAS BEEN GRANTED TO FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · · · · * * * * *
`
`· ·
`
` · · TENNANT COMPANY,· · · · · · · · · · · Case IPR2021-00625
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. RE 45,415
`· · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`· ·
`
` · · v.
`·
`· · · OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`·
`· · · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`·
`· · · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`·
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Video Deposition of
`· · · · · · · · · · · · Ralph E. White, Ph.D.
`· · · · · · · · · · · Wednesday, February 9, 2022
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·8:05 a.m.
`
`· ·
`
`
`·
`·
`·
`·
`· · · Court Stenographer:
`· · · Patrick J. Mahon
`· · · Registered Merit Reporter
`· · · Certified Realtime Reporter
`
`Page 2
`
`·1· · APPEARANCES:
`·2
`·3· · FOR THE PETITIONER:
`·4· · · · · · · · ·FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
`· · · · · · · · · ·R. Scott Johnson
`·5· · · · · · · · ·Attorney at Law
`· · · · · · · · · ·111 East Grand Avenue, Suite 301
`·6· · · · · · · · ·Des Moines, Iowa 50309-1884
`· · · · · · · · · ·rsjohnson@fredlaw.com
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · Adam R. Steinert
`·8· · · · · · · · · Attorney at Law
`· · · · · · · · · · 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
`·9· · · · · · · · · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1425
`· · · · · · · · · · asteinert@fredlaw.com
`10
`· · · FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`11
`· · · · · · · · · ·CARLSON CASPERS VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A.
`12· · · · · · · · ·Nathan Louwagie
`· · · · · · · · · ·Aaron W. Pederson
`13· · · · · · · · ·Attorneys at Law
`· · · · · · · · · ·225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`14· · · · · · · · ·Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`· · · · · · · · · ·nlouwagie@carlsoncaspers.com
`15· · · · · · · · ·apederson@carlsoncaspers.com
`16· · ALSO PRESENT:
`· · · · · · · · · ·Adam Wallin, Videographer
`17
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * * * *
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`COPY
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION, held pursuant to NOTICE
`·2· · OF TAKING DEPOSITION, held at the offices of Carlson
`·3· · Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A., 225 South Sixth
`·4· · Street, Suite 4200, Minneapolis, Minnesota, before
`·5· · Patrick J. Mahon, a Registered Merit Reporter and
`·6· · Certified Realtime Reporter, and a Notary Public in and
`·7· · for the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were
`·9· · duly had:
`10· · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are on the record.
`11· · This is the video recorded deposition of
`12· · Dr. Ralph E. White being taken on February 9, 2022.· The
`13· · time now is 8:05 a.m.
`14· · · · · · · · ·This deposition is being taken in the matter
`15· · of Tennant Company versus Oxygenator Water Technologies,
`16· · Incorporated, in the United States Patent and Trademark
`17· · Office, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`18· · Case Number IPR2021-00625.
`19· · · · · · · · ·This deposition is taking place in
`20· · Minneapolis, Minnesota.
`21· · · · · · · · ·My name is Adam Wallin.· I'm the videographer
`22· · representing Twin West Reporting.
`
`Page 6
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Will counsel please identify themselves for
`·2· · the record.
`·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· This is Scott Johnson, and I'm
`·4· · here with my partner Adam Steinert, and we represent the
`·5· · petitioner in this matter.
`·6· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· And this is Nathan Louwagie
`·7· · from Carlson Caspers on behalf of the patent owner
`·8· · Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc., and Aaron Pederson is
`·9· · here with me.
`10· · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Will the court reporter
`11· · please swear in the witness.
`12· · (The oath was administered by the court stenographer.)
`13· · · · · · · · · WITNESS RESPONSE:· I do.
`14· · · · · · · · · · ·RALPH E. WHITE, PH.D.,
`15· · · · ·a witness in the above-entitled proceedings,
`16· · · · · · · after having been first duly sworn,
`17· · · · · · · · testified under oath as follows:
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`19 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`20 Q· Good morning, Dr. White.
`21 A· Good morning, Scott.
`22 Q· Good to see you again.
`
`·1 A· You too.
`·2 Q· Can you please state your name for the record, sir.
`·3 A· Ralph Edward White.
`·4 Q· And, Dr. White, I know we've talked to each other before,
`·5· · or with each other before in the District Court
`·6· · litigation.
`·7· · · · · · · · ·You understand that we are here today because
`·8· · there are proceedings now pending before the Patent and
`·9· · Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board?
`10 A· I understand that.
`11 Q· Okay.· And you submitted a few declarations in that, what
`12· · I'm going to call the IPR proceeding; do you understand
`13· · that?
`14 A· Yes, I understand that.
`15 Q· Okay.· One of those declarations has your CV attached to
`16· · it.· Do you recall doing that?
`17 A· Yes.
`18 Q· Okay.· And my question for you, I guess, is, has anything
`19· · on your CV changed between the time that you submitted it
`20· · to the PTAB and today?
`21· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`22 A· Not that I can recall.· I may have added a publication,
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · but nothing substantial.
`·2 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·3 Q· Okay.
`·4· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2109 was premarked for
`·5· · identification.)
`·6 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·7 Q· I'm going to hand you what's been submitted and already
`·8· · marked in this IPR proceedings as your first declaration.
`·9· · It's OWT Exhibit 2109.· Here you go, sir.
`10· · · · · · · · ·Dr. White, can you please review that
`11· · declaration real quick, just to make sure that that is a
`12· · true and accurate copy of Exhibit 2109?
`13 A· (Reviewing.)
`14· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`15· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· Counsel, what's wrong with the
`16· · objection to form here?· I'm asking him to verify what
`17· · I've just given him a copy of.
`18· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· He's not aware of it.· He
`19· · hasn't looked at the docket.· You can ask him if it's a
`20· · true and correct copy of the declaration he submitted, but
`21· · he doesn't know the exhibit number that was --
`22· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· It's marked by you as
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`·1· · Exhibit 2109.
`·2· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Not by Dr. White.
`·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· This is cross-examination.· And
`·4· · I'm going to caution you about making too many objections
`·5· · today.· I'm not going to really tolerate it too much.
`·6· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· I'm going to object as I need
`·7· · to.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· I get it, but this is cross in
`·9· · front of the PTAB.· So please keep those limited.
`10 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`11 Q· Does that look like the declaration that you submitted
`12· · initially in this matter, sir?
`13 A· Yes, it does.
`14 Q· All right.· And if we go back to your CV that you
`15· · submitted in this matter, which, I believe, starts on
`16· · page 30 of your declaration there, sir, do you see that?
`17 A· Yes.
`18 Q· Okay.· And there are some experiences that I wanted to
`19· · talk to you about, I guess, on those here.· Aw, maybe it's
`20· · not in this one.· I apologize.
`21· · · · · · · · ·Have you given testimony in other IPR
`22· · proceedings, sir?
`
`Page 11
`·1· · think we have a statement about that.· Maybe I can look
`·2· · that up if we --
`·3 Q· Sure.
`·4 A· -- if we have it in the first declaration.· I think
`·5· · it -- it's in the second declaration, probably in the
`·6· · first declaration also.· (Reviewing.)
`·7 Q· Well, can you just describe it generally for me?
`·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`·9 A· Well, in general, it's the process of passing a DC current
`10· · through an electrolyte to produce in the commercial world
`11· · gasses, oxygen, and hydrogen.· It's the electrolysis of
`12· · particularly potassium hydroxide solution.· That
`13· · electrolyte is used commercially because it has a very
`14· · high conductivity, but that's the commercial process of
`15· · electrolysis of water.
`16 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`17 Q· And you believe that a person of -- well, let's just go
`18· · through your declaration here, sir.
`19· · · · · · · · ·Your declaration, if we look at paragraph, I
`20· · believe it's -- let's look at paragraph 13, for example.
`21· · That says that you're being compensated here today at a
`22· · rate of $400 per hour; is that correct?
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`·1 A· Yes, I have.
`·2 Q· Okay.· Have you been deposed in those proceedings?
`·3 A· Yes.
`·4 Q· Okay.· Do you know if the Patent Office ever instituted
`·5· · IPR proceedings, instituted those proceedings?
`·6 A· Yes, I think they did.
`·7 Q· And which side did you represent?· Did you represent the
`·8· · patent owner or the petitioner?
`·9 A· The patent owner.
`10 Q· Okay.· And do you recall the outcome of those IPR
`11· · proceedings?
`12 A· It was protracted, and I don't think I was ever notified
`13· · of the outcome.
`14 Q· Okay.· And you've been a professor of chemical
`15· · engineering.· You were a professor for quite some time;
`16· · correct?
`17 A· Yes, that's true.
`18 Q· And you are aware of water electrolysis and what that is;
`19· · correct?
`20 A· Correct.
`21 Q· Okay.· What is water electrolysis, sir?
`22 A· Well, I think I talk about that in my declaration. I
`
`·1 A· Yes, that's correct.
`·2 Q· And who is paying you that money?
`·3 A· Through Rubin Anders, I believe it is, is an expert
`·4· · headhunter.· I don't know how to describe it other than
`·5· · that.
`·6 Q· Okay.
`·7 A· They contacted me, and then also I was retained by
`·8· · counsel, but that's the entity that I bill.
`·9 Q· And your "Prior Testimony" -- this is where I was getting,
`10· · and I apologize, I was just lost a little bit before.
`11· · · · · · · · ·In "Prior Testimony," it says that you served
`12· · as an expert before the United States International Trade
`13· · Commission; is that correct?
`14 A· Yes.
`15 Q· And that was in a case involving battery technology; is
`16· · that right?
`17 A· Correct.
`18 Q· Okay.· Then you also served as an expert in a couple of
`19· · IPR proceedings.· Do you see that in paragraph 15 of your
`20· · report, sir?
`21 A· Yes.
`22 Q· And the first one there was, I guess they're both for the
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 13
`·1· · same parties, SKI Innovation, Limited versus LG Chemical.
`·2 A· Uh-huh.
`·3 Q· Is that correct?
`·4 A· Yes.
`·5 Q· And you represented LG Chemical in those cases; is that
`·6· · right?
`·7 A· No, SKI.
`·8 Q· SKI.· Okay.
`·9· · · · · · · · ·And do you recall what the technology was
`10· · there?
`11 A· Yes.· The technology was associated with the lithium-ion
`12· · batteries that are made by those two companies.· And this
`13· · was actually a case where I did not testify.· I was not
`14· · deposed.· I only prepared a declaration for this case
`15· · specifically on the separator in the lithium-ion battery
`16· · that was being contested in this case.
`17 Q· And the other case that's listed here is Multi Service
`18· · Technology Solutions versus Lifeshield.
`19· · · · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`20 A· Yes.
`21 Q· And who were you an expert for there, sir?
`22 A· For Lifeshield.
`
`Page 14
`
`·1 Q· And do you recall the technology there?
`·2 A· This was a case of what we call a pouch battery utilized
`·3· · for, like, an iPad or actually a mini-iPad.· The problem
`·4· · was that the charging device that was used by customers
`·5· · overcharged the battery and caused gas to be formed in the
`·6· · pouch cell that's in the battery which caused the back of
`·7· · the iPad to pop off and no longer provides service.· That
`·8· · was the problem with the overcharging of the cell.· That
`·9· · was my responsibility to talk about that.
`10 Q· And other than the cases that have been listed in
`11· · paragraphs 14 through 16 of your initial declaration here,
`12· · sir, have you provided expert testimony or declarations in
`13· · any other matters?
`14 A· I have been involved in a case that is associated with the
`15· · Tesla automobile, and I was involved as an expert for a
`16· · father on behalf of his deceased son who was killed in the
`17· · fire that pursued after crashing a Tesla into a wall.· It
`18· · was a battery fire.· I was deposed by Tesla, put in an
`19· · expert report and was deposed by Tesla.
`20 Q· So is it fair to say that other than the present
`21· · proceedings, every other proceeding that you've provided
`22· · expert testimony in involved some sort of battery issue?
`
`Page 15
`
`·1 A· Recently I think that would probably be correct.
`·2 Q· Well, other than recently, are there any other cases that
`·3· · don't involve battery technology that you've been an
`·4· · expert in?
`·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`·6 A· I was involved in a case associated with actually a
`·7· · separator.· This goes back quite some time ago, but it was
`·8· · a chemical process that I was involved in.· It turned out
`·9· · that the company that was formed by three young men who
`10· · spun out of a large company were being sued by the large
`11· · company for infringing on their patent, the large
`12· · company's patent.· Ultimately what happened is, we were
`13· · able to prevail and show that the patent was actually
`14· · invalid.· So the small company was successful in obtaining
`15· · actually compensation from the large company for having to
`16· · go to court.
`17 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`18 Q· And the chemical process that was involved in that, do you
`19· · recall what that was?
`20 A· That was cleaning up radioactive waste.
`21 Q· Did it involve water electrolysis at all?
`22 A· I don't think so directly, no, but the concept of the
`
`Page 16
`·1· · electrolytes and so forth in the process were, of course,
`·2· · involved.
`·3 Q· You understand in this case there have been embodiments of
`·4· · prior art that have been created and tested by the
`·5· · petitioner's expert; is that right?
`·6· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`·7 A· I understand that.
`·8 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·9 Q· Have you yourself done any testing in this case?
`10 A· No.
`11 Q· Have you tried to recreate any prior art in this case?
`12 A· No.
`13 Q· Have you asked to see any of the embodiments that were
`14· · created by petitioner so that you could review those or
`15· · test those?
`16 A· I think I did ask to see the devices that were tested, but
`17· · I think I wasn't able to see them in person.· As I recall,
`18· · I was able to see them when Nate and Aaron went to Tennant
`19· · via FaceTime, as I recall.
`20 Q· Okay.· Have you ever observed any testing in this case?
`21 A· No.
`22 Q· So it's fair to say you never created any embodiments of
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· · prior art yourself for this case; correct?
`·2 A· That's correct.
`·3 Q· You never tested different types of water that could be
`·4· · used in electrolysis for this case; correct?
`·5 A· Correct.
`·6 Q· And you never tested the effects of different voltages
`·7· · that could be used in this case; correct?
`·8 A· Well, when you ask me that question, I'm not sure.· Are
`·9· · you asking me in general have I --
`10 Q· For this case, you've ever done any testing; correct?
`11 A· Not for this case specifically, no.
`12 Q· Okay.· And this initial report that you presented
`13· · and that OWT has submitted as Exhibit 2109, you signed
`14· · that on June 16th of 2021; correct?
`15 A· Correct.
`16 Q· Okay.· And you understand that was before the Patent Trial
`17· · and Appeal Board gave its decision as to whether or not to
`18· · institute these proceedings; is that right?
`19 A· Correct.
`20 Q· And you understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`21· · decided to institute these proceedings; correct?
`22 A· Correct.
`
`Page 18
`
`·1 Q· And that's kind of why we're here today; right?
`·2 A· That's my understanding.
`·3 Q· Right.
`·4· · · · · · · · ·You indicate in here that you've reviewed the
`·5· · '415 patent, which is the patent at issue here today;
`·6· · correct?
`·7 A· That's correct.
`·8 Q· All right.· And you understand when I say "'415," I'm
`·9· · referring to the reissued patent 45,415; is that right?
`10 A· That's my understanding.
`11 Q· Okay.· And that's how I intended to, so I'll try to do
`12· · that today.
`13· · · · · · · · ·You reviewed the '415 patent and its
`14· · specification; correct?
`15 A· Correct.
`16 Q· You reviewed its claims; correct?
`17 A· Correct.
`18 Q· And you reviewed its file history; correct?
`19 A· That's correct.
`20 Q· Now, when you say you reviewed the file history, did you
`21· · review the file history of just the '415 patent, or did
`22· · you review the file history of all of the related patents
`
`·1· · to the '415?
`·2 A· As I recall, just the '415.
`·3 Q· Okay.· You reviewed the petition that was filed in this
`·4· · matter by Tennant; correct?
`·5 A· Correct.
`·6 Q· And then you reviewed all of the exhibits that were
`·7· · attached to that petition; correct?
`·8 A· Correct.
`·9 Q· Okay.· In paragraph 22 and 23 of your initial report, you
`10· · talk about the level of skill, of a person of ordinary
`11· · skill in the art.
`12· · · · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`13 A· Yes.
`14 Q· And it's fair to say that you agree with the petitioner's
`15· · determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`16· · has "a degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or a
`17· · similar discipline and at least two years of experience
`18· · with electrolysis systems."· Is that right?
`19· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`20· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· Again, Counsel, what's the form
`21· · objection?
`22· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· The form objection is that you
`
`Page 20
`·1· · paraphrased what he said, and I'm objecting to the extent
`·2· · that he was trying to read it.
`·3 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·4 Q· You can proceed.
`·5 A· I was just looking at paragraph 22, "presumed to have
`·6· · complete knowledge of the relevant prior art and who would
`·7· · think along the lines of conventional wisdom in that art."
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Well, okay, I see in 23...· (Reviewing.)
`·9· · Okay, so "Petitioner has suggested that a" -- "a degree in
`10· · chemistry" -- "a similar"...· Yes, I agree with that.
`11 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`12 Q· Okay.· And when you reviewed the '415 patent, you
`13· · understood it; correct?
`14 A· Correct.
`15 Q· And you understood that when the inventor who's listed,
`16· · the patentee of the '415 patent, made statements in there,
`17· · those statements are presumed to be correct for today;
`18· · correct?
`19· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`20 A· I'm sorry, the statements where?
`21 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`22 Q· In the '415 patent.
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objection.
`·2 A· When you say "statements," you mean what's written in the
`·3· · '415?
`·4 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·5 Q· Yes.
`·6 A· Yes.· Yeah, I agree.
`·7 Q· You presume that to be correct.
`·8 A· Uh-huh.
`·9 Q· Right?· Sorry, I need a "yes" there.
`10 A· All right.
`11 Q· Sorry.· When the statements are made in the '415 patent,
`12· · you presume those statements are correct; right?
`13· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`14 A· That's correct.
`15 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`16 Q· All right.· Sorry, I should have just reminded you, you
`17· · know, the court reporter is here and we have a
`18· · videographer, but "uh-huhs" and "uh-uhs" are just hard to
`19· · take down on the record.
`20 A· Did I do that?· I'm sorry.
`21 Q· No, that's okay.· That's why I was asking the question
`22· · again.
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Do you understand what the written
`·2· · description requirement is, sir?
`·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.· Outside
`·4· · the scope.
`·5 A· The written description requirement?· By whom?
`·6 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·7 Q· Do you understand the written description requirements of
`·8· · the patent laws?
`·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection.· Outside the scope.
`10 A· I haven't reviewed those probably -- not recently.· I'm
`11· · not sure if I ever have, frankly.
`12 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`13 Q· Do you know what the enablement requirement is of the
`14· · patent laws?
`15· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection.· Scope.
`16 A· I know what the word "enablement" means, if that's what
`17· · you're asking me.
`18 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`19 Q· You understand, the inventor of the '415 patent's
`20· · invention was required to teach others of skill in the art
`21· · how to make and use his invention in the description?
`22· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection.· Scope.
`
`Page 23
`
`·1 A· I understand that's a requirement, yes.
`·2 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·3 Q· Okay.· And you understand this applies not only to the
`·4· · '415 patent but also the prior art; correct?
`·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objection.
`·6 A· Correct.· Correct.
`·7 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·8 Q· And you understand that you can't hold the prior art to a
`·9· · disclosure requirement that's higher than the patent
`10· · itself; right?
`11· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection.· Outside the scope.
`12· · Calls for a legal conclusion.
`13 A· Would you repeat the question, please, Scott?
`14 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`15 Q· Yeah.· You can't hold the prior art to a standard of
`16· · enablement that's higher than that that's in the patent;
`17· · correct?
`18· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objections.
`19 A· As far as I understand, the standard for enablement would
`20· · be applied universally.
`21 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`22 Q· So you would agree that the prior art only needs to
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· · disclose what the patent discloses --
`·2· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objections.
`·3 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·4 Q· -- in order to invalidate it; correct?
`·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objections.
`·6 A· Would you repeat that, please?
`·7 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·8 Q· Yeah.· Your counsel is interrupting and being obstreperous
`·9· · here, but...
`10· · · · · · · · ·You would agree that the prior art only needs
`11· · to disclose what the '415 patent discloses in order to
`12· · invalidate it; correct?
`13· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objections.
`14 A· Well, I'm not sure I would agree with that. I
`15· · don't -- I'm not sure why you would say that.
`16 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`17 Q· Do you think the prior art has to disclose more than the
`18· · '415 patent in order to invalidate it?
`19· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection.· Outside the scope.
`20· · There's no opinion here about indefiniteness.
`21 A· I guess the line of questioning is a little bit confusing
`22· · to me, Scott.· I'm not really sure what you're asking me.
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
`·1· · Would you repeat it?· I'm sorry.
`·2 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·3 Q· Sure.
`·4 A· I just -- I'm not following the question.
`·5 Q· No, that's all right.· I'm just trying to make sure that
`·6· · we're applying the same standards to both the '415 patent
`·7· · and the prior art.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·You would agree that if I want to invalidate
`·9· · the '415 patent, I don't have to have prior art that
`10· · explains any more than what's in it; right?
`11· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objection.· Calls for a
`12· · legal conclusion.· Outside the scope.
`13 A· See, I think we were talking about enablement, and we
`14· · agree that the requirements for enablement are applied
`15· · universally to all patents.· And we haven't really talked
`16· · about invalidity.· I think when you say "invalidity," I
`17· · don't know that that is consistent with applying
`18· · enablement universally.
`19 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`20 Q· Well, what about written description?· If the patent
`21· · describes an embodiment and I find that embodiment
`22· · described in the same way in the prior art, that's enough;
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· · right?
`·2· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Dr. White, if you can pause a
`·3· · little bit longer, because I don't want to interrupt
`·4· · Scott, and I've been interrupting him with the objections
`·5· · because there hasn't been a little break there to object.
`·6· · So if you can just...
`·7· · · · · · · · ·Outside the scope.· Calls for a legal
`·8· · conclusion.
`·9· · · · · · · · ·Go ahead.
`10 A· That's what, I guess, I'm concerned about, Scott, is,
`11· · you're asking me to comment about questions that are
`12· · beyond the enablement questions that we talked about
`13· · earlier.
`14 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`15 Q· Well, you would agree with me that the patentee has to
`16· · show in his specification what he actually invented?
`17· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objections.
`18 A· I would agree with that.
`19 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`20 Q· Okay.· And here, the patentee provided some definitions
`21· · for some of his terms that he used in his patent; right?
`22 A· That's correct.
`
`Page 27
`·1 Q· Okay.· And we have to take those inventor's definitions as
`·2· · correct; right?
`·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Same objection -- objection.
`·4· · Same objections.
`·5 A· I guess I'm -- when you say as -- I take them as being
`·6· · correct, within the confines of the patent.
`·7 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`·8 Q· Right.· That's correct; right?
`·9 A· Yeah.
`10 Q· Yeah.
`11 A· I agree with that.
`12 Q· And so here, let's just look at it, if we look at
`13· · exhibit --
`14· · · · · · · · ·MR. JOHNSON:· Can I have 1101?
`15· · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1101 was premarked for
`16· · identification.)
`17 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`18 Q· I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit 1101
`19· · in these proceedings, sir.· And I'll represent to you,
`20· · this is a copy of U.S. Reissued Patent 45,415.
`21· · · · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`22 A· Yes, I see that.
`
`Page 28
`·1 Q· Okay.· And if we look at this patent, we can see that the
`·2· · inventor here actually did provide some definitions for
`·3· · some terms, if we look at column 4; right?
`·4 A· (Reviewing.)· Correct.
`·5 Q· All right.· And you understand, a patentee can be his own
`·6· · lexicographer; correct?
`·7 A· I understand that, yes.
`·8 Q· Yeah.
`·9· · · · · · · · ·And here, we understand the patentee set
`10· · forth several definitions, one of which is "nanobubble."
`11· · · · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`12 A· I see that, yes.
`13 Q· And the inventor defined "nanobubble" to mean "a bubble
`14· · with a diameter less than that necessary to break the
`15· · surface tension of water."
`16· · · · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`17 A· I see that.
`18 Q· Okay.· Is there a size that's required of a nanobubble
`19· · there, sir?
`20 A· There's no size specified, other than it has to be a
`21· · bubble with a diameter less than that necessary to break
`22· · the surface tension of water.
`
`TENNANT COMPANY
`EXHIBIT 1147
`
`

`

`Page 29
`·1 Q· Right.· And he also defines a "microbubble" up above.
`·2· · That "means a bubble with a diameter less than
`·3· · 50 microns."
`·4· · · · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`·5 A· I see that.
`·6 Q· And a microbubble with a diameter less than 50 microns
`·7· · does not break the surface tension of water; correct?
`·8 A· I don't -- I don't agree with that statement.· Would you
`·9· · repeat it?· I don't think I heard you correctly.
`10 Q· A microbubble with a diameter less than 50 microns doesn't
`11· · break the surface tension of water; correct?
`12 A· I don't know why you would say that.· It doesn't say that
`13· · here.
`14 Q· So you don't agree with that statement; is that right?
`15 A· I don't agree with that statement.
`16 Q· Okay.· If bubbles don't break the surface tension of
`17· · water, that means they stay in solution; correct?
`18· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`19 A· So...· Would you repeat that?· I'm sorry, Scott.
`20 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`21 Q· Yeah.· A bubble that doesn't break the surface tension of
`22· · water stays in the water; correct?
`
`Page 30
`
`·1 A· Well, I think we're -- I think it's reasonable to say
`·2· · that, yes.
`·3 Q· Okay.· It doesn't break through the surface tension of the
`·4· · water and escape; correct?
`·5 A· What doesn't?· I'm sorry, the bubble?
`·6 Q· Yeah.· A bubble that is not a nanobubble does not
`·7· · break -- or strike that.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·A bubble larger than a nanobubble will break
`·9· · the surface tension of the water and escape into the
`10· · atmosphere; correct?
`11· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`12 A· We don't have a statement to that effect.· It just tells
`13· · us that a definition of a microbubble is "a bubble with a
`14· · diameter less than 50 microns," and a nanobubble means "a
`15· · bubble with a diameter less than that necessary to break
`16· · the surface tension of water."
`17 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`18 Q· Right.· And I'm asking you about bubbles that break
`19· · through the surface tension of the water.
`20· · · · · · · · ·Fair to say that the inventor would not have
`21· · considered those nanobubbles; correct?
`22 A· I think that's true.
`
`Page 31
`
`·1 Q· Okay.· And microbubbles, we talked about those being
`·2· · 50 microns; correct?
`·3 A· Correct.
`·4 Q· And nanobubbles are smaller than microbubbles; correct?
`·5 A· Correct.
`·6 Q· Okay.· So if a bubble stays in solution, it's fair to say
`·7· · that that's a nanobubble; correct?
`·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. LOUWAGIE:· Objection to form.
`·9 A· I don't -- I don't think that follows, Scott.
`10 BY MR. JOHNSON:
`11 Q· Why?
`12 A· Well, we're just going by definitions here.· And the
`13· · definition of a nanobubble is "a bubble with a diameter
`14· · less than that necessary to break the surface tension of
`15· · water."
`16· · · · · · · · ·So we don't have a specific size.· We just
`17· · know that it's a nanobubble.
`18 Q· So what happens to nanobubbles that don't break the
`19· · surface tension of the water?· Where do they go?
`20 A· I think they would stay in the water.
`21 Q· Okay.· So a bubble that stays in the water is a
`22· · nanobubble?
`
`Page 32
`·1 A· Well, we don't know if the microbubbles stay in the water
`·2· · or not.· He doesn't comment about that.
`·3 Q· Could a nanobubble, using these definitions, be greater
`·4· · than 50 microns in size?
`·5 A· A nanobubble?
`·6 Q· Yes.
`·7 A· I don't think so, no.
`·8 Q· So a bubble that stays in the water can't be greater than
`·9· · 50 microns in size; correct?
`10 A· Well, we don't really know that.· The information we have
`11· · here is what we've gone over already.· He doesn't really
`12· · tell us with these definitions that we're looking at in
`13· · column 4 whether or not a microbubble is anything other
`14· · than a bubble with a diameter less than 50 microns.
`15· · That's all he tells us about it.
`16 Q· And if we want to see the bubbles that remain in solution,
`17· · the inventor tells us a way to do that; correct?
`18 A· I don't recall that part.· Are we talking about column 4?
`19 Q· No, we're talking about column 5 now, a measurement of 02
`20· · bubbles there.
`21 A· Oh.· Okay.
`22 Q· And look about line 50, whe