`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`Vs.
` GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`IPR2021-00920 of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431
`IPR2021-00921 of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`IPR2021-00922 of U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079
`IPR2021-00923 of U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION
`OF BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO
`MAY 5, 2022
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`456
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 1
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 2
`
` I N D E X
` WITNESSES
`All Witnesses: Page
`Benedict Occhiogrosso
` Examination by Mr. Hart 4
` EXHIBITS
`Exhibit 1001 '079 Patent 12
`Exhibit 1008 Dr. Bederson's '431
` Declaration 28
`Exhibit 1013 Bederson-Cited Document
` for '431 Patent 30
`Exhibit 2002 '079 Patent Declaration 6
`
`(The original exhibits were retained by Mr. Hart.)
`
`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
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 2
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 3
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________
`
` APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` Vs.
` GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` _________
`
` IPR2021-00920 of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431
` IPR2021-00921 of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
` IPR2021-00922 of U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079
` IPR2021-00923 of U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
` VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF BENEDICT
`OCCHIOGROSSO, produced, sworn, and examined on MAY
`5, 2022, between the hours of eight o'clock in the
`forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of that
`day, via different remote locations, before Tammie
`A. Heet, a Registered Professional Reporter,
`Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
`within and for the states of Illinois and Missouri,
`in a certain cause now pending in the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office, Before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board in re: APPLE, INC. Vs.
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC; on behalf of the
`Petitioner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 3
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 4
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES
`
`For the Petitioner:
` Mr. Paul Hart, Esq.
` ERISE IP P.A.
` 7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
` Overland Park, Kansas 66211
` 913/777-5600
` paul.hart@eriseip.com
`For the Patent Owner:
` Mr. John Wittenzellner, Esq.
` WILLIAMS SIMONS LANDIS, PLLC
` 1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
` Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
` 512/543-1373
` jwittenzellner@wsltrial.com
`For Google:
` Mr. Daniel Cooley, Esq.
` FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
` 1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
` Reston, Virginia 20190
` 571/203-2778
` daniel.cooley@finnegan.com
`Reported By:
` Ms. Tammie A. Heet, RPR, CSR(IL), CCR(MO)
` LEXITAS LEGAL
` 711 North 11th Street
` St. Louis, Missouri 63101
` 314/644-2191
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 4
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by
`and between counsel for the Petitioner and counsel
`for the Patent Owner that this deposition may be
`taken in shorthand by Tammie A. Heet, RPR, CSR, CCR
`and notary public, and afterwards transcribed into
`printing, and signature by the witness expressly
`waived.
` (Whereupon, the deposition began at
`8:31 a.m.)
` * * * * *
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO,
`of lawful age, produced, sworn, and examined on
`behalf of the Petitioner, deposes and says:
` EXAMINATION
`QUESTIONS BY MR. HART:
` Q. All right. Good morning,
`Mr. Occhiogrosso. Thanks for joining us today. I
`think I know the answer to this, but have you been
`deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Then I'll keep the ground
`rules short and sweet. The first big issue, it's
`my job to ask clear questions. If you don't
`understand any question I ask you, please let me
`know so I can rephrase or clarify. The next big
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 5
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`issue is the court reporter can only capture one of
`us speaking at a time. I will do my best not to
`speak over you and I would just ask that you do
`your best not to speak over me. That said, if I do
`cut you off while you're still answering, please
`let me know so I can allow you to finish your
`answer.
` Does all that make sense?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is there any reason, medical
`or otherwise, that you would be unable to answer my
`questions fully and truthfully today?
` A. No.
` Q. All right. Very good. Counsel for
`patent owner and I discussed how to handle exhibits
`today, and we decided that I will drop PDFs of
`every exhibit that I plan on introducing into the
`chat within Zoom so you can have access to that PDF
`and be able to control and scroll through that PDF
`while I'm asking questions about that exhibit.
` Does that make sense, and is that a
`workable solution for you?
` A. Yeah, I would say that's workable.
` Q. Okay. I will also share, through the
`screen share functionality, any exhibit I'm talking
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 6
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`about so everybody can see that exhibit as well.
`Let me start by introducing Exhibit 2002, your
`declaration from the '079 patent proceeding, which
`is Proceeding Number 922. Drop that into the chat
`for you here. Share that one. All right.
` Mr. Occhiogrosso, do you see the
`exhibit I just introduced?
` A. I do. And I'm going to open it
`momentarily. But I see it actually materializing
`also on the screen, so...
` Q. Yeah. I think -- I think this is a
`question where you probably don't need to control
`this yourself. I'd like you to take a look at
`paragraph 16, which I have on the screen, from
`Exhibit 2002 in the '079 proceeding. In this
`paragraph, you state that you understand the
`capabilities of a POSITA, as defined by Petitioner,
`and consider yourself a POSITA under this
`definition; is that correct?
` A. So that's correct what is said there.
`But what I would like to suggest is to see the
`definition of the POSITA as put forth by
`Petitioner.
` Q. Yep, that's where I was heading next,
`to get that language in front of you.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 7
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. I am dropping into the chat
`functionality, paper 1, the petition from the '079
`patent IPR proceeding, Proceeding Number 922. I
`will also share that.
` All right. So we have on our screen,
`page 4 from the '079 patent petition that sets
`forth the definition of a person having ordinary
`skill in the art. The petition advanced in this
`proceeding, which is a bachelor's degree in
`electrical engineering or equivalent, with at least
`one year of experience in the field of human
`computer interaction, additional education, or
`experience might substitute for the above
`requirements.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. As of 1999, what experience did you
`have in the field of human computer interaction?
` A. Quite extensive experience in the
`developing, managing interfaces for various systems
`that were deployed on behalf of clients, as well as
`products that my company had developed in the past.
` Q. Did you have any gesture recognition
`experience as of 1999?
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 8
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
` A. I'm trying to recall. As I sit here
`today, I can't recall.
` Q. Did you have any touchscreen control
`experience as of 1999?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what specific touchscreen control
`experience did you have as of 1999?
` A. We were working with financial
`institutions and they had various transaction
`processing systems, some of which were touchscreen,
`some of which were cursor control. Things like
`automated teller machines, point-of-sale terminals,
`ECRs, electronic cash registers.
` Q. And did you personally have
`responsibilities related to the human computer
`interaction aspects of those touchscreens?
` A. Yeah, we contributed to the script
`development and the Mann machine interface on
`behalf of some clients.
` Q. When you say "we," what was your role
`in the organization that contributed that
`technology?
` A. I was typically either the project
`manager or lead designer for projects we may have
`had with various clients.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 9
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. And do you recall any specifics about
`what you might have contributed to the touchscreen
`aspects of those projects?
` A. As I sit here today, no, I -- offhand
`I don't recall any specific aspects. Other than
`the broad area of script development.
` Q. As of 1999, did you have any
`experience with image based human computer
`interaction?
` A. I had experience as of that date with
`image processing.
` Q. And specifically with respect to
`processing images for the purpose of human-computer
`interaction, did you have any experience?
` A. I'm trying to recall. As I sit here
`today, I can't recall a human-computer interaction
`experience in that timeframe. Perhaps -- again,
`the actual time is not clear to me, but certainly
`with respect to surveillance compression
`transmission applications, did a lot of work in
`that area.
` Q. Okay. All right. Let's transition
`to a --
` A. Counsel, I would like to request just
`a minute. I don't need a break, but I want to
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 10
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`create a folder where I can please these exhibits
`on my computer because I think it's going to get
`very unyielding as time goes by if I need to refer
`back and forth to them. So if you'll --
` Q. Yeah, absolutely. Take as much time
`as you need. And just in case it's not clear, the
`PDFs that I have been dropping into the chat have a
`three-digit identifier to start the file name.
` A. I see that.
` Q. If it would help --
` A. Sure.
` Q. I'll reference that if I'm -- if I'm
`using an exhibit that's previously been dropped in
`the chat.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Just let us know when you're ready to
`continue.
` A. Will do.
` (A discussion was held off the
`record.)
` Q. (BY MR. HART) Okay. So the next
`exhibit is actually the first exhibit that we
`discussed, which has the designator 001 in the
`beginning of the file name, that is Exhibit 2002,
`your declaration from the '079 patent IPR which is
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 11
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`proceeding 922. I'm going to have you turn to page
`18 and paragraph 47 in that document.
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. So in paragraph 47, you
`introduce the claim language from claim element
`1(b) which recites, quote: Providing a camera
`oriented to observe a gesture performed in the work
`volume. The camera being fixed relative to the
`light source and determining using the camera, the
`gesture performed in the work volume and
`illuminated by the light source.
` In paragraph 48, you note that you
`understand the petition argues Numazaki's
`photo-detection sensor unit in figure 74 teaches a
`camera as required by claim element 1(b), and you
`note you disagree with this conclusion.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What means did you ascribe to the
`claim term "camera"?
` A. Can I get a copy of the petition?
` Q. Yes. You already have a copy of the
`petition. It was the second exhibit I introduced
`as it starts 002 as the designator.
` A. Thank you.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 12
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
` Can I get a copy of the '079 patent?
` Q. Yes. I believe I have to stop my
`screen share to drop that in the chat. So I just
`dropped in the chat, Exhibit 1001 from the '079
`proceeding, which is the '079 patent. And I've
`included a designation 011 in the beginning of that
`file name so you can find it again if we need it
`again.
` A. Okay. Could you repeat your last or
`your pending question?
` Q. Yes. What meaning did you ascribe to
`the claim term "camera"?
` A. The plain and ordinary meaning.
` Q. What characteristics are required of
`a camera to satisfy the plain and ordinary meaning
`that you applied?
` A. A camera would consist of several
`components, a lens, electro-optical sensor photo
`detection -- well, electro-optical sensor to
`convert optical signals into electrical signals.
`And storage, be it film or memory. I think that
`would be the bare minimum subsystems that would
`comprise a camera.
` Q. All right. I'm going to share your
`declaration from the '079 patent proceeding, and
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 13
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`draw your attention to paragraph 50 where you
`state: It is my understanding that the petition
`argues that each of Numazaki's photo-detection
`units in figure 2 e.g., photo-detection unit 109,
`photo-detection unit 110 is a camera.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'd like to talk about the
`functionality provided by these components within
`figure 2. If I scroll down to paragraph 53 in your
`declaration, which I'm doing on the screen share
`functionality, you note that -- that the first
`photo-detection unit 109 captures an image when the
`lighting unit 101 is active; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Is the first photo-detection unit 109
`a camera?
` A. It's a component of a camera.
` Q. Well, what is it missing to qualify
`it as a camera?
` A. It doesn't have a lens. It's a
`sensor. And it doesn't have memory.
` Q. So if photo-detection unit 109 is
`coupled with a lens and memory to store the image
`it captures, it would satisfy your interpretation
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 14
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`of the claim term "camera"; is that correct?
` A. Well, no. The first photo-detection
`unit itself wouldn't satisfy it. It would be the
`assemblage of those components collectively would
`satisfy the minimalist definition of the camera
`that I, you know, put forth.
` Q. And why do you need the -- I'm sorry,
`is your answer that photo-detection unit 109, plus
`a lens, plus memory is a camera?
` A. I -- I didn't say photo-detection
`unit, per se, 109 because that's in the context of
`the Numazaki embodiment. But what I would say is
`that a sensor that converts optical energy to
`electric energy, coupled with a lens that captures
`the optical signal, coupled with a memory to store
`that information would, under a minimalist's
`definition, constitute a camera.
` Q. Okay. So the first photo-detection
`unit 109 is an electric -- I'm sorry, let me start
`over.
` First photo-detection unit 109 is an
`electro-optical sensor, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And is it also correct that
`the second photo-detection unit 110 is an
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 15
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`electro-optical sensor?
` A. That's my understanding from the
`Numazaki's disclosures.
` Q. All right. Let's -- let's transition
`to the '949 proceeding for a moment. I'm going to
`drop into the chat function, your declaration from
`the '949 patent proceeding, which is Exhibit 2002.
`The proceeding number is the 921 proceeding. And I
`would ask you to scroll to paragraph 43 in your
`'949 patent declaration. And I'll share that on
`the screen as well.
` All right, Mr. Occhiogrosso, starting
`at paragraph 43, you are discussing claim element
`1(a) from the '949 patent, which recites: A device
`housing including a forward-facing portion -- the
`forward-facing portion of the device housing and
`encompassing an electro-optical sensor having a
`field of view and including a digital camera
`separate from the electro-optical sensor.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In paragraph 45, you discuss unit 102
`from Numazaki, which is depicted in your
`declaration in paragraph 44. It includes the first
`photo-detection unit 109 and second photo-detection
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 16
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`unit 110 that we just discussed. Paragraph 45, you
`conclude that unit 102 is not the claimed
`electro-optical sensor because unit 102 includes a
`difference calculation unit 111, and two separate
`cameras having specific timing and lighting
`requirements.
` Do you see that?
` MR. WITTENZELLNER: Object to the
`form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
`question?
` Q. (BY MR. HART) Sure. I'll read
`directly from paragraph 45 in your declaration
`discussing unit 102 from Numazaki. You state,
`quote: Because of its difference calculation, unit
`111 and its two separate cameras having specific
`timing and lighting requirements, in my opinion, a
`POSITA would not have understood Numazaki's
`reflective light extraction unit 102 as being the
`electro-optical sensor of claim element 1(a).
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So my first question is, does
`the inclusion of a difference calculation unit
`preclude Numazaki's unit 102 from satisfying the
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 17
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`claimed electro-optical sensor?
` A. Let's look at a copy of the '949.
` Q. Sure.
` A. And did you include a petition for
`the '949 as well? No, that was the '079 I believe.
` Q. I will drop both into the chat. Just
`a moment. All right. I just dropped into the
`chat, the '949 Petition, paper 1 from that
`proceeding, which I've included 012 designation at
`the beginning of the file name. And the '949
`patent, Exhibit 1001 from that proceeding, which is
`designated as 013 in the file name.
` A. Thank you. What was the pending
`question?
` Q. Does the inclusion of a difference
`calculation unit preclude Numazaki's unit 102 from
`satisfying the claimed electro-optical sensor?
` A. So in my opinion, the presence of the
`difference calculation unit, along with the need to
`be controlled by the timing unit for purposes of
`the lighting and illumination, would preclude --
`what was the number -- the reflective light
`extraction unit 102 from satisfying the claim of
`being the electro-optical sensor.
` Q. Why does the inclusion of the
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 18
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`difference calculation unit preclude unit 102 from
`satisfying the claimed electro-optical sensor?
` A. In my opinion, because the difference
`calculation unit, as its name implies, is taking
`the difference of the two photo-detection units and
`outputting that signal rather than the output of
`the sensor themselves.
` Q. And so, it's your interpretation that
`the claims require the claimed electro-optical
`sensor to produce a direct output -- let me scratch
`that question. I'm not sure that's clear enough.
` You agree, as we've already
`discussed, that unit 102 in Numazaki includes two
`separate electro-optical sensors, correct?
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. Sure. You agree that Numazaki's unit
`102 includes two separate electro-optical sensors?
` A. Yes, Numazaki's unit 102 includes two
`auto-detecting units which are regarded as
`electro-optical sensors.
` Q. Is it your opinion that because there
`are two electro-optical sensors in unit 102, unit
`102 as a whole cannot satisfy the claimed
`electro-optical sensor?
` A. Repeat the question.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 19
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
` MR. HART: Tammie, would you mind
`reading back that question just so I don't change
`things too much?
` (The preceding question was read
`back.)
` THE WITNESS: It is my opinion that
`unit 102 as a whole cannot satisfy the claimed
`electro-optical sensor.
` Q. (BY MR. HART) What is the output of
`Numazaki's unit 102?
` A. The output, as depicted in figure 2,
`is a difference signal computed by the difference
`calculation unit.
` Q. Is it an image that is output by unit
`102?
` A. It's an electrical signal.
` Q. That represents the difference
`between two images?
` A. That is fair to say. I -- let me
`think about that for a moment before I -- okay. So
`the output of the difference calculation unit is
`the difference between the outputs of the first and
`second photo-detection unit.
` Q. Let's transition to the '949
`Petition, which I dropped into the chat moments
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 20
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`ago, and it starts with a designator 012. I'm
`going to share on the screen the '949 Petition,
`paper 1 in that proceeding. So starting on page
`26, the petition discussing Numazaki's fifth
`embodiment, which it refers to as a TV telephone.
`Are you familiar with the operation of Numazaki's
`fifth embodiment?
` A. Yes.
` Q. On page 27 of the '949 Petition, I
`have screen shared now, depicts figure 46 from
`Numazaki, which is related to the fifth embodiment.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Underneath figure 46, the petition
`states: Using this arrangement, the fifth
`embodiment processes the output of two-sensor
`structure 102 to identify an outline of the
`subject, and subtracts everything outside this
`outline from the image captured by the visible
`light sensor 351.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that consistent with your
`understanding of Numazaki's fifth embodiment, that
`it uses unit 102 to create an outline in order to
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 21
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`remove everything outside of the subject from the
`image captured by physical light sensor 351?
` A. If it's not already in the chat, can
`you put Numazaki in the chat? I don't think it is
`actually.
` Q. I certainly can. I will need to stop
`the screen share to do that. All right. You
`should have Numazaki. It has a designator 008 at
`the start of its file name.
` A. Thank you. Could you repeat the
`pending question?
` Q. Yes. The question is, do you agree
`with the petition's characterization of the fifth
`embodiment of Numazaki as described on page 27 of
`the '949 Petition, specifically that it uses the
`arrangement in figure 46, processes the output of
`two-sensor structure 102 to identify an outline of
`the subject, and subtracts everything outside this
`outline from the image captured by the visible
`light sensor 351?
` A. So the extraction unit 353 extracts
`the overlapping portion from the images.
` Q. I'm just trying to make sure we're on
`the same page with respect to our understanding of
`the fifth embodiment.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 22
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Is there anything you dispute in the
`petition's characterization of the fifth embodiment
`in that passage that I read into the record?
` A. I need to look at Numazaki again
`because I'm not sure that the characterization
`subtracts everything outside this outline from the
`image captured is completely accurate. But it may
`be synonymous with extracting the overlap. So I
`think -- let me just read the extraction unit
`description in Numazaki.
` So based on my reading of Numazaki,
`which is on column 39 at line 32 through 35, I
`think what you describe -- or what the -- I should
`say what the petition -- I'm sorry, 32 through 41,
`what the petition describes is generally accurate.
`It doesn't use the term "subtracting," however.
`But extracting an image of only the specific target
`by comparing the image information stored in the
`image memory unit 352 and the range image stored in
`the range image memory unit 331.
` Q. The petition continues at the bottom
`of 27, quote: Given this functionality in which
`the output of unit 102 is used to define which
`portions captured -- I'm sorry -- which portions
`the video captured by 351 are retrained, a POSITA
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 23
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`would have understood that both are forward-facing
`and have overlapping fields of view.
` Do you agree that unit 102 in camera
`351 in Numazaki's fifth embodiment must be
`forward-facing and have overlapping fields of view?
` A. I would agree that the fields of view
`that are encompassed by the -- forgive me -- by the
`reflected light extraction unit and the visible
`light photo-detection array are overlapping.
` Q. If one of the unit 102 or camera 351
`were moved while the other remained in place, they
`would no longer have overlapping fields of view,
`correct?
` A. Well, that would depend on the amount
`of movement.
` Q. It's true that to accomplish its
`goal, the fifth embodiment in Numazaki requires
`unit 102 and camera 351 to retain overlapping
`fields of view, correct?
` A. I would agree with that. To satisfy
`the intended purpose, one could retain the
`overlapping field of view. Although, the purpose
`could be satisfied with partial overlap
`potentially.
` Q. Is there any suggestion in Numazaki's
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 24
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`fifth embodiment that unit 102 is not fixed in
`relation to camera 351?
` A. I don't recall seeing a reference in
`Numazaki that suggests that reflected light
`extraction unit 102 is fixed relative to visible
`light photo-detection array 351.
` Q. Fixing unit 102 and camera 351 in
`relation to one another ensures that they retain
`overlapping fields of view, correct?
` A. Fixing them ensures that there -- the
`fields of view, whatever they are, will be
`maintained. If they are overlapping to begin with
`and they remain fixed, then they would continue to
`be overlapping as long as they're not moved.
` Q. And so, I'm going to ask this again.
`I'm not quite sure I got an answer to my specific
`question.
` Are you aware of any discussion in
`Numazaki that suggests unit 102 is not fixed in
`relation to camera 351?
` A. In reviewing the passage describing
`figure 46, I'm not aware of any disclosure in
`Numazaki that indicates that either the
`photo-detection array or the reflected light
`extraction unit are or are not fixed to one
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 25
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 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
`
`another. I don't think the disclosure offers any
`information about that.
` Q. I think this is a good time for our
`first break. About 10 minutes and we'll meet back
`here.
` MR. WITTENZELLNER: Sounds good.
` MR. HART: Okay.
` (A short break was taken.)
` Q. (BY MR. HART) Okay. Welcome back,
`Mr. Occhiogrosso. I wanted to double back and ask
`some clarifying questions about an issue we talked
`about earlier this morning. I am going to
`reference your declaration in the '079 patent
`proceeding, Exhibit 2002, which was the first
`exhibit we discussed and has the numerical
`designation 001 to start the file name.
` Can I have you open that document and
`scroll to page 18, specifically paragraph 47? And
`just let me know when you're ready.
` A. Okay. I'm at paragraph 47 of that
`exhibit.
` Q. Earlier, we discussed the meaning of
`the term camera in the challenge claims.
` And I believe you testified that a
`camera requires a lens, an electro-optical sensor,
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1019 Page 26
`
`
`
` BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO 5/5/2022
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`and some sort of storage; is that correct?
` A. That's the minimalist definition of a
`camera and I don't recall if that question was in
`the context of the '079 or the '949, but that
`definition is a minimalist definition of a camera,
`yes.
` Q. If -- if a system has a lens and an
`electro-optical sensor and then takes the output of
`that electro-optical sensor for processing by, for
`example, a processor of some sort, but doesn't
`directly store the output of the electro-optical
`sensor, is there a camera?
` A. In my opinion, no. It's