`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________________________________________
` GOOGLE LLC,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` _________________________________________
`
` Case No. IPR2021-01041
` US Patent No. 8,095,879
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF CRAIG ROSENBERG, PhD
`
` Thursday, July 7, 2022
` 12:11 p.m. EDT
`
`REPORTED BY: Deanna Dean, RDR, CRR
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 1 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`2
`
` Thursday, July 7, 2022
` 12:11 p.m. EDT
`
` Deposition of CRAIG ROSENBERG, PhD, held
` via Zoom videoconference, before Deanna J. Dean,
` a Registered Professional Reporter, Registered
` Diplomate Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter,
` and licensed court reporter of the state of New
` Hampshire.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 2 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`Representing the Petitioner:
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` 271 17th Street, NW Suite 1400
` Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
` (404) 653-6484
`BY: KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQ.
` kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` 1875 Explorer Street
` Reston, VA 20190-6023
` (571) 203-2479
`BY: YI YU, PHD, ESQ.
` yi.yu@finnegan.com
`
`Representing the Patent Owner:
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
` 1880 CENTURY PARK EAST
` LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
` (310) 307-4510
`BY: PARHAM HENDIFAR, ESQ.
` hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 3 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`4
`
` I N D E X
`
` Examination Page
` CRAIG ROSENBERG, PhD
` By Attorney Rodkey 6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` Number Description Page
` Paper No. 33 Petitioner's Notice of 10
` Deposition of Dr. Craig
` Rosenberg (IPR2021-01041)
` Exhibit 1001 United States Patent No. 32
` 8,095,879 (previously marked)
` Exhibit 2019 Second Declaration of Craig 16
` Rosenberg, PhD
` (previously marked)
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 4 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE REPORTER: Here begins the remote
` deposition of Craig Rosenberg, taken in the
` matter of Google LLC, Petitioner, v. Neonode
` Smartphone LLC, Patent Owner, pending in the
` United States Patent and Trademark Office before
` the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case No.
` IPR2021-01041.
` Today's date is July 7, 2022. The time is
` now 12:11 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
` This deposition is being held remotely by
` Zoom videoconferencing. I am the licensed court
` reporter, Deanna Dean, presenting on behalf of
` Henderson Legal Services.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves
` and state whom they represent, beginning with
` the party noticing the deposition.
` ATTORNEY RODKEY: Kevin Rodkey with
` petitioner Google, and with me is Yi Yu. We're
` with the law firm of Finnegan.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: This is Parham
` Hendifar of Lowenstein & Weatherwax,
` representing patent owner Neonode.
` THE REPORTER: My name is Deanna Dean. I
` am a New Hampshire licensed court reporter.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 5 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` At this time, do all parties agree to
` waive any objection, now or in the future, to me
` swearing in the witness remotely?
` ATTORNEY RODKEY: Yes.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Yes.
` CRAIG ROSENBERG, PHD
`a witness called for examination, having been first
`duly sworn according to law, was deposed and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY ATTORNEY RODKEY:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Rosenberg.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. And for the record, would you please state
`your full name.
` A. Craig Stuart Rosenberg.
` Q. And where are you attending this
`deposition from?
` A. Bothell, Washington, which is just outside
`of Seattle.
` Q. And have you been deposed before?
` A. I have.
` Q. How many times?
` A. I believe 44 times.
` Q. So you're very familiar with depositions.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 6 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`But let me go through a couple ground rules, just
`so that we're on the same page as to how this is
`going to proceed.
` You understand that you have just been
`sworn under oath. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you understand that you're not to
`speak with your attorney about the substance of
`this deposition during the breaks?
` A. I understand that.
` Q. And do you understand that you're not to
`communicate with anyone else about this deposition?
` A. Yes, I understand that.
` Q. And do you understand that counsel may
`object from time to time, but you're still required
`to answer unless given an instruction not to?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you don't understand any of my
`questions, please feel free to ask for
`clarification or ask me to rephrase. If I think
`that's appropriate, I will try to rephrase to make
`it easier to understand.
` Will that work?
` A. That works fine.
` Q. And because this deposition is being
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 7 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`recorded only by transcript, please give verbal
`answers, rather than nodding your head or giving
`nearly inarticulate answers such as "mm-hmm."
` A. I will.
` Q. And I'll try to break about every hour,
`maybe plus or minus 15 minutes, depending on where
`we are.
` If at any point during this deposition you
`want a break, please feel free to ask me. I will
`try to accommodate you. We may proceed with a few
`more questions to wrap up a line of questioning,
`but I'll do my best.
` Will that be okay?
` A. Yes, that works fine. Thank you.
` Q. And is there any reason that you cannot
`give truthful and accurate answers today?
` A. No.
` Q. Is there anyone else in the room with you?
` A. There is not.
` Q. Since you're attending this deposition
`remotely, it appears that you're using a computer.
` Do you have any programs or software open
`other than this Zoom meeting and the website for
`the exhibits?
` A. Yes. I don't have the website for the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 8 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`exhibits open yet. I can open that.
` I have the meeting notice that's part of
`an Outlook message, and I have a PDF viewer with
`some electronic copies of clean, unmarked
`electronic copies of some of the references in my
`declaration.
` Q. Okay. Do you have any chat or
`communication applications open?
` A. I do not.
` Q. You said that you have a PDF viewer with
`certain documents open on it. What are those
`documents?
` A. My declaration, the '879 patent, the
`Robertson reference, the Maddalozzo reference, and
`the Tarpenning reference.
` But I have a directory with all of the
`patent owner exhibits and petitioner exhibits, too,
`so I can bring up clean copies of those if directed
`to.
` Q. Okay. For the most part, I'll be able to
`share clean copies with you, so hopefully you won't
`need those. I just want to make sure that we're
`looking at the same ones.
` Let's just go ahead at the moment and test
`the exhibit drop. So I'm putting in your notice of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 9 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`deposition into the exhibits folder.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: I apologize for
` interrupting, counsel.
` We will consent if you just want to drop
` the exhibits in the chat box. We believe it's
` just much faster, if that helps.
` ATTORNEY RODKEY: I can probably do that
` as well.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: If you prefer the
` link, that's fine. We usually do this because
` it's much faster.
` Q. All right. So we'll do it by chat if
`that's easier for you.
` You should have in the Zoom chat -- and,
`again, this is just a test -- the notice of
`deposition.
` (Paper No. 33 is placed in the chat box.)
` Q. Let me know when you've got that.
` A. Yes, I am looking at it right now. The
`chat window worked perfect.
` Q. All right. Then we will continue to use
`that instead. So if you would close any browsers
`or documents other than the Zoom window, I'd
`appreciate that.
` A. Yes. I would -- I do have a paper copy of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 10 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`my declaration as well as a paper copy of the
`patent, and I do like from time to time to refer to
`electronic version of my declaration as well in
`case I want to search for something.
` Q. Okay. Are those paper copies also
`unmarked?
` A. They are.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Rosenberg, are you familiar
`with the IBM Simon phone?
` A. A little bit. Yes. I mean, at a high
`level. I don't believe I've ever used one. But I
`have seen some documents on it.
` Q. Do you know when the IBM Simon phone was
`released?
` A. No, I haven't memorized that date.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Please allow me to
` place my objection. I apologize.
` Objection. Scope and relevance.
` Q. Are you aware that the primary input for
`the IBM Simon phone is a touchscreen?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Scope and
` relevance.
` A. I believe it did have a touchscreen and
`may have been considered the first touchscreen on a
`mobile device, but I'd need to review that to be
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 11 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`certain.
` Q. Are you familiar with personal digital
`assistants by Palm, such as the PalmPilot?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Scope,
` relevance, and form.
` A. Yes, I am.
` Q. And do you know when the first PalmPilot
`devices were launched?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Scope,
` relevance, form.
` A. I do not.
` Q. And are you aware that the primary input
`for PalmPilots was a touchscreen?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Scope,
` relevance, form.
` A. I will take your representation that
`that's true, but I can't say for certain that for
`all of the Palm models, touchscreen was the primary
`input. I do know that at least some of the
`PalmPilots did support a touchscreen.
` Q. And for those that did support a
`touchscreen, was that the primary mode of user
`input?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 12 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` A. I would need to review it. I believe they
`may have had some physical buttons as well. So --
`I guess it depends on the definition of "primary."
` But like I just said, I do believe that
`some -- at least some of the PalmPilots did support
`a touchscreen for human computer interaction.
` Q. Are you familiar with a company called
`Digital Ocean that released touchscreen phones in
`the '90s?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I am not.
` Q. Are you familiar with the desktop metaphor
`for user interfaces?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. Can you clarify your question by "desktop
`metaphor"? Are you just referring to graphic user
`interface or something different?
` Q. Have you ever heard of a graphical user
`interface referred to as a desktop?
` A. My understanding is a desktop is a little
`different than -- I mean, there could be some
`overlap, but you can have -- desktops are typically
`supported through a graphical user interface. But,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 13 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`no, I haven't heard someone describing a graphical
`user interface as being a desktop, because, to me,
`a desktop would just be a subset of graphical user
`interface.
` Q. What do you mean by "it's a subset of
`graphical user interface"?
` A. Well, when you think about a Windows
`desktop, and you've got a background and you have
`icons to launch programs; you may have a toolbar;
`you may have various menus. That wouldn't
`necessarily encompass a dropdown menu, which would
`be another graphical user interface element that
`you wouldn't necessarily just see when looking at a
`desktop.
` Q. So when you're referring to the Windows
`desktop there, that's the image on the screen.
`Correct?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever heard of the screen
`referred -- the screen image referred to as a
`desktop for a graphical user interface?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I guess I just want to be, you know, as
`precise as I can here, which is when you say the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 14 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`image on the screen, I think it seems like you're
`talking about just the background, and that might
`be just one element of the desktop.
` But as I previously testified, I described
`the menu bar; I described the icons; I described
`maybe a search text window. So there may be more
`elements than just the image that, together,
`comprises the desktop graph -- it's a desktop
`metaphor, really. So, you know, taken to simulate
`a virtual representation of ones's actual desktop.
` Q. And within those virtual representations
`or desktops, have you ever heard of X.desktop as a
`graphical user interface?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I don't believe so. I don't believe so.
` Did that run under the X Window System?
`Was that an add-on to X or -- I don't believe I've
`heard of it, to answer your question.
` Q. Okay. I'm just asking if you've heard of
`it.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of 3D Rooms?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Scope,
` relevance.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 15 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` A. I have not.
` Q. All right. I believe that you said that
`you have a copy of your declaration. I believe you
`submitted two declarations in this particular
`proceeding, one before institution and one after
`institution. So the one that I want to talk about
`today is the one that you submitted after
`institution.
` So I'm going to put it in the chat box now
`for you. That's Exhibit 2019. It's already been
`marked.
` (Exhibit 2019 is placed in the chat box.)
` A. Okay.
` Q. And please let me know when you have that.
` A. It has not shown up quite yet. But as I
`said, I do have a paper copy as well as a digital
`copy here locally as well. But it hasn't shown up
`in the chat window.
` ATTORNEY RODKEY: All right. Counsel, do
` you see it in the chat window?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: I do not.
` ATTORNEY RODKEY: I think I found the
` problem.
` Let me try this again.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: I have it.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 16 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` ATTORNEY RODKEY: Okay.
` A. Okay. It's downloading now.
` Okay. I have Exhibit 2019 open on my
`screen.
` Q. Okay. Would you please take a moment to
`look through Exhibit 2019 and just confirm that
`it's the second declaration that you submitted in
`this proceeding.
` A. Yes, it appears to be so.
` Q. And just for formality, if you'll flip to
`the very last page, which would be page 71, is that
`your signature there?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. If you would, please, could you turn to
`paragraph 71 of Exhibit 2019.
` A. Okay, I'm looking at paragraph 71.
` Q. Okay. And if you look in paragraph 71, in
`the fourth line, about halfway across, there's a
`sentence that says "While 'gliding' is a particular
`type of 'movement,' it does not follow that any
`'movement' is 'gliding,' particularly in the
`context of touch-based user interfaces."
` Did I read that right?
` A. You did.
` Q. What do you mean by that statement?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 17 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` A. Just simply that there are various forms
`of movement, and gliding is one form of movement.
` In the next sentence, I sort of described
`the subset/superset relationship, using the analogy
`of a chicken is a type of bird but not every bird
`is a chicken. Gliding is a type of movement,
`flicking is a type of movement, but they are not
`the same.
` Q. Would you consider them distinct types of
`movement?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` A. I would. Distinct from each other, yes.
` Q. Are there other types of movements that
`can be used in touch-based user interfaces?
` A. I would say so, yes.
` Q. Are there a lot of different types of
`movements that can be used?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I guess I would need to think about all
`the different kinds, but, I mean, tap or touch
`would be two other kinds of movement.
` So I think there's -- there's a variety of
`different kinds. Whether one would consider it to
`be a lot or just, you know, more than three or
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 18 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`four, there are a number of different kinds of
`movements, and computer programmers and designers
`can classify those movements and gestures to enact
`different outcomes associated with the computer
`program, to recognize different movements and
`gestures.
` Q. So you mentioned gestures. Other than
`flick and glide, what other kind of gestures can be
`used in touch-based user interfaces?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, relevance.
` A. Well, I just mentioned clicking, which
`could be just a tap, so down and up; or it could be
`a touch, which is just down; or it could be -- I'm
`just -- this is -- by no means is this fully
`exhaustive, this list. This is just me giving some
`examples.
` There's long press. There's harder
`presses, if the input can detect the amount of
`pressure. There's drag-and-drop movements. There
`can be a variety of different kinds of movements.
` Q. So if I'm understanding you right, then,
`movement is like a -- sorry. I'm going to go back
`to basic science class here with, you know,
`kingdom, phylum, genus, species, all like that.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 19 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` Movement is like a genus; it's like a
`superset. And then gliding or flicking would be a
`species; it's a subset of that genus of movement.
`Right?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` A. Yes. Like I testified earlier, movement
`is a superset and gliding is a subset. I agree
`with that.
` Q. And for gliding and flicking, if the user
`is using a pen, which I believe is an example that
`you have in your declaration, do both of those
`movements involve dragging the pen across the
`screen for some distance?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` A. Well, I wouldn't characterize it as
`dragging. I wouldn't say that, because I would --
`it's important to distinguish between a flick and a
`drag-and-drop, or even a swipe and a drag-and-drop.
` But there -- I would really need to think
`about this and analyze this carefully, and I do
`talk about in my declaration the differences
`between flick and swipe.
` So if your question -- is your question
`does a flick require at least some minimal distance
`on the screen? Is that -- I want to be responsive
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 20 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`to your question.
` Q. Sure. So let me break it down a little
`bit.
` So for a flick gesture, does the object
`performing the flick gesture need to -- and I'll
`use a different word -- need to contact the screen
`for some distance before it's lifted off?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` A. Well, I haven't fully analyzed this. This
`isn't something that the petitioner's expert, that
`I'm aware of, had opinions on that, that I needed
`to respond to.
` But if -- as a programmer, I -- as a
`programmer, if it didn't travel any distance at
`all, then that would be equivalent to a touch or a
`tap. If it went down on one pixel and went up on
`the same pixel, or just stayed down on the one
`pixel and there was no lateral, you know, vertical
`or horizontal movement at all, I would need more
`time analyzing it.
` But my initial thought is I don't believe
`that that could be detected as a flick. However,
`if it traveled just one additional pixel in any
`direction, then the computer could recognize that
`as a flick.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 21 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` So I guess your question said some
`distance. I would think -- and, again, this is a
`very preliminary analysis here on the fly,
`unrelated to what I understand is what Dr. Wobbrock
`has opined on -- that there would likely need to be
`at least one pixel worth of movement, at a minimum.
` Q. Didn't you testify in your declaration
`that gliding is a "relatively slower, smoother, and
`longer motion, while flick is a sharper, faster and
`shorter movement"?
` A. I believe that's correct. If you want to
`point me to the paragraph where I said that, I can
`read from it. But that sounds accurate.
` Q. Sure. And I'll point you to the paragraph
`just so you can confirm. It's paragraph 84. It's
`the last sentence of that paragraph.
` A. Yes. Yes, I've read that.
` Q. So you are drawing some distinction based
`on the length of the movements. Correct?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` A. That is correct.
` Q. What is the maximum length that a flick
`can be?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` Scope and relevance.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 22 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` A. That's something that I did not have to
`analyze. There was nothing in this case that
`seemed to -- my understanding is Dr. Wobbrock has
`not opined on where the metes and bounds are
`between flick and swipe. My understanding is that
`there has been no explicit claim construction on
`this, and their terms are given their plain and
`ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA during
`the time of the invention.
` And if you look at paragraph 77 of my
`report, I show what the plain and ordinary meaning
`is of "flick and glide," which is synonymous with
`"swipe" as disclosed in the prosecution history,
`you know, from 1993 through 2012 and hasn't
`substantively changed.
` Q. Under the plain and ordinary meaning that
`you've put in your declaration, what's the maximum
`length of a flick for a graphical user interface?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. Yeah. That's the question you just asked,
`and that's the question I just attempted to answer,
`which is I didn't need to analyze what the maximum
`length is, what the maximum speed is, but that if
`Dr. Wobbrock had offered opinions on what the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 23 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`maximum length is or the maximum speed or any
`specific attributes, I would have been in a
`position to his opinion and analyze and see if I
`agreed with that or not. But I didn't do that
`analysis, and my understanding is that that
`analysis wasn't required.
` Q. At what length does a flick cease to be a
`flick and become a glide?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I think that seems to be the third time
`you're asking the question, perhaps a slightly
`different way.
` But, again, I'm just using plain and
`ordinary meaning. There's not a number I can give
`you that represents the dividing line between a
`flick and a glide.
` That's a -- I would have been happy to
`read and consider the opinion of Dr. Wobbrock, but
`that never -- that never happened. My
`understanding is it's not my role and
`responsibility to do claim construction on the fly
`here, and to provide support what the plain and
`ordinary meaning is of flick and glide, and that's
`what I've done here, in a number of paragraphs, one
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 24 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`of them being paragraph 70 -- 77.
` Q. But in distinguishing the prior art
`Robertson reference, you drew a distinction between
`flick and glide. Correct?
` A. Well, Robertson never mentions glide at
`all. They only mention flick. They never mention
`swipe. It's -- Robertson is all about flick. So
`no distinction needed to be made between flick and
`glide. It was -- Robertson is teaching flick.
` Q. And you're distinguishing Robertson's use
`of the word "flick" from the '879 patent's use of
`the word "glide." Correct?
` A. Yes. The plain and ordinary meaning is
`different. Even Google and Apple in their
`developer documentation regard them as different.
`It's -- to treat them the same would just be
`incorrect.
` Q. And at what point -- so you're drawing
`this distinction between them, but you're not able
`to tell me where someone can draw the boundary
`between the two?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Is that a question
` pending? I'm sorry.
` Q. Are you able to tell me sitting here today
`where the boundary between flick and glide is?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 25 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form.
` A. I -- sorry.
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I have not done that analysis. My role is
`to be responsive to Dr. Wobbrock and he didn't
`voice any opinions or analysis on that. So I would
`not be able to do that analysis on the fly during a
`deposition.
` Again, my understanding of my role in this
`case is to be responsive to Dr. Wobbrock. My
`understanding in this case is that there has been
`no claim construction and that all claims were
`given their plain and ordinary meaning. So I've
`done an analysis of the plain and ordinary meaning
`of flick and glide, and I believe there's roughly
`three different paragraphs that talk about that:
`paragraph 84, you pointed to me first; paragraph
`77; and I think also it was around paragraph 40 --
`let me go there and look -- will also give you some
`more information about this.
` One moment.
` Yes, paragraph 40 as well.
` Q. So in your analysis of the plain and
`ordinary meaning of flick and glide, at what length
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`Page 26 of 70
`
`
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig
`
`IPR2021-01041
`
`July 7, 2022
`
`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
`
`did you draw the boundary between a flick and a
`glide?
` ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form,
` scope, and relevance.
` A. I believe this is the fourth time you've
`asked the same question where you're trying to
`elicit a certain number, at what length, you know,
`what's the distance. And I'm politely saying for
`the fourth time it's not my role to on the fly to
`do -- I haven't done that analysis because it
`wasn't required of me. What was required of me was
`to be responsive to Dr. Wobbrock and to apply the
`plain -- analysis of plain and ordinary, which is
`what I did.
` Q. So, to be clear, although you said you did
`an analysis of the plai