UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________________________
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED PATENTS, LLC
` Petitioner
` v.
` MEMORYWEB, LLC
` Patent Owner
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
` __________________________
`
` Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01413
`______________________________________________________
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.
` September 29, 2022
` 7:35 a.m.
` Diana Janniere, CSR-10034
`
`Magna Legal Services
`866-624-6221
`www.MagnaLS.com
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`1
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`2 WITNESS: Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D.
`3
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`4
`By Mr. Werber 5
`5
`By Mr. Barazesh 182
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
` 34 Deposition Notice 5
` 1002 Dr. Bederson's First Declaration 103
` 1004 Okamura Patent 199
` 1005 Flora, et al., Patent 182
` 1037 Louie Patent 91
` 1038 Dr. Bederson's Second Declaration 13
` 2002 Fugiwara Patent 124
` 2035 Bederson's Volume I and II deposition 165
` 2040 Fugiwara (renamed as Takamura);
` Takamura 125
`
` 2041 Cambridge Dictionary printout;
` Responsive 52
` 2042 Cambridge Dictionary printout;
` Causing 59
`
` 2043 Dictionary.com printout 61
`
`Page 5
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
`
` BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn, testifies as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. WERBER:
` Q Good morning, Dr. Bederson. Can you please
`state and spell your full name for the record?
` A Yes. It is Benjamin B. Bederson. Spelled
`B-E-N-J-A-M-I-N, B., last name B, like boy, E-D, like
`David, E-R-S, like Sam, O-N, like Nancy.
` Q If I did everything correctly, I just
`introduced an exhibit, a document. Let me know when
`you have had a chance to open.
` A Okay. I have that document in front of me.
` Q Yeah. And I believe that now it's important
`to you, but under the P tab docket, I believe this is
`Paper No. 34.
` Do you recognize this document?
` (Whereupon, Paper No. 34 is marked
` for identification and is attached
` hereto.)
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`For the Petitioner:
` LAW OFFICES OF ELLYAR Y. BARAZESH
` ELLYAR Y. BARAZESH, ESQ.
` 4445 WILLARD AVENUE, SUITE 600
` CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20815
` 925.434.8754
` ellyar@unifiedpatents.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
` NIXON PEABODY, LLP
` MATTHEW WERBER, ESQ.
` ALLISON STRONG, ESQ.
` PETER KRUSIEWICZ, ESQ.
` 70 WEST MADISON STREET, SUITE 5200
` CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602-4378
` mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
` 2044 Demonstrative with three views 70
` 2045 Patent No. 11,061,524 79
` Unified Petition/'228 Patent 160
`
` (Original Exhibits 34, 1002, 1004, 1005,
`1037, 1038, 2002, 2035, 2040 - 2045, and Unified
`Petition/'228 Patent are attached hereto.)
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`1
`BY MR. WERBER:
`2
` Q So we'll go through a few things that I know
`3
`you're familiar with.
`4
` This is a deposition notice asking you to
`5
`appear and testify under oath in relation to the -- to
`6
`this IPR proceedings.
`7
` You understand you're here to testify about
`8
`your opinions in this case?
`9
` A Yes, I do.
`10
` Q Understanding you're here to provide
`11
`truthful and accurate answers in response to my
`12
`questions?
`13
` A Yes.
`14
` Q Do you understand the oath? The oath just
`15
`administered is that same oath used in a courtroom in
`16
`front of a judge and jury?
`17
` A I don't know what kind of oath is used in
`18
`front of a judge and jury.
`19
` Q You understand that you are here to testify
`20
`under oath, though; right?
`21
` A Yes, I do.
`22
` Q Is there anything that you can think of that
`23 may prevent you from hearing and understanding my
`24
`questions today?
`25
` A No.
`
`Page 8
`
`Page 7
`1
` Q Is there anything you can think of that may
`2
`prevent you from understanding my questions and
`3
`truthfully answering them?
`4
` A Well, I guess, whether I can understand your
`5
`questions depending on the clarity of your questions,
`6
`but I certainly will do my best to understand them. I
`7
`can't think of any reason why I can't do my best to
`8
`understand them.
`9
` Q Can you tell me where you are sitting --
`10
`sorry, did somebody -- Dr. Bederson, can you tell me
`11
`where you are sitting today?
`12
` A I am sitting at my house in Windsor,
`13 Massachusetts.
`14
` Q Is there anything in the room that is
`15
`powered on besides the computer you're using for Zoom?
`16
` A My phone and my watch are both powered on.
`17
`They are both in Do Not Disturb mode. So we cannot
`18
`see their screens.
`19
` Q Okay. And while you are under oath today,
`20
`just an instruction about that the usual -- that
`21
`because you are under oath, electronic communications,
`22
`you know, in relation to this case, I believe are
`23
`prohibited by -- you know, by rules of the -- by rules
`24
`of the board.
`25
` Do you understand that?
`
`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 Yes, that's fine.
` Q On your computer, I assume you have a PDF
`application open; right?
` A I have an application available to open
`PDFs.
` Q Okay. And then, in addition to that, you
`have the Zoom application open; right?
` A That is correct.
` Q Besides the Zoom application and the PDF
`viewing application, do you have any other
`applications running and available to you on your
`screen?
` A I have just the operating systems finder
`application for viewing documents and I'll say that
`this is a clean account that I'm logged into that has
`no other documents available except for the one
`document you just provided to me.
` Q Okay. Sounds good. And I will be giving
`you clean copies of exhibits on chat throughout --
`throughout the day today just as we have done before.
` A Okay. Can I just add one thing?
` Q Yes.
` A Since you're asking about my setup here, I
`also brought with me some clean copies of documents in
`this matter; paper copies.
`
`1
` Q With no notes or other marks; right?
`2
` A Correct. They're just -- the printer has
`3
`provided to me by counsel.
`4
` Q Okay. Can you tell me what you have paper
`5
`copies of?
`6
` A Yes, I have my reply declaration. I have
`7
`the '228 Patent and four pieces of primary art:
`8 Okamura, Flora, Wagner and Gilley.
`9
` I have a petition, my first declaration,
`10
`Patent Owner's response; and the transcript of my
`11
`first deposition.
`12
` Q Sounds good. I may ask you, if you want an
`13
`electronic copy of something. If you already have it
`14
`and you prefer paper, there's no need for me to go
`15
`through trying to post the whole thing. Mostly,
`16
`though, I may.
`17
` A So I skipped to say one other thing.
`18
` Counsel actually provided me with some
`19
`binders of other documents, additional documents.
`20
`They are in the room, but I don't have access to them
`21
`at my desk.
`22
` I don't anticipate needing them. If you
`23
`feel like I need to access them, how about I let you
`24
`know?
`25
` Q Okay. That's fine. And those are clean
`
`
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`copies as well?
`2
` A Yes, they are.
`3
` Q Here are a few instructions -- withdraw.
`4
` We have met before over Zoom; right?
`5
` A I believe so.
`6
` Q We did a deposition back in June; right?
`7
` A Sounds right.
`8
` Q So you're familiar with the drill and I know
`9
`you've testified many, many times before. Today I
`10 will do my best to ask clear and direct questions you
`11
`are able to understand.
`12
` If you do not understand a question or would
`13
`like clarification, please feel free to speak up and I
`14 will rephrase.
`15
` A Okay.
`16
` Q Makes sense?
`17
` A Yes.
`18
` Q While we are doing this remotely through
`19
`video conference, we still have a court reporter,
`20 Diana, recording what is said in the transcript.
`21
` To help the court reporter, we ask that you
`22
`answer verbally with words, yes, no, rather than
`23
`nodding your head; or rather making nonverbal
`24
`gestures.
`25
` Does that sound -- does that make sense?
`Page 12
`
`1
` A Yes, that's fine.
`2
` Q A few minutes ago, Mr. Barazesh introduced
`3
`himself as your attorney. Mr. Barazesh may choose to
`4
`object to some of my questions.
`5
` If he does, please allow time for him to
`6
`state his objection and then, you can proceed with
`7
`answering afterwards. Sound good?
`8
` A Okay.
`9
` Q And an objection does not mean that you
`10
`should not answer. That is, unless counsel
`11
`specifically tells you not to answer for reasons of
`12
`privileged, which I highly doubt we're going to get
`13
`into.
`14
` A Okay.
`15
` Q What did you do to prepare for today's
`16
`deposition?
`17
` A I read documents and talked with counsel.
`18
` Q You mentioned speaking with counsel. How
`19 many times did you speak with counsel in relation to
`20
`preparing for today's deposition?
`21
` A I believe it was two times.
`22
` Q Okay. When did that occur, the first time?
`23
` A The first time was Tuesday, September 27th.
`24
` Q And how long did you speak on that occasion?
`25
` A Approximately half a day.
`
`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
`
` Q Okay. And in the second -- sorry. Go
`ahead. Maybe that was the echo again.
` You mentioned a second occasion. When did
`that occur?
` A That was yesterday, Wednesday,
`September 28th.
` Q How long did that session run for?
` A I think it was about a couple of hours.
` Q Okay. So you mentioned two sessions: One
`on Tuesday and you said one yesterday; correct?
` A That's right.
` Q And during that session, you spoke with
`counsel; was that Mr. Barazesh?
` A Both sessions were with Mr. Barazesh.
` Q Were there any others on either call?
` A No, they -- there were not.
` Q Did you speak with anybody from -- did you
`speak with anybody from -- besides Mr. Barazesh, did
`you speak with anybody from Unified Patents in
`preparing for today's deposition?
` A No, I did not, beyond Mr. Barazesh.
` Q Did you speak with anybody from Apple either
`outside Apple counsel, or any in-house employees of
`Apple in preparing for today's deposition?
` MR. BARAZESH: I'm going to object to that
`
`1
`on the basis of relevance.
`2
`BY MR. WERBER:
`3
` Q You can answer.
`4
` A No, I did not.
`5
` Q Did you speak with any -- any people from
`6 Apple in relation to preparing your second
`7
`declaration?
`8
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Relevance.
`9
` THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
`10
`BY MR. WERBER:
`11
` Q Did you speak with or correspondence with
`12
`anybody from Samsung as you prepared your second
`13
`declaration?
`14
` And when I say, "second declaration," I mean
`15
`Exhibit 1038 -- or 1038?
`16
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1038 is marked
`17
` for identification and is attached
`18
` hereto.)
`19
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Relevance.
`20
` THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
`21
`BY MR. WERBER:
`22
` Q Let's look at the Patent Owner's response
`23
`for starters.
`24
` Do you have a copy of the Patent Owner's
`25
`response in front of you?
`
`
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
` A Yes, I do.
` Q Okay. And let's also have your second
`declaration. I am going to ask about both.
` A Okay. I have that in front of me as well.
` Q Okay. So on Page 50 of the Patent Owner's
`response, there is a statement by Patent Owner, and it
`refers to Samsung asking the District Court to
`construe the term "thumbnail image" to mean a quote,
`"reduced-size duplicate of an image."
` Do you see that?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q And this related to Exhibit 2037, which was
`submitted with the Patent Owner's response; is that
`your understanding?
` A Well, I see right after the sentence that
`you refer to which sites to Exhibit 2037.
` Q Okay. Did you review Exhibit 2037?
` A I don't recall doing so.
` Q Okay. All right. Let's turn to Paragraph
`63 in your second declaration. Actually, skip --
`skipping back to Samsung -- sorry, skipping back to
`the Patent Owner's response, Page 50, there's also a
`statement by Patent Owner that follows the sentence
`that we just -- that we just discussed and that
`statement is according to Samsung, "an image
`Page 16
`
` A I think that's right. I don't see that I
`cited to it in my second declaration.
` Q Okay.
` A I don't have a specific recollection right
`now of having reviewed it.
` Q All right. So is it fair to say the only
`thing you recall reviewing in preparing to understand
`Patent Owner's position on this issue the only thing
`you can recall reviewing is the -- is the brief
`itself?
` A On this issue, the thing that I specifically
`recall reviewing is the Patent Owner's response.
` Q Okay. And you think and I think when I say,
`"brief," I should have been more specific.
` A I should say, I also did cite to some other
`documents. So I also cited to the petition, as
`well -- as well as some of the prior art, and other --
`other documents, such as my own work.
` Q Okay. And in Paragraph 63 of your opinion,
`you have a statement, I think it begins near the top
`of Page 43.
` And you say, "A POSITA would have been
`familiar with and understood two ways of establishing
`this."
` Do you see that sentence? And then, you
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 15
`comprising only a portion of an original image falls
`outside the proper construction of thumbnail image."
` Did I read that correctly?
` A Yes, you did.
` Q Okay. So, now, let's skip -- and you
`responded to these statements in your second
`declaration; right?
` A I believe I did.
` Q Okay. So let's go to Paragraph 63 of your
`second declaration.
` Just a moment. And I think this may be a
`two-page paragraph. So I want to skip to -- at the
`very beginning, you opined that "even if thumbnail
`image is construed to mean a reduced-size duplicate of
`an image, Flora still discloses or at least renders it
`obvious via it's icon 58 and 59."
` That's part of your opinion; right?
` A I think that's right.
` Q Okay. You testified before you did not
`review Exhibit 2037 that we cited to; right?
` A I think what I said is, I don't recall
`reviewing it. It's possible that I did, but I'm just
`not specifically recalling doing so right now.
` Q Okay. So you can't -- you don't recall, but
`you might have; is that your testimony?
`
`Page 17
`
`have an Item No. 1 and Item No. 2.
` A Yes, I see those.
` Q Okay. And when you say, "this," this
`relates to accomplishing a reduced-size duplicate of
`an image?
` A I think that's the sentence more
`specifically referring to Flora's disclosure of how it
`computes reduced-pixel thumbnails and I was saying
`that there were at least two ways that a POSITA would
`have been familiar with and understood at least two
`ways of establishing Flora's calculation of the
`reduced-pixel thumbnails.
` And I went on to explain how those two ways
`are two ways that could -- two ways of what Flora
`could do and I explained how.
` Therefore, Flora's understanding -- sorry, a
`POSITA's understanding of Flora's disclosure given
`those two ways of accomplishing that reduce-pixel or
`thumbnail image would have encompassed a reduced-size
`duplicate of an original image.
` Q Let me ask you this: We just discussed the
`phrase "reduced-size duplicate of an image." That was
`written right in the Patent Owner's response; right?
` A That's correct.
` Q That's a construction attributable to
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`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
`
`Samsung; right?
` A That's my understanding.
` Q And did you form the opinion that taking a
`portion of an original image qualifies as a
`reduced-size duplicate?
` A Sorry. Would you repeat your question,
`please?
` (Whereupon, the record was read
` back as follows:
` "Q And did you form the opinion
` that taking a portion of an
` original image qualifies as a
` reduced-size duplicate?")
` THE WITNESS: My opinion, as stated in
`Paragraph 63, explains that Flora, a person of skill
`in the art reading Flora would have understood that
`there is not a restriction as to how it is
`reduced-pixel or thumbnail image is calculated; and it
`includes both versions -- it includes at least two
`versions of performing that calculation, such as
`cropping an image, that is taking a portion of an
`image; or to use an algorithm to create a shrunken
`duplicate of such an image.
` And given all of that understanding, a
`person of skill reading Flora would clearly have
`Page 20
`1
`thus, together that would clearly meet the proposed
`2
`construction of thumbnail image.
`3
` MR. WERBER: But I'm going to ask, again,
`4
`and I'm going to move to withdraw as nonresponsive.
`5 More -- move to strike as nonresponsive.
`6
`BY MR. WERBER:
`7
` Q My question for you is, whether or not you
`8
`formed an opinion in your declaration that a portion
`9
`of -- that a portion of an original image qualifies as
`10
`a reduced-size duplicate?
`11
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Asked and
`12
`answered.
`13
` THE WITNESS: So as I said, my opinion is in
`14 my report and in Paragraph 63, I think I pretty
`15
`clearly stated that Flora does not limit how its
`16
`reduced-pixel thumbnail would be calculated.
`17
` And thus, a POSITA would have been familiar
`18
`with and would understand that at least two ways
`19
`accomplishing that, including taking a portion of an
`20
`original or using some known algorithm to create a
`21
`shrunken duplicate of an original.
`22
` And, therefore, with that understanding, a
`23
`person of skill reading Flora would clearly understand
`24
`that it would meet the requirements of the proposed
`25
`construction reduced-size duplicate of an image; but I
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 19
`understood Flora's disclosure to encompass the
`reduced-size duplicate of an image language in the
`proposed construction; but I don't believe I formed a
`specific interpretation myself of the requirement of a
`reduced-size duplicate of an image beyond showing that
`that range of understanding of Flora would meet that
`requirement of the construction -- proposed
`construction.
` Q So just to be sure -- sorry. Did you say
`something?
` A No.
` Q Okay. Just to confirm, you have not formed
`an opinion that taking a portion of an original
`qualifies as a reduced-size duplicate; correct?
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, my opinion is in my
`report.
` As I just said, Paragraph 63, I think pretty
`clearly states that given Flora's lack of restrictions
`on how its reduced-pixel thumbnail image is
`calculated, a POSITA would see that as clearly
`encompassing both taking a portion of an original,
`such as cropping, or use some known algorithm to
`create a shrunken duplicate of the original to reduce
`the number of pixels needed to convey the image; and
`Page 21
`don't recall having a specific opinion about the
`requirements of reduced-size duplicate of an image
`behind that.
` MR. WERBER: Dr. Bederson, move to strike,
`again.
`BY MR. WERBER:
` Q Dr. Bederson, will you answer the question
`that is asked. This is a yes or no question, or it
`could be responded to I did or I did not.
` My question is, did you form the opinion
`that taking a portion of an original qualifies as a
`reduced-size duplicate? Did you or did you not?
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Asked and
`answered. Argumentative.
` THE WITNESS: I think I did answer your
`question when I explained that in my Paragraph 63, I
`showed how a person of skill in the art reading Flora
`would have understood its disclosures to clearly meet
`the proposed construction of reduced-size duplicate of
`an image; but I'm not thinking right now of any
`specific opinion about further requirements of
`reduced-size duplicate of an image; and rather
`individual disclosures in Flora had not met those or
`not.
`
`
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`BY MR. WERBER:
`2
` Q You formed the opinion that Flora -- sorry,
`3 was this another one of those echos?
`4
` Did you form the opinion -- that echo --
`5
`sorry.
`6
` Did you form the opinion that Flora
`7
`discloses a reduced-size duplicate?
`8
` A Yes, I did.
`9
` Q You did not opine -- withdraw.
`10
` You did not offer an opinion that Flora
`11
`discloses a reduced-size duplicate in your original
`12
`declaration; did you?
`13
` A I would have to go back and look at my first
`14
`declaration to be sure to be able to answer that
`15
`question.
`16
` Q Go ahead.
`17
` A So I'm not seeing such an opinion on my
`18
`first declaration sitting here today, but, obviously,
`19 my opinion is in my report. It is what it is.
`20
` I also, clearly, said in my first
`21
`declaration, that I read and supported the opinions in
`22
`the petition, and so I don't recall if there was a
`23
`discussion of this issue in the petition either.
`24
` Q Let's take a look at Flora, and I want to
`25
`direct your attention to the Flora Figure 3.
`
`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
`
`shrunken duplicate of an original.
` And as I've said, Flora has multiple
`disclosures of its reduced-pixel thumbnails including
`the two thumbnails we just discussed in Figure 3, and
`as well as disclosure.
` And the specification that I believe is at
`least partially in Column 7, approximately Lines 9
`through 21.
` Q If we look at that portion of Flora, we have
`a reference to single icon 59; right?
` And, again, I'm referring to Column 7
`around, you know, between Lines 10 and 15.
` So this section of Column 7 refers to Figure
`3, which I know is described in Column 3, Lines 3
`through 7, as an exemplary display screen.
` So when a person of skill reads the section
`of Column 7, which further describes this as an
`exemplary embodiment shown in Figure 3, they would
`understand that this is a description of some
`examples. And, thus, single icon 59 is one example of
`an icon or a reduced-pixel thumbnail.
` Okay. And single icon 59, I just want to --
`want to, you know, be clear on what we can agree and
`disagree on.
` Single icon 59 is the same icon that we just
`
`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
`
`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
`
` Let me know when you're there.
` A Okay.
` Q Okay. Focusing -- and, again, for this
`question, I only want you to look at Flora Figure 3
`and I'm just trying to understand your opinion.
` Would you agree or disagree that the
`thumbnail image to the right Item 59 captures only a
`portion of the larger image that is shown at Item 62?
` A Well, I think Flora has several disclosures
`of thumbnails. I think that the thumbnail on the
`right, No. 58 on the bottom, does not have a
`corresponding image to be able to tell what it was
`computed from; but I would agree that the thumbnail
`image on the right, 59, on the upper right, 59, does
`appear to correspond to a portion of the larger image
`62 on the upper-left side of Figure 3.
` Q And so just to be clear, you opined that
`Flora discloses a reduced-size duplicate of an
`original; right?
` A I think what I said is that a person of
`skill in the art reading Flora would understand that
`the techniques that -- that there was at least two
`ways to accomplish the reduced-pixel thumbnails that
`Flora discloses, including taking a portion of an
`original; and using some known algorithm to create a
`Page 25
`looked at in Figure 3 that uses only a portion of the
`original; right?
` A As one example of Flora's disclosures of
`thumbnails, I agree that icon 59 in Figure 3 is the
`same single icon 59 disclosed in Column 7, Line 12.
` Q And so it is your opinion that a POSITA --
`sorry. It's not your opinion that icon 59 itself is a
`reduced-sized duplicate; is it?
` A I don't think I formed a specific opinion
`about the characteristics of just icon 59. My opinion
`described that the person of skill in the art reading
`Flora as a whole, including icon 58 and 59, would
`understand that it discloses both taking a portion of
`the original and using a some known algorithm then to
`create a shrunken duplicate of an original.
` Q There's no reference to an algorithm in
`Flora for creating a reduced-size duplicate; is there?
` A What I said in Paragraph 63, that a POSITA
`would have been familiar with and understood at least
`two ways of accomplishing the reduced-pixel thumbnails
`of Flora, including using some known algorithm to
`create a shrunken duplicate.
` And I gave some examples of that later in
`63, including my own work published in a paper that I
`think was published in 2003, if I'm recalling, where I
`
`
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 26
`showed some images or figures from that paper showing
`both kinds of thumbnails that were calculated from an
`original image.
` And this was years before the priority data
`of the patent in question, so that, certainly,
`corroborates my understanding of what a POSITA would
`know about calculating or creating thumbnails,
`including using such known algorithms.
` Q Would a POSITA reading the word "thumbnail
`image" understand that a thumbnail image would be a
`cropped thumbnail?
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: As I said in Paragraph 63, a
`POSITA should have been familiar with and understood
`that one way of accomplishing the creation of
`reduced-pixel thumbnail would be to take a portion of
`an original, which could include cropping from the
`original, to create the thumbnail as part of what it
`does.
`BY MR. WERBER:
` Q Let's turn to Paragraph 4 -- sorry,
`Paragraph 34 of your second declaration.
` A Okay.
` Q In Paragraph 34, you are rendering or at
`least restating your opinion that "Okamura discloses
`Page 28
`1
`where we are, I just want to confirm you formed the
`2
`opinion that Okamura three-by-five matrix that's Item
`3
`414, that is the interactive map that you relied on in
`4
`claiming that Okamura discloses an interactive map?
`5
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Form.
`6
` I think you're referring to Paragraph 34 not
`7
`Figure 34, just to be clear.
`8
` MR. WERBER: Thank you.
`9
` THE WITNESS: So in my Paragraph 34 of my
`10
`second declaration, I explained that Okamura's cluster
`11 map display area 414's map view includes cluster maps
`12
`417 averaged in a three-by-five matrix and interactive
`13 map.
`14
`BY MR. WERBER:
`15
` Q Okay.
`16
` A I go on to explain why. So I would say that
`17 my opinion is that the big cluster maps 417 averaged
`18
`in a three-by-five matrix teach the interactive map.
`19
` Q So we -- and in that three-by-five matrix is
`20
`shown in Okamura Figure 18; right?
`21
` A Yes, it is.
`22
` Q And it is your opinion that the array of 15
`23
`cluster maps is a map; right?
`24
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Form.
`25
` THE WITNESS: So in Paragraph 35, I address
`
`Page 27
`
`or at least renders obvious limitations [1c]."
` Do you see that?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q And just a moment, I'm going to post Okamura
`in the chat and in this paragraph, you refer to --
`sorry, I don't have realtime right now; but I wanted
`to make sure that we agree "limitation [1c]," that's
`the limitation requiring an interactive map; right?
` A So my second declaration in Paragraph 6,
`describes the elements of the claim including their
`labels and [1c] is described as the map view including
`an interactive map.
` Q And in Paragraph 34, in relationship to
`Okamura cluster map in relation to limitation [1c],
`you identify "Okamura cluster map display area 414
`cluster maps averaged in a three-by-five matrix";
`right?
` MR. BARAZESH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Sorry. Are you reading the
`sentence starting in Line 5 in Paragraph 34 Okamura?
`BY MR. WERBER:
` Q I'm just asking you what your opinion is.
`I'm showing you Figure 34. I am showing you Figure 34
`for reference in case it helps you.
` But my question was to bring us back to
`
`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
`
`Page 29
`1
`that issue where I say, that as I stated in my first
`2
`declaration, "the arranged cluster maps 417 and a
`3
`three-by-five matrix form a map because the cluster
`4 map showed geographic map areas."
`5
`BY MR. WERBER:
`6
` Q The cluster map themselves are maps; right?
`7
` A I think my opinion here is that the arranged
`8
`cluster maps 417 and the three-by-five matrix form a
`9 map. I don't know that I wrote a specific opinion
`10
`about whether the individual cluster maps are a map,
`11
`but they certainly may be.
`12
` Q Okay. I'm asking you: Do you agree or
`13
`disagree that the cluster maps themselves are maps?
`14
` A Again, I don't recall having a specific
`15
`opinion about whether the individual cluster maps are
`16 maps. You're thinking of a particular part in my --
`17
`one of my declarations, I would be happy to see that.
`18
` I did say in Paragraph 33 that the cluster
`19 maps are extracted from a map and I think they may be,
`20
`I just don't recall forming that as a specific
`21
`opinion.
`22
` Q And I am asking you for -- I am asking you
`23
`for your opinion, you know, during this deposition on
`24
`if you have a belief or if you're unable to form a
`25
`belief during this deposition, let me know.
`
`
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2046
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Page 30
` Let's turn to Paragraph 331 of Okamura. And
`you testified before that you read Okamura in its
`entirety; right?
` A Yes, I did.
` Q Okamura in Paragraph 331 states: "In this
`regard, a cluster map is a map."
` Do you see that? Did I read it correctly?
` A You read a portion of that sentence.
` Clearly, the full sentence: "In
` this