Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,552,376
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00032
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,552,376
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00032
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits objections
`
`to evidence served by Petitioner on December 23, 2022 in support of its Reply (Paper
`
`26). The discussion below identifies the evidence Patent Owner objects to and
`
`summarizes the objections, including the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) or
`
`other rules that form the basis for the objections.
`
`1.
`
`Ex. 1066 - “Scott Meyers & Mike Lee, Learn Mac OS X Snow
`Leopard Book (2009) (Excerpts)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1066 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1066 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1066 under FRE 106 because Ex. 1066 contains only excerpts of the writing; the
`
`remaining portions of Ex. 1066 in fairness ought to be considered at the same time
`
`as the excerpted portions. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. Further, Ex. 1066 does not comply
`
`with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 1067 - “Apress.com ordering page for Learn Mac OS X Snow
`Leopard (Sept. 2009) Book (Archive.org: Feb. 1, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1067 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1067 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1067 is cited nowhere in
`
`the Reply. Further, Ex. 1067 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the
`
`form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`3.
`
`Ex. 1068 - “Mac Dev Center – Apple Developer Webpages
`(Archive.org: Apr. 14, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1068 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1068 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1068 is cited nowhere in
`
`the Reply. Further, Ex. 1068 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the
`
`form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`4.
`
`Ex. 1069 - “Apple Inc., Mac OS X Technology Overview (Aug. 14,
`2009) (Archive.org: Nov. 13, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1069 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1069 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1069 does not
`
`comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`5.
`
`Ex. 1070 - “Apple Inc., Bundle Programming Guide (July 14, 2009)
`(Archive.org: May 25, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1070 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1070 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1070 does not
`
`comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`6.
`
`Ex. 1071 - “Apple Inc., Resource Programming Guide (Jan. 6, 2009)
`(Archive.org: Jan. 14, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1071 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1071 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1071 does not
`
`comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`7.
`
`Ex. 1072 - “Internet Archive Extended URLs and Corresponding
`Screen Shots”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1072 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1072 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1072 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1072 as it contains reproductions of purported screenshots in a PDF rather than the
`
`original screenshots. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1072
`
`because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed by the risks
`
`of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact
`
`finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1072 is cited nowhere in the Reply. Further,
`
`Ex. 1072 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`8.
`Ex. 1073 - “Install Disk Screen Shots”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1073 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1073 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1073 as it contains reproductions of
`
`purported screenshots in a PDF rather than the original screenshots or the original
`
`underlying software program that is purportedly depicted. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1073 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any
`
`relevance is outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further,
`
`Ex. 1073 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`9.
`
`Ex. 1074 - “Collection of Aperture 3 Webpages (Archive.org: Mar.
`16, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1074 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1074 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1074 does not
`
`comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`10. Ex. 1076 - “Collection of Aperture 3 Webpages (Archive.org: Apr.
`11, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1076 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1076 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1076 is cited nowhere in
`
`the Reply. Further, Ex. 1076 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the
`
`form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`11. Ex. 1077 - “Jason Snell, ‘Apple releases Aperture 3,’ Macworld
`(Archive.org: Feb. 11, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1077 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1077 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1077 does not
`
`comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`12. Ex. 1078 - “Collection of Aperture 3 Webpages (Archive.org: Feb.
`12, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1078 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1078 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1078 does not
`
`comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`13. Ex. 1079 - “Panoramio, Screen Shot of ‘Popular photos in Google
`Earth’ (Arhive.org: Nov. 26, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1079 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`objects to Ex. 1079 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1079 is cited nowhere in
`
`the Reply. Further, Ex. 1079 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the
`
`form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`14. Ex. 1080 - “Panoramio, ‘Adding photos to Panoramio,’ Help
`Webpage (Arhive.org: Mar. 28, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1080 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1080 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is
`
`outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or
`
`misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1080 is cited nowhere in
`
`the Reply. Further, Ex. 1080 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the
`
`form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`15. Ex. 1081 - “Places View (Exhibit 1005, 30), (Annotated with
`Arrow)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1081 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1081 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1081 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1081 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed by the
`
`risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact
`
`finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Ex. 1081 is cited nowhere in the Reply. Further,
`
`Ex. 1081 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`16. Ex. 1083 - “Window Area Measurement Illustration, Places View
`(Exhibit 1005, 30) from IPR2022-00032, Exhibit 2025)”
`Patent Owner notes that while this document is titled as Ex. 1083 and listed
`
`as Ex. 1083 in the listing of exhibits (Reply at viii), the document is labeled as Ex.
`
`1082 in the bottom right corner, which is indicated as “RESERVED” in Petitioner’s
`
`listing of exhibits. Patent Owner assumes that the exhibit number in the top right
`
`corner is correct and the number in the bottom right corner is incorrect.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1083 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and
`
`any relevance is outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. In fact, Ex.
`
`1083 is cited nowhere in the Reply. Petitioner submitted two different “Corrected”
`
`versions of Ex. 1083 as Exhibits 1087 and 1088 without explaining the alleged
`
`corrections relative to Ex. 1083, which further demonstrates that the risks of
`
`confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder
`
`outweigh any relevance. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1083 as not authenticated and
`
`not self-authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`authenticating declaration explaining what Ex. 1083 is, how it was acquired, or how
`
`it was made. For example, Petitioner provides no explanation or evidence as to how
`
`the alleged measurements on pages 3-5 of Ex. 1083 were made. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1083 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and to which no valid
`
`exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Further, Ex. 1083 does not comply
`
`with the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`17. Ex. 1084 - “Revealing Files on the Aperture 3 Installer DVD, Video
`Demonstration”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1084 as not authenticated and not self-
`
`authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating
`
`declaration explaining what Ex. 1084 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1084 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and to
`
`which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner objects
`
`to Ex. 1084 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed
`
`by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading
`
`the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`18. Ex. 1085 - “Screen Shot of the Final Frame of the Video
`Demonstration in Exhibit 1085”
`The exhibit title refers to “the Video Demonstration in Exhibit 1085” – Patent
`
`Owner understand that this is referring to the Video Demonstration labeled as Ex.
`
`1084. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1085 as not authenticated and not self-
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating
`
`declaration explaining what Ex. 1085 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1085 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and to
`
`which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner objects
`
`to Ex. 1085 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed
`
`by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading
`
`the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1085 does not comply with
`
`the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`19. Ex. 1086 - “Mac OS X Version 10.6.3 Screen Shot of Computer
`Used in the Video Demonstration in Exhibit 1085”
`The exhibit title refers to “the Video Demonstration in Exhibit 1085” – Patent
`
`Owner understand that this is referring to the Video Demonstration labeled as Ex.
`
`1084. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1086 as not authenticated and not self-
`
`authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating
`
`declaration explaining what Ex. 1086 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1086 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and to
`
`which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner objects
`
`to Ex. 1086 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed
`
`by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading
`
`the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Further, Ex. 1086 does not comply with
`
`the Board’s rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`20. Ex. 1087 - “Corrected Window Area Measurement Illustration,
`Places View (Exhibit 1005, 30) from IPR2022-0032, Exhibit 2025)”
`Patent Owner notes that while this document is titled as Ex. 1087 and listed
`
`as Ex. 1087 in the listing of exhibits (Reply at viii), the document is labeled as Ex.
`
`1082 (which is indicated as “RESERVED” in Petitioner’s listing of exhibits).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1087 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and
`
`any relevance is outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Patent
`
`Owner objects to Ex. 1087 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1087 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. For example, Petitioner
`
`provides no explanation or evidence as to how the alleged measurements on pages
`
`3-5 of Ex. 1087 were made. Additionally, Ex. 1087 is titled as “Corrected,” but
`
`Petitioner provides no explanation or evidence as to what was allegedly corrected or
`
`what the supposed corrections were relative to. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1087
`
`as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and to which no valid exception applies.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Further, Ex. 1087 does not comply with the Board’s
`
`rules governing the form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`21. Ex. 1088 - “Corrected Window Area Measurement Illustration,
`Places View (Exhibit 1005, 30) from IPR2022-0032, Exhibit 2025)”
`Patent Owner notes that while this document is titled as Ex. 1088 and listed
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`as Ex. 1088 in the listing of exhibits (Reply at viii), the document is labeled as Ex.
`
`1082 (which is indicated as “RESERVED” in Petitioner’s listing of exhibits).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1088 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and
`
`any relevance is outweighed by the risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. In fact, Ex.
`
`1088 is cited nowhere in the Reply. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1088 as not
`
`authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. Petitioner
`
`provides no authenticating declaration explaining what Ex. 1088 is, how it was
`
`acquired, or how it was made. For example, Petitioner provides no explanation or
`
`evidence as to how the alleged measurements on pages 3-5 of Ex. 1088 were made.
`
`Additionally, Ex. 1088 is titled as “Corrected,” but Petitioner provides no
`
`explanation or evidence as to what was allegedly corrected or what the supposed
`
`corrections were relative to. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1088 as hearsay offered
`
`for a hearsay purpose and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801-807. Further, Ex. 1088 does not comply with the Board’s rules governing the
`
`form of evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii).
`
`22. Ex. 1089 - “Deposition of Dr. Rajeev Surati, Ph.D. (Dec. 1 & 2,
`2022)”
`Patent Owner objects to the following portions of Ex. 1089 cited in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`16:4-14
`
`Objection(s)
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation. Dr. Surati was
`
`asked “[w]ould they know how to navigate different directories
`
`by using Unix commands?” Ex. 1089 at 16:9-11. The question
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the terms/phrases
`
`“they,” “know how to navigate different directories,” and “by
`
`using Unix commands” referred to. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a)
`
`and 403. Petitioner failed to lay foundation as to what these
`
`terms referred to. Id. The questioning was also vague and
`
`ambiguous in terms of temporal scope. Id.
`
`30:1-12
`
`Vague and ambiguous, outside the scope of direct testimony.
`
`Dr. Surati was asked whether “if you had a question as you’re
`
`developing an application for the Mac OS X environment, you
`
`would just look into the Apple technical documentation to
`
`answer your question.” Ex. 1089 at 30:1-8. This questioning
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the terms “had a
`
`question,” “as you’re developing,” “look into,” “Apple technical
`
`documentation,” and “answer your question” referred to. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. This questioning was also
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by
`
`Dr. Surati in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`36:2-11
`
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation, outside the scope of
`
`direct testimony. Dr. Surati was asked whether “[t]his might be
`
`one of those types of books you would look at just to get
`
`familiar with the Mac OS X operating system if you’re starting
`
`to develop a program there, is that right?” Ex. 1089 at 36:2-6.
`
`The question was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the
`
`terms/phrases “[t]his,” “one of those types of books,” “you,”
`
`“just to get familiar with,” and “if you’re starting to develop a
`
`program there” referred to. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`The questioning was also vague and ambiguous in terms of
`
`temporal scope. Id. This questioning was also outside the
`
`scope of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did not have a
`
`sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by Dr. Surati in
`
`his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii). Patent Owner objects to the extent this
`
`questioning concerns Ex. 1066, which Patent Owner objects to
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`herein as inadmissible evidence.
`
`57:2-17
`
`Vague and ambiguous, mischaracterizes evidence, outside the
`
`scope of direct testimony. Dr. Surati was asked “do the Apple
`
`Human Interface Guidelines indicate that a developer should
`
`make applications available in a bundle?” Ex. 1089 at 57:2-6.
`
`The questioning was vague and ambiguous at least as to what
`
`the terms/phrases “should make,” make applications available”
`
`and “in a bundle” referred to. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`The question mischaracterized the Apple Human Interface
`
`Guidelines. This questioning was also outside the scope of Dr.
`
`Surati’s direct testimony because it did not have a sufficient
`
`underlying basis in a statement made by Dr. Surati in his
`
`declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`59:3-12
`
`Vague and ambiguous, mischaracterizes evidence, outside the
`
`scope of direct testimony. Dr. Surati was asked whether the
`
`Apple Human Interface Guidelines are “describing it as put
`
`your application within the structure called an application
`
`bundle.” Ex. 1089 at 59:3-11. This questioning
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`mischaracterized the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The questioning was also vague
`
`and ambiguous at least as to what the terms/phrases “put your
`
`application within the structure called an application bundle.”
`
`Id. This questioning was also outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s
`
`direct testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying
`
`basis in a statement made by Dr. Surati in his declaration. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`59:13-23
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, mischaracterizes evidence,
`
`outside the scope of direct testimony. Counsel for Petition
`
`stated “then it also explains that application bundles provide a
`
`structure for your executables, resources and configuration
`
`files” then asked Dr. Surati whether “that means in this
`
`application bundle structure is where you’ll put executable
`
`code, other things called resources and configuration files.” Ex.
`
`1089 at 13-22. This questioning mischaracterized the Apple
`
`Human Interface Guidelines. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`The questioning was also vague and ambiguous at least as to
`
`what the terms/phrases “this application bundle structure,”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`“where you’ll put,” “executable code,” “executables,” “other
`
`things called resources,” and “configuration files” referred to.
`
`Id. The question was also compound for impermissibly
`
`entailing multiple questions concerning “executable code,”
`
`“other things called resources,” and “configuration files.” Id.
`
`This questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Surati in his declaration. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`64:6-64:16
`
`Outside the scope of direct testimony. Dr. Surati was asked “if I
`
`had a file that ended with the letters .GZ, that would mean that
`
`type of file is a compressed file made by the GNU zip
`
`application.” Ex. 1089 at 64:6-12. This questioning was
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did
`
`not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by
`
`Dr. Surati in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`71:23-72:8
`
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation, assumes facts not in
`
`evidence, outside the scope of direct testimony. Dr. Surati was
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`asked whether he “knew that the Mac OS X operating system
`
`was based on Unix.” Ex. 1089 at 71:23-72:8. The premise that
`
`“Mac OS X operating system was based on Unix” lacks
`
`foundation and assumes facts not in evidence. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(a) and 403. The questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least as the terms/phrases “was based on” and in
`
`terms of temporal scope. Id. This questioning was outside the
`
`scope of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did not have a
`
`sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by Dr. Surati in
`
`his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`78:1-79:5
`
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation, mischaracterizes the
`
`evidence, outside the scope of direct testimony. This
`
`questioning was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the
`
`terms/phrases “when you see a file in the Finder,” “often it will
`
`be a bundle,” “it’s a directory with subdirectories inside of it,”
`
`and “presented to the user as a single file” referred to. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The question also
`
`mischaracterized/misstated Ex. 1069. Id. Patent Owner objects
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`as this testimony to the extent it concerns Ex. 1069, which
`
`Patent Owner objects to herein as inadmissible evidence. This
`
`questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Surati in his declaration. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`79:6-12
`
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation, mischaracterizes the
`
`evidence, outside the scope of direct testimony. This
`
`questioning was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the
`
`terms/phrases “my characterization” referred to. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(a) and 403. To the extent “my characterization”
`
`referred to the prior question, that question
`
`mischaracterized/misstated Ex. 1069. Id. Patent Owner objects
`
`to the extent this testimony concerns Ex. 1069, which Patent
`
`Owner objects to herein as inadmissible evidence. This
`
`questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Surati in his declaration. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`86:16-23
`
`Objection(s)
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation, mischaracterizes the
`
`evidence, outside the scope of direct testimony. Dr. Surati was
`
`asked “if you wanted to see what was inside of an installation
`
`package, you would right click or control click the package icon
`
`and choose ‘show the contents,’ right?” Ex. 1089 at 86:16-22.
`
`This questioning was vague and ambiguous at least as the
`
`terms/phrases “if you wanted to see,” “what was inside of an
`
`installation package,” and “package icon.” See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`611(a) and 403. Patent Owner objects to the extent it this
`
`testimony concerns Ex. 1070, which Patent Owner objects to
`
`herein as inadmissible evidence. Petitioner also
`
`misstated/mischaracterized Ex. 1070. Id. For example, Ex.
`
`1070 does not state “show the contents.” This questioning was
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did
`
`not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by
`
`Dr. Surati in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`86:24-87:6
`
`Vague and ambiguous, lacking foundation, outside the scope of
`
`direct testimony. Dr. Surati was asked whether “[s]omeone
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`would know how to do that in 2010 based on the guidance and
`
`the Bundle Programming Guide?” Ex. 1089 at 86:24-87:3. The
`
`questioning was also vague and ambiguous at least as to what
`
`the terms/phrases “someone,” “how to do that,” and “based on
`
`the guidance” referred to. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the extent this testimony concerns Ex.
`
`1070, which Patent Owner objects to herein as inadmissible
`
`evidence. Patent Owner also objects under FRE 106 because
`
`Petitioner’s Reply only cites a portion of Dr. Surati’s answer in
`
`response to this question; the other part of Dr. Surati’s answer in
`
`fairness ought to be considered at the same time. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 106 and 403; Ex. 1089 at 87:4-6 (stating “And if they’re
`
`familiar with a Mac”). This questioning was outside the scope
`
`of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did not have a
`
`sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by Dr. Surati in
`
`his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`98:12-99:10
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, assumes facts not in
`
`evidence, outside the scope of direct testimony. Dr. Surati was
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`asked if “before 2011, a person of ordinary skill would know
`
`that they could navigate to the resources subdirectory in the
`
`application bundle of a Mac OS application and view the
`
`HTML files in the resources folder with the Safari application.”
`
`Ex. 1089 at 98:12-99:5. The questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least as to what the terms/phrases “navigate to the
`
`resources subdirectory in the application bundle of a Mac OS
`
`application,” “the HTML files,” “in the resources folder,” and
`
`“Safari application.” See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The
`
`question was also compound for impermissibly entailing
`
`multiple questions. Id. This questioning was outside the scope
`
`of Dr. Surati’s direct testimony because it did not have a
`
`sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by Dr. Surati in
`
`his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`100:21-101:2
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, mischaracterizes the
`
`evidence. Petitioner stated “[t]hat’s something where the guides
`
`we’ve been discussing have explained that you can do that” and
`
`asked Dr. Surati whether “you can inspect the contents of the
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`aperture.app because it’s an application bundle, right?” Ex.
`
`1089 at 100:87-101:4. The questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least as to what the terms/phrases “the guides,”
`
`“you can do that,” and “inspect the contents of the aperture.app”
`
`referred to. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The questioning
`
`was also vague and ambiguous in terms of temporal scope. Id.
`
`The question was also compound for impermissibly entailing
`
`multiple questions. Id. Further, Petitioner’s questioning
`
`mischaracterized the evidence.
`
`105:20-106:6
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, lacking foundation. Dr.
`
`Surati was asked (1) “in this image you see on the top window,
`
`that’s the window that you see when you insert the Aperutre 3
`
`installer disk into the Mac, right?” and (2) “[i]t pops up and you
`
`get this window with these items being displayed, right?” Ex.
`
`1089 at 105:20-106:2. The questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least as to what the terms/phrases “this image,”
`
`“the top window,” “that’s the window,” “[i]t pops up,” “you get
`
`this window,” and “with these items being displayed.” See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The question was also compound for
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`impermissibly entailing multiple questions. Id. Patent Owner
`
`objects as this testimony as it concerns Ex. 1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
