Deposition of
`
`Philip G. Greenspun, Ph.D.
`
`March 27, 2023
`
`Samsung Electronics Co.
`
`vs.
`
`Memoryweb, LLC
`
`© aetu
`URT US.
`
`www.aptusCR.com | 866.999.8310
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb — IPR2022-00221
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`Page 1
`·1· · · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3· · · · ----------------------------------------x
`·4· · · · SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`·6· · · · · · · ·-against-
`·7· · · · MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`·9· · · · ----------------------------------------x
`10
`11· · · · · · · · · ·Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00221
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658
`12
`13
`14· · · · · · · · · · · · STENOGRAPHIC DEPOSITION OF:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PHILIP G. GREENSPUN, Ph.D.
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Monday, March 27, 2023
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·10:10 a.m. - 5:27 p.m.
`16· · · · · · · · ·Reported Remotely through Videoconference
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Reported stenographically by:
`23· · · · · · · · · Richard Germosen, FAPR, CA CSR No. 14391
`· · · · · · · · · ·RDR, CRR, CCR, CRCR, CSR-CA, NYACR, NYRCR
`24· · · · · · · · ·NCRA/NJ/NY/CA Certified Realtime Reporter
`· · · · · · · · · · · NCRA Realtime Systems Administrator
`25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Job No. 10116373
`
`·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 3
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · FISH & RICHARDSON
`
`·5· · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER O. GREEN, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · 1180 Peachtree Street, N.W.
`
`·7· · · · 21st Floor
`
`·8· · · · Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`
`·9· · · · (404) 892.5005
`
`10· · · · cgreen@fr.com
`
`11· · · · Attorneys for the Petitioner
`
`12
`
`13· · · · FISH & RICHARDSON
`
`14· · · · BY:· HYUN JIN IN, Ph.D., ESQ.
`
`15· · · · 1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`
`16· · · · Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`17· · · · (202) 783.5070
`
`18· · · · in@fr.com
`
`19· · · · Attorneys for the Petitioner
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·TELECONFERENCED STENOGRAPHIC DEPOSITION of
`
`Page 2
`
`·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S:· (CONT'D.)
`
`Page 4
`
`·2· · · · PHILIP G. GREENSPUN, Ph.D., taken in the above-entitled
`
`·3· · · · matter before RICHARD GERMOSEN, Fellow of the Academy of
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · Professional Reporters, Certified Court Reporter,
`
`·4· · · · NIXON PEABODY LLP
`
`·5· · · · (License No. 30XI00184700), Certified Realtime Court
`
`·5· · · · BY:· ANGELO J. CHRISTOPHER, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · Reporter-NJ, (License No. 30XR00016800), California
`
`·6· · · · 70 West Madison Street
`
`·7· · · · Certified Shorthand Reporter, (License No. 14391),
`
`·7· · · · Suite 5200
`
`·8· · · · NCRA/NY/CA Certified Realtime Reporter, NCRA Registered
`
`·8· · · · Chicago, Illinois 60602
`
`·9· · · · Diplomate Reporter, New York Association Certified
`
`·9· · · · (312) 977.4400 / (312) 977.4405 (FAX)
`
`10· · · · Reporter, NCRA Realtime Systems Administrator, taken via
`
`10· · · · achristopher@nixonpeabody.com
`
`11· · · · remote video teleconference on Monday, March 27, 2023,
`
`11· · · · Attorneys for the Patent Owner
`
`12· · · · commencing at 10:10 a.m.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13· · · · NIXON PEABODY LLP
`
`14· · · · BY:· JENNIFER HAYES, ESQ.
`
`15· · · · 300 South Grand Avenue
`
`16· · · · Suite 4100
`
`17· · · · Los Angeles, California 90071-3151
`
`18· · · · (213) 629.6000 / (213) 629.6001 (FAX)
`
`19· · · · jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`20· · · · Attorneys for the Patent Owner
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S· (CONT'D.)
`
`Page 7
`
`·2· · · · WITNESS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`·2· · · · EXHIBIT NO.· · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· · · · PHILIP G. GREENSPUN, Ph.D.
`
`·3· · · · Exhibit 1045· ·Glenn Reinman transcript,· · · 156
`
`·4· · · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER· · · · · · · · · · · 8
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·November 16, 2022
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
`
`·5· · · · **original exhibits returned with original transcript
`
`· · · · · by APTUS COURT REPORTING to NIXON PEABODY LLP
`
`·7· · · · EXHIBIT NO.· · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·6· · · · (exhibit index concluded)
`
`·8· · · · Exhibit 1003· ·Greenspun declaration· · · · · ·11
`
`·9
`
`10· · · · Exhibit 1001· ·'658 patent· · · · · · · · · · ·12
`
`11
`
`12· · · · Exhibit 2021· ·'228 patent· · · · · · · · · · ·14
`
`13
`
`14· · · · Exhibit 2029· ·document entitled Second· · · · 15
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·Declaration of Dr. Philip
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ·Greenspun
`
`17
`
`18· · · · Exhibit 2025· ·Cambridge English Dictionary,· ·25
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · ·definition of responsive
`
`20
`
`21· · · · Exhibit 2026· ·document entitled Webster's· · ·29
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · ·Third New International
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · · ·Dictionary
`
`24
`
`25
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S· (CONT'D.)
`
`Page 6
`
`·2· · · · EXHIBIT NO.· · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· · · · Exhibit 1005· ·document entitled Okamura, et· ·63
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·al.
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · Exhibit 1006· ·Belitz, et al.· · · · · · · · · 64
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · Exhibit 2022· ·document entitled Patent· · · · 79
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·Owner's Response
`
`10
`
`11· · · · Exhibit 2030· ·document entitled defectives· · 92
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · ·Dr. Philip Greenspun, January
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ·19, 2023
`
`14
`
`15· · · · Exhibit 2031· ·document entitled Declaration· 121
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ·of Dr. Philip Greenspun
`
`17
`
`18· · · · Exhibit 2024· ·document entitled Deposition· ·132
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · ·of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.,
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·October 21, 2022
`
`21
`
`22· · · · Exhibit 1041· ·document entitled Yee, et al.· 135
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · · · --------------------------------------------------
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·10:10 a.m.
`·4· · · · --------------------------------------------------
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER:· On the
`·6· · · · stenographic record at 10:10 a.m. eastern.
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·Good morning.· My name is Rich
`·8· · · · Germosen.· I am a certified stenographic reporter.
`·9· · · · My license is available for inspection.
`10· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, the Certified
`11· · · · Stenographic Reporter administered the oath to the
`12· · · · witness.)
`13
`14· · · · P H I L I P· ·G.· ·G R E E N S P U N,· ·Ph.D.,
`15· · · · having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was
`16· · · · examined and testified as follows:
`17· · · · EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`18· · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`19· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Good morning.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·Can you please state your name for
`21· · · · the record.
`22· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Sure.· It's Philip Greenspun.· That's
`23· · · · Green S-P-U-N.
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Thank you.
`25· · · · · · · · · · · ·So while we're doing some
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`Page 9
`·1· · · · introductions, we haven't met before.· My name is
`·2· · · · Angelo Christopher.· I represent patent owner and
`·3· · · · I'll be taking today's deposition.
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·I know we just talked about this a
`·5· · · · little bit off the record and I know you've been
`·6· · · · through a number of these depositions, but just as a
`·7· · · · reminder for our court reporter, please verbalize
`·8· · · · your answers today to help the court reporter out.
`·9· · · · Make sense?
`10· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`11· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Is there any reason why you cannot
`12· · · · give complete, truthful, and accurate testimony
`13· · · · today?
`14· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, like I said earlier, I've had a
`15· · · · headache from maybe some kind of flu, but I think
`16· · · · I'm okay.· If I get totally fogged, I'll let you
`17· · · · know.
`18· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· Fair enough.
`19· · · · · · · · · · · ·Did you do anything to prepare for
`20· · · · today's deposition, Dr. Greenspun?
`21· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`22· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And what did you do to prepare for
`23· · · · today's deposition?
`24· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I reread my second declaration in
`25· · · · this matter, dated February 14, 2023, and I printed
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· · · · received and marked as Exhibit 1003 for
`·2· · · · Identification.)
`·3· · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`·4· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And just to make sure we're on the
`·5· · · · same page on terminology, do you have a copy of
`·6· · · · exhibit 1003 available to you?
`·7· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I do.
`·8· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· Let me know when you have that
`·9· · · · opened up.
`10· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I have it open.
`11· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And this was the first declaration
`12· · · · you executed relating to the '658 patent; correct?
`13· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I think so.
`14· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And just to make sure we're on the
`15· · · · same page on terminology, it's okay with you if we
`16· · · · refer to exhibit 1003 as your first declaration and
`17· · · · exhibit 1047 as your second declaration?
`18· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`19· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · That's -- okay.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·Dr. Greenspun, did you prepare your
`21· · · · second declaration?
`22· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`23· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· And how long did you spend
`24· · · · preparing your second declaration?
`25· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, I worked on it over a period of
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· · · · out a clean copy of it, which I have here, and I
`·2· · · · read some of the documents that are referenced from
`·3· · · · this declaration, and I spoke with counsel as well.
`·4· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · How long did you speak with counsel
`·5· · · · in preparing for the deposition?
`·6· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I would say approximately one hour.
`·7· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· And who did you speak with on
`·8· · · · that meeting?
`·9· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Mr. Green, who is here on the Zoom,
`10· · · · and also Mr. In.
`11· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· I noticed you have a paper
`12· · · · printout of your second declaration, which for the
`13· · · · record is exhibit 1047.· Does that paper copy have
`14· · · · any annotations, notes, anything like that on it?
`15· · · · · · · ·A.· · · No.
`16· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· If you'd like to refer to that
`17· · · · paper copy today during today's deposition, that's
`18· · · · fine with me.· There is also, I believe, an
`19· · · · electronic copy in the exhibit share.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·If you turn to the first page of your
`21· · · · second declaration, is that your signature there on
`22· · · · the first page?
`23· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.
`25· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, Greenspun declaration, is
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· · · · I think about a week.· So several hours every day or
`·2· · · · two over that week.· So maybe a total of 10 hours.
`·3· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· So your second declaration
`·4· · · · doesn't include a list of materials considered.· So
`·5· · · · I'm curious what documents did you consider when you
`·6· · · · prepared your second declaration?
`·7· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I would say only those that are
`·8· · · · referenced in the text of the declaration.
`·9· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· So it's fair to say that you
`10· · · · at least considered the materials that you've cited
`11· · · · throughout the second declaration in forming these
`12· · · · opinions?
`13· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I think so.
`14· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And then conversely, would it be fair
`15· · · · to say that to the -- and that a document is not
`16· · · · cited in your second declaration, that wasn't
`17· · · · something you considered in forming these opinions?
`18· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, with the caveat that, you know,
`19· · · · I still considered the knowledge of a person of
`20· · · · ordinary skill at the time that the '658 patent was
`21· · · · filed.
`22· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.
`23· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, '658 patent, is received
`24· · · · and marked as Exhibit 1001 for Identification.)
`25
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`·1· · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Dr. Greenspun, do you have a copy of
`·3· · · · exhibit 1001, the '658 patent available?· If you
`·4· · · · have a local copy without notes or the exhibit
`·5· · · · share, whichever one you'd like to pull up.
`·6· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I have the one.· I just opened
`·7· · · · the one from the exhibit share.
`·8· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Perfect.
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·And then can you scroll down to claim
`10· · · · five of the '658 patent.· Let me know when you're
`11· · · · ready?
`12· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`13· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So claim five of the '658 patent
`14· · · · reads:· The computer-implemented method of claim
`15· · · · one, wherein the plurality of selectable elements
`16· · · · further includes a people selectable element, the
`17· · · · method further comprising responsive to a click or
`18· · · · tap of the people selectable element, displaying a
`19· · · · people view.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`21· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I see that.
`22· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And your second declaration provides
`23· · · · your opinion regarding the meaning of the phrase
`24· · · · "responsive to" in claim five; correct?
`25· · · · · · · ·A.· · · What page or pages of the declaration
`
`Page 15
`·1· · · · towards the end of the page, but there is a portion
`·2· · · · of claim one that reads:· Responsive to a second
`·3· · · · input that is subsequent to the first input causing
`·4· · · · a people view to be displayed on the interface.
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·6· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`·7· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And in your prior declarations
`·8· · · · concerning the '228 patent, you offered an opinion
`·9· · · · on the meaning of the phrase "responsive to";
`10· · · · correct?
`11· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I'm not sure whether it was -- I know
`12· · · · it's been discussed in depositions.· I think there's
`13· · · · been so many declarations in these matters, I can't
`14· · · · remember specifically which declarations contain the
`15· · · · discussion of the "responsive to" question.
`16· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · All right.
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ·ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:· I'm going to
`18· · · · share a new exhibit in the exhibit share.· And this
`19· · · · is going to be exhibit 2029.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, document entitled Second
`21· · · · Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun, is received and
`22· · · · marked as Exhibit 2029 for Identification.)
`23· · · · · · · · · · · ·ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:· I don't think
`24· · · · we have that many, but I will give you the number.
`25
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· · · · are you talking about, if I may ask?
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · In paragraph six of your second
`·3· · · · declaration, you offer an opinion on the meaning of
`·4· · · · responsive to a click or tap displaying; correct?
`·5· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Oh, yes, I see that.· I thought you
`·6· · · · meant -- but it's not specific to claim five.· That
`·7· · · · covers a range of claims.· I thought you were asking
`·8· · · · about something specifically related to claim five.
`·9· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Got it.
`10· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, '228 patent, is received
`11· · · · and marked as Exhibit 2021 for Identification.)
`12· · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`13· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Do you have -- can you pull up a copy
`14· · · · of exhibit 2021 from the exhibit share, please?
`15· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`16· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And you recognize exhibit 2021 as a
`17· · · · copy of the '228 patent; correct?
`18· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`19· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And you've authored two declarations
`20· · · · concerning the '228 patent; correct?
`21· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I think so, yes.
`22· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And can you turn to claim one of the
`23· · · · '228 patent, please.
`24· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`25· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · I think you'll need to scroll down
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Dr. Greenspun, let me know when you
`·3· · · · have exhibit 2029 opened from the exhibit share.
`·4· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.· Yeah, I see it's the second
`·5· · · · declaration for '228, and that's what I would have
`·6· · · · said.· I was pretty sure that there was a discussion
`·7· · · · of the "responsive to" question at least in that
`·8· · · · one.· I'm not sure that it's in the first
`·9· · · · declaration regarding the '228 patent.
`10· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · If you go to paragraph seven of
`11· · · · exhibit 2029, you'll see it states:· A POSITA would
`12· · · · have recognized that the term "responsive to" merely
`13· · · · requires a second event to happen subsequent to the
`14· · · · first event based on a combination of user
`15· · · · interaction and software implementation.
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`17· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I see that in paragraph seven.
`18· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So my question is:· Is your opinion
`19· · · · regarding the meaning of the phrase "responsive to"
`20· · · · with respect to the '658 patent different than your
`21· · · · opinion regarding the meaning of "responsive to" as
`22· · · · it relates to the '228 patent?
`23· · · · · · · ·A.· · · No, I don't think so.
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Can you turn back to your second
`25· · · · declaration in this proceeding, exhibit 1047.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And if we go to, again, paragraph
`·3· · · · seven, you state in the first sentence of paragraph
`·4· · · · seven:· However, a POSITA would have recognized that
`·5· · · · the term "responsive to" simply requires the second
`·6· · · · event to happen subsequent to the first event based
`·7· · · · on a combination of user interaction and software
`·8· · · · implementations.
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`10· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`11· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Is it your opinion that the phrase
`12· · · · "responsive to" in the claims of the '658 patent
`13· · · · means subsequent to?
`14· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, that's not what I said.· There
`15· · · · has to be, you know, as well a user interaction and
`16· · · · software action perhaps.· So it's not simply
`17· · · · subsequent to in the same sense that you might say,
`18· · · · you know, subsequent to my trip to the grocery
`19· · · · store, it started to rain.
`20· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Does the phrase "responsive to" then
`21· · · · require a cause/effect relationship between the
`22· · · · first event and the second event?
`23· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I think at least the first event
`24· · · · has to cause something to change in the software
`25· · · · that makes the second event possible.
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Earlier, you testified that
`·2· · · · "responsive to" does require a cause/effect
`·3· · · · relationship.· What is the difference between the
`·4· · · · cause/effect relationship you were referring to and
`·5· · · · a direct cause/effect relationship?
`·6· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, I don't want to be accountable
`·7· · · · for the phrase "direct cause/effect relationship"
`·8· · · · since it's just a quote from the patent owner
`·9· · · · response, page 23, but as I understand the term
`10· · · · being used, it's, as it said here:· Additional
`11· · · · clicks or taps or intervening views are not allowed
`12· · · · in a direct cause/effect relationship, whereas
`13· · · · presumably, you know, in an indirect or a more
`14· · · · general cause/effect relationship there could be
`15· · · · some additional user interaction.
`16· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Is the cause/effect relationship
`17· · · · required by the phrase "responsive to" a but-for
`18· · · · relationship, and I can give you an example.· Does
`19· · · · "responsive to" require that the second event would
`20· · · · not occur but for the first event?
`21· · · · · · · · · · · ·ATTORNEY GREEN:· Objection.· Asked
`22· · · · and answered.
`23· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I don't think so, no.
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Let's go to figure 32 of the '658
`25· · · · patent.· Let me know when you're ready.
`
`Page 18
`·1· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· And if you look at paragraph
`·2· · · · six of your second declaration, the last sentence
`·3· · · · you state:· Specifically, patent owner interprets
`·4· · · · this language to require a direct cause/effect
`·5· · · · relationship such that additional clicks or taps or
`·6· · · · intervening views are not allowed.
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·8· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`·9· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And you emphasize the word "direct"
`10· · · · in that sentence.
`11· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`12· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`13· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So you disagree that the phrase
`14· · · · "responsive to" requires a direct cause/effect
`15· · · · relationship; correct?
`16· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I think that's fair.
`17· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Would you agree that the phrase
`18· · · · "responsive to" requires an indirect cause/effect
`19· · · · relationship?
`20· · · · · · · ·A.· · · That wasn't something I was asked to
`21· · · · analyze.· So I'm not sure.· Do you know what?· At a
`22· · · · minimum, I know that this can't be interpreted to
`23· · · · exclude the disclosed embodiment and that's what I
`24· · · · was trying to point out, I think, in this
`25· · · · declaration.
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.· I've got it in front of me.
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Do you see at the top there is the
`·3· · · · uploads, collections, people, locations, recipe, and
`·4· · · · family tree elements?
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see those?
`·6· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`·7· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Let's suppose a user selected the
`·8· · · · locations button as a first event, the user selects
`·9· · · · the people button as a second event, and then the
`10· · · · people view shown in figure 32 is displayed as the
`11· · · · third event.· Is the third event responsive to the
`12· · · · first event?
`13· · · · · · · ·A.· · · You're asking is the appearance of
`14· · · · the top portion of figure 32, the multiple people
`15· · · · application view, if that view's appearance is
`16· · · · responsive to the user clicking on the locations
`17· · · · button?
`18· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Yes, the people view is labeled with
`19· · · · reference number 1400 in figure 32; correct?
`20· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, there are two people views in
`21· · · · there, but yes, I see that one of them is listed --
`22· · · · one of them is numbered 1400.
`23· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So my question is:· If selecting
`24· · · · locations button is the first event, selecting the
`25· · · · people button is the second event, and then the
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`Page 21
`·1· · · · people view being displayed is the third event, is
`·2· · · · the third event responsive to the first event?
`·3· · · · · · · ·A.· · · No, I don't think it would be fair to
`·4· · · · say that the appearance of the view labeled 1400 was
`·5· · · · responsive to the user clicking the locations
`·6· · · · button.
`·7· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Why not?
`·8· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, there are different sections of
`·9· · · · the software, and the locations browsing capability,
`10· · · · although it may share some software, is at least
`11· · · · different from the user's perspective than the
`12· · · · browse by person capability that's offered in the
`13· · · · view labeled 1400.
`14· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · In my example, the third event is
`15· · · · caused by the second event; correct?
`16· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes and no.
`17· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Why not?
`18· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, yes, in the sense that the view
`19· · · · labeled 1400 will not appear unless the people
`20· · · · button has been clicked or possibly some other
`21· · · · navigation path to this view has been followed.
`22· · · · Remember, it's typical in applications like this to
`23· · · · have multiple ways to get to any given view.
`24· · · · · · · · · · · ·As I noted in my declaration, there
`25· · · · may be some additional user actions that were taken
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· · · · you're there.
`·2· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`·3· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So starting at line 44, the
`·4· · · · specification reads:· The first people application
`·5· · · · view 1400 is used to display all the people that
`·6· · · · were created within the user's application.· This
`·7· · · · view can be seen by selecting people, 1401, from any
`·8· · · · of the application views within the application.
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`10· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`11· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And so the specification is teaching
`12· · · · that to see the people view 1400, the user clicks
`13· · · · the people button 1401; correct?
`14· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, it's disclosing that that's at
`15· · · · least one way to get to the view depicted in 1400.
`16· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And the specification never states
`17· · · · that selecting the dropdown list is required to see
`18· · · · the people view 1400; correct?
`19· · · · · · · ·A.· · · It's correct that the specification
`20· · · · doesn't say one way or the other whether a default
`21· · · · is chosen or if photos will appear in that default
`22· · · · order or if the software, in order to conserve
`23· · · · bandwidth or processing power or battery, would wait
`24· · · · to show photos until the user had made a selection
`25· · · · of short orders.· The decision on that question is
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· · · · in order to cause the specific screen that we're
`·2· · · · seeing and 1400 to appear.· For example, the user
`·3· · · · might have clicked on the sort by dropdown or the
`·4· · · · items per page menu at the bottom right.
`·5· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So in my example, the third event is
`·6· · · · responsive to the second event because the third
`·7· · · · event would not occur but for the second event;
`·8· · · · correct?
`·9· · · · · · · ·A.· · · No, I don't think that's correct.
`10· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So in that example, why is the third
`11· · · · event responsive to the second event, but not
`12· · · · responsive to the first event?
`13· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Well, one problem with your but-for
`14· · · · statement is, as I said, there can be multiple ways
`15· · · · to get to this view.· You know, we can be pretty
`16· · · · sure from the way the figure is drawn and from the
`17· · · · description of the text that clicking the people
`18· · · · button is one way to get there, but it's not
`19· · · · necessarily the only way to get there.· Therefore, I
`20· · · · think the but-for relationship you're talking about
`21· · · · doesn't exist, although, again, that wasn't
`22· · · · something I was asked to analyze.· I forget the rest
`23· · · · of your question.
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Let's go to the specification of the
`25· · · · '658 patent, column 22, line 44.· Let me know when
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· · · · left to the reader, the person of ordinary skill.
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · But the specification never says that
`·3· · · · to see the people be 1400 in the first instance, the
`·4· · · · user has to use that drop-down menu referred to;
`·5· · · · correct?
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·ATTORNEY GREEN:· Objection.· Asked
`·7· · · · and answered.
`·8· · · · · · · ·A.· · · It doesn't say one way or the other,
`·9· · · · again, whether a user choice is required or whether
`10· · · · there is going to be a default screen shown that
`11· · · · includes some pictures, which, you know, as I think
`12· · · · I testified at an earlier deposition on the '228
`13· · · · patent, if you had a computer plugged into the wall
`14· · · · and a fast internet connection with unlimited
`15· · · · bandwidth or unlimited data, at least then it would
`16· · · · be a reasonable choice to make, to pick a default
`17· · · · short order, pick a default number of photos per
`18· · · · pages, pick a default page, and then just send out
`19· · · · the photos to the user, even if they might not be
`20· · · · the photos that the user wanted, but at the same
`21· · · · time, that's perhaps not something that you would do
`22· · · · for a user on a mobile data connection using a
`23· · · · battery powered device, such as a phone.
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · This default screen you're referring
`25· · · · to, that's not disclosed anywhere in the '658
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2033
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00221
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
`·1· · · · patent; correct?
`·2· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Again, as I said, the patent is
`·3· · · · targeted at a person of ordinary skill.· So that's
`·4· · · · just left unspecified as to whether there should or
`·5· · · · should not be a default.
`·6· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · It's unspecified in that it's not
`·7· · · · explicitly stated anywhere in the '658 patent;
`·8· · · · correct?
`·9· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes, I think that's true.· The '658
`10· · · · patent does not explain that either there should be
`11· · · · a default and photos should appear immediately or
`12· · · · that there should not be a default and photos should
`13· · · · be held at the server until the user makes a choice.
`14· · · · It's just not there one way or the other, but as
`15· · · · I've said, somewhere I think, these are design
`16· · · · choices that persons of ordinary skill have been
`17· · · · making ever since the 1990s, in the case of the
`18· · · · World Wide Web, and even before that for some
`19· · · · earlier systems.
`20· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, Cambridge English
`21· · · · Dictionary, definition of responsive, is received
`22· · · · and marked as Exhibit 2025 for Identification.)
`23· · · · BY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER:
`24· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Can you open up exhibit 2025 from the
`25· · · · exhibit share, please.
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Okay.
`·2· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And you didn't consider this
`·3· · · · dictionary definition when you prepared your second
`·4· · · · declaration; correct?
`·5· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Correct.
`·6· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· And you see near the top it
`·7· · · · says:· Meaning of responsive in English.
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·9· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I do.
`10· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · And then the first definition here:
`11· · · · Saying or doing something as a reaction to something
`12· · · · or someone, especially in a quick or positive way.
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`14· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`15· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Is this definition consistent with
`16· · · · how someone skilled in the art would understand the
`17· · · · term "responsive" as it's used in the claims of the
`18· · · · '658 patent?
`19· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I'd say overall this definition and
`20· · · · the examples provided are generally consistent with
`21· · · · the way that the word "responsive" is used in the
`22· · · · claims, but given that we have a specification for
`23· · · · the patent that makes it clear what "responsive to"
`24· · · · means, I don't know what the value would be of going
`25· · · · to a generic dictionary.
`
`Page 27
`·1· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Okay.· I want to ask you about one of
`·2· · · · those examples.· Do you see the example at the top
`·3· · · · of page two, there is a bullet point:· The tablet
`·4· · · · has a good battery life and is very responsive to
`·5· · · · screen taps.
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·7· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Yes.
`·8· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · So using the tablet as an example, if
`·9· · · · the tablet took say 30 seconds to do something in
`10· · · · response to a screen tap, you wouldn't say the
`11· · · · tablet is very responsive; correct?
`12· · · · · · · ·A.· · · Probably not, but remember, it's two
`13· · · · bullet points above one that talks about thyroid
`14· · · · cancer being responsive to treatment, which, you
`15· · · · know, could be a multimonth process with many steps.
`16· · · · · · · ·Q.· · · Sure.
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ·But in the tablet context, responsive
`18· · · · means immediate; correct?
`19· · · · · · · ·A.· · · I mean, if we just ignore the patent
`20· · · · spec then and just go to how persons of ordinary
`21· · · · skill were using the term in 2016, there were
`22· · · · relative -- there were a range of meetings for the
`23· · · · term "responsive."· Probably two of the most popular
`24· · · · would have been responsive Web design, where some
`25· · · · combination of the server code and the JavaScript on
`
`Page 28
`
`·1· · · · the page would try to adapt the content to the
`·2· · · · screen size and the type of device that the Web page
`·3· · · · was being viewed on.· And the other meaning would be
`·4· · · · the one that's used here in