1
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·3· · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4
`
`·5
`· · ·APPLE, INC.,· · · · · · · )
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · ·)· Case No. IPR2022-00459
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· Patent No. 8,798,658
`· · ·VS.· · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · ·TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM· · )
`·9· ·ERICSSON,· · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`10· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ORAL DEPOSITION
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · OF
`14· · · · · · · · · ·DR. MATTHEW C. VALENTI
`· · · · · · · · · · · SEPTEMBER 21, 2022
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 1 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·3· · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4
`
`·5
`· · ·APPLE, INC.,· · · · · · · )
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · ·)· Case No. IPR2022-00459
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· Patent No. 8,798,658
`· · ·VS.· · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · ·TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM· · )
`·9· ·ERICSSON,· · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`10· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ORAL DEPOSITION
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · OF
`14· · · · · · · · · ·DR. MATTHEW C. VALENTI
`· · · · · · · · · · · SEPTEMBER 21, 2022
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 1 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`2
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. MATTHEW C. VALENTI,
`
`·4· ·produced as a witness at the instance of the
`
`·5· ·Patent Owner and duly sworn, was taken in the
`
`·6· ·above-styled and numbered cause on
`
`·7· ·September 21, 2022, from 8:58 a.m. to
`
`·8· ·9:56 a.m., Central Time, before KATERI A.
`
`·9· ·FLOT-DAVIS, CSR, CCR, in and for the State of
`
`10· ·Texas, reported by machine shorthand, pursuant
`
`11· ·to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
`
`12· ·the provisions stated on the record herein.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 2 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`3
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
`·4· ·PAUL R. HART, ESQ.
`· · ·Erise IP
`·5· ·7015 College Boulevard
`· · ·Ste. 700
`·6· ·Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`· · ·paul.hart@eriseip.com
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9· ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`10· ·CHAD C. WALTERS, ESQ.
`· · ·Baker Botts, L.L.P.
`11· ·2001 Ross Avenue
`· · ·#900
`12· ·Dallas, Texas 75201-2980
`· · ·chad.walter@bakerbotts.com
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16· ·Also Present:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 3 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
`
`·2
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·Appearances........................· · · · ·3
`
`4
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·DR. MATTHEW C. VALENTI
`
`·9
`
`10· · · Examination by Mr. Walters............. 5
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· ·Signature and Changes...................· ·46
`
`15· ·Reporter's Certificate..................· ·48
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 4 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`5
`
`·1· · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · (Witness sworn.)
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · DR. MATTHEW C. VALENTI,
`
`·6· ·having been first duly sworn, testified as
`
`·7· ·follows:
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`10· ·BY MR. WALTERS:
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·Good morning, Dr. Valenti.
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·Good morning.
`
`13· · · · ·Q.· ·Have you been deposed before?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, I have.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·About how many times have you been
`
`16· ·deposed?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·Prior to today, about ten times.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·And have any of those depositions
`
`19· ·been in IPR proceedings?
`
`20· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, they have.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·Have any been in District Court
`
`22· ·litigation?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, they have.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·About how many depositions have you
`
`25· ·provided in IPR proceedings?
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 5 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·Probably about half of those, maybe
`
`·2· ·about four or five were IPR and the others
`
`6
`
`·3· ·were District Court.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·5· · · · · · · What did you do to prepare for
`
`·6· ·today's deposition?
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·So, specifically for today I went
`
`·8· ·back and reread the key documents, meaning my
`
`·9· ·petition, patent owner's response, board
`
`10· ·decision, the patent, two main prior art
`
`11· ·references.
`
`12· · · · · · · And in addition I met with counsel,
`
`13· ·met two times, two and a half hours the first
`
`14· ·time and an hour the second time.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`16· · · · · · · You said you reviewed the
`
`17· ·petition -- your petition, but did you mean
`
`18· ·your declaration?
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`20· · · · · · · I actually just focused on the
`
`21· ·declaration rather than the petition, although
`
`22· ·there certainly is a lot of overlap.
`
`23· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`24· · · · · · · MR. WALTERS:· I would like to turn
`
`25· · · · ·to your declaration, which is
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 6 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Exhibit 1003 in the IPR.
`
`·2· · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 1003 Previously
`
`·3· · · · ·Marked.)
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· Do you have that
`
`7
`
`·5· ·handy?
`
`·6· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`·7· · · · · · · Okay.· I have it up.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·Specifically Page 3, and
`
`·9· ·Paragraph 2.
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·Okay.
`
`11· · · · · · · My file browser is a little slow.
`
`12· · · · · · · Okay.· I have Page 3, Paragraph 2.
`
`13· · · · ·Q.· ·And before we get to that, where
`
`14· ·are you physically located today?
`
`15· · · · ·A.· ·Oh, yes.· I am Morgantown, West
`
`16· ·Virginia.
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`18· · · · · · · In Paragraph 2 you identified the
`
`19· ·challenged claims, which are Claims 1 to 5, 12
`
`20· ·to 16, 22 to 24, 26 to 28, and 30.
`
`21· · · · · · · Do --
`
`22· · · · · · · (Simultaneous speaking.)
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·-- you see that?
`
`25· · · · ·A.· ·I do.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 7 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`8
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·The petition and your declaration
`
`·2· ·do not challenge Claims 6 to 11, 17 to 21, 25
`
`·3· ·and 29 of the '658 Patent; is that right?
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· That is my understanding.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q.· ·And why is that?
`
`·6· · · · ·A.· ·I don't know.
`
`·7· · · · ·Q.· ·Do you believe those claims are
`
`·8· ·valid?
`
`·9· · · · ·A.· ·Oh, I have no opinion.· I was just
`
`10· ·not asked to look at those claims.
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·You have not looked at them at all?
`
`12· · · · ·A.· ·I may have read them.· I did not,
`
`13· ·certainly, form an opinion on those claims.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`15· · · · · · · So you're not aware of any prior
`
`16· ·art that would invalidate those claims?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·I have no reason to believe or not
`
`18· ·believe whether they're valid or not.
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`20· · · · · · · MR. WALTERS:· I would like to turn
`
`21· · · · ·to the '658 Patent, which is
`
`22· · · · ·Exhibit 1001.
`
`23· · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 1001 Previously
`
`24· · · · ·Marked.)
`
`25· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I'm there.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 8 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`9
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· What is the
`
`·2· ·invention of the '658 Patent?
`
`·3· · · · · · · MR. HART:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·4· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, as stated in
`
`·5· · · · ·the abstract, the patent pertains to
`
`·6· · · · ·storing of logged data and then
`
`·7· · · · ·reporting that logged data back to the
`
`·8· · · · ·network.
`
`·9· · · · · · · And it also talks about the issue
`
`10· · · · ·of segmenting measurements and
`
`11· · · · ·segmenting a portion of the logged
`
`12· · · · ·measurements into single report
`
`13· · · · ·messages.
`
`14· · · · · · · So that's the -- the general
`
`15· · · · ·subject matter of the patent.
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· Can we turn to
`
`17· ·Claim 1 of the '658 Patent?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·And specifically Limitations 1C and
`
`20· ·1D, which start with "determining" and
`
`21· ·"deciding."
`
`22· · · · · · · You see those?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·So Limitations 1C and 1D state:
`
`25· ·"...determining if the received report message
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 9 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`·1· ·comprises an indicator of additional logged
`
`·2· ·measurements not yet transmitted; and, if so,
`
`·3· ·deciding if the additional logged measurements
`
`10
`
`·4· ·are to be requested."
`
`·5· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q.· ·Do you see that?
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·What do those limitations require,
`
`·9· ·in your view?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·Well, according to the claim
`
`11· ·language there is a determination.· So there
`
`12· ·will be a report message.· It may or may not
`
`13· ·have an indicator indicating additional logged
`
`14· ·measurements.· So it's just looking at that
`
`15· ·particular data or value in the message.
`
`16· · · · · · · And then there's a semicolon, so
`
`17· ·I'm not sure if that's the end of this claim
`
`18· ·and then the next element -- claim element,
`
`19· ·starts with the "and, if so..."
`
`20· · · · · · · But assuming the "and, if so" is
`
`21· ·part of this element, then there would be --
`
`22· ·there's just, kind of, a statement here that
`
`23· ·continues to the next element.
`
`24· · · · ·Q.· ·What does the "and, if so" add to
`
`25· ·the claim?
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 10 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`11
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·"And, if so" -- well, I think the
`
`·2· ·claim language would indicate that there's a
`
`·3· ·determining.
`
`·4· · · · · · · So if the determining step is true,
`
`·5· ·then I think that would then mean flowing down
`
`·6· ·to the next element.
`
`·7· · · · ·Q.· ·Can the deciding step, which is the
`
`·8· ·decision of whether to request additional
`
`·9· ·logged measurements be based simply on whether
`
`10· ·a received report message comprises an
`
`11· ·indicator of additional logged measurements
`
`12· ·not yet transmitted?
`
`13· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· If -- if the -- if the
`
`14· ·question is, "Could -- could the deciding be
`
`15· ·based on an indication of additional logged
`
`16· ·measurements," then, yes, that's something
`
`17· ·that the patent actually -- patent by itself
`
`18· ·suggests as one criteria for making the
`
`19· ·decision.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Could the deciding step be based
`
`21· ·solely on whether there has been a received
`
`22· ·report message that comprises an indicator of
`
`23· ·additional logged measurements not yet
`
`24· ·reported -- excuse me -- not yet transmitted?
`
`25· · · · ·A.· ·Uhm --
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 11 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`12
`
`·1· · · · · · · (Simultaneous speaking.)
`
`·2· · · · · · · MR. HART:· Object --
`
`·3· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· -- that's --
`
`·4· · · · · · · MR. HART:· -- to form.
`
`·5· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· -- that's sort of a
`
`·6· · · · ·compound question and it sounds similar
`
`·7· · · · ·to the last one.
`
`·8· · · · · · · Maybe if you could either repeat or
`
`·9· · · · ·simplify it.· Yeah.
`
`10· · · · · · · MR. WALTERS:· I'll ask it another
`
`11· · · · ·way.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· If a -- if a
`
`13· ·system determined that a received report
`
`14· ·message comprises an indicator of additional
`
`15· ·logged messages not yet transmitted, and then
`
`16· ·decided to request additional logged
`
`17· ·measurements based only on the presence of
`
`18· ·that indicator, would that system read on
`
`19· ·Limitations 1C and 1D?
`
`20· · · · ·A.· ·Well, it -- it could.· I think some
`
`21· ·of this may depend on implementation.
`
`22· · · · · · · So 1C and D have two steps.· 1C is
`
`23· ·just looking at the bit to determine if the
`
`24· ·indicator is indicating additional
`
`25· ·measurements.· If so, it flows down to the
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 12 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`13
`
`·1· ·next step.
`
`·2· · · · · · · There's a deciding step.· That
`
`·3· ·could certainly be a separately practiced step
`
`·4· ·in an implementation, and that step of
`
`·5· ·deciding can take on several criteria, as
`
`·6· ·explained in the patent.
`
`·7· · · · · · · I'll actually call to your
`
`·8· ·attention one particular disclosure in the
`
`·9· ·patent that suggests that the decision could
`
`10· ·be based on the indicator.
`
`11· · · · · · · If I can call your attention to
`
`12· ·Column 6 of the patent spec, there's a
`
`13· ·paragraph that starts at 16 and goes to 26 --
`
`14· ·rows.
`
`15· · · · · · · I'll -- I'll focus on the sentence
`
`16· ·at Line 21.
`
`17· · · · · · · "According to one embodiment, the
`
`18· ·network node processor circuit may be
`
`19· ·configured to decide if the additional logged
`
`20· ·measurements need to be requested based on one
`
`21· ·or more of the following..."
`
`22· · · · · · · There's several criteria then
`
`23· ·listed.· The very last one says, "UE buffer
`
`24· ·state condition."
`
`25· · · · · · · So here, "UE buffer state
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 13 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`14
`
`·1· ·condition" is something that could be inferred
`
`·2· ·by the indicator.
`
`·3· · · · · · · So I think a POSITA, looking at
`
`·4· ·this patent, could certainly read this as
`
`·5· ·suggesting an implementation with two steps, a
`
`·6· ·determining step where the bit is read and
`
`·7· ·then a deciding step where one of the criteria
`
`·8· ·for the decision could simply be:· Is -- is
`
`·9· ·the -- does the buffer have any more
`
`10· ·information?
`
`11· · · · · · · And that's something that would be
`
`12· ·indicated by the indicator.
`
`13· · · · ·Q.· ·In -- in that -- in that scenario,
`
`14· ·is it your opinion that the deciding step is
`
`15· ·based on something in addition to the presence
`
`16· ·of an indicator or simply based on the
`
`17· ·presence of an indicator?
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·Well, I think the --
`
`19· · · · · · · (Simultaneous speaking.)
`
`20· · · · · · · MR. HART:· Objection.· Form.
`
`21· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· -- I think the claim
`
`22· · · · ·is -- the claim element is rather broad,
`
`23· · · · ·so it could encompass both.· Yeah.
`
`24· · · · · · · For instance, we were -- as we were
`
`25· · · · ·just discussing, the indication of
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 14 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`15
`
`·1· · · · ·buffer state is disclosed as a criteria
`
`·2· · · · ·for the decision.· So certainly that's
`
`·3· · · · ·one reason for making a decision that's
`
`·4· · · · ·disclosed.
`
`·5· · · · · · · But there's lots of other reasons.
`
`·6· · · · · · · It could be network interference,
`
`·7· · · · ·radio condition measurements.· There --
`
`·8· · · · ·there are a lot of different criteria.
`
`·9· · · · · · · In fact, the list is
`
`10· · · · ·non-exhaustive.· That -- that passage we
`
`11· · · · ·just looked at ends with "et cetera."
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· So is it your
`
`13· ·opinion that the UE buffer state condition can
`
`14· ·be determined based solely on whether there is
`
`15· ·an indicator of additional logged measurements
`
`16· ·not yet transmitted?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·Well, I don't necessarily have an
`
`18· ·opinion about that.
`
`19· · · · · · · I think the -- the point I was just
`
`20· ·making is -- is just that the indicator is an
`
`21· ·indicator of buffer state.
`
`22· · · · · · · So that would be one way to
`
`23· ·indicate buffer state, and that could be used
`
`24· ·as a criteria in this decision-making process.
`
`25· · · · ·Q.· ·Does the '658 Patent ever describe
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 15 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`16
`
`·1· ·that the indicator of additional logged
`
`·2· ·measurements not yet transmitted can indicate
`
`·3· ·a buffer state condition?
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·Well, yes.
`
`·5· · · · · · · I mean, that is what the indicator
`
`·6· ·is.· It's an indicator that there is more data
`
`·7· ·in the buffer.· You know, that's disclosed
`
`·8· ·many places in the patent.
`
`·9· · · · · · · So, yes.· I mean, the indicator
`
`10· ·indicating that there's more data in the
`
`11· ·buffer would be an indicator in the state of
`
`12· ·that buffer.
`
`13· · · · ·Q.· ·Where specifically does the
`
`14· ·'658 Patent describe that?
`
`15· · · · ·A.· ·(Witness reviewing exhibit.)
`
`16· · · · · · · Well -- okay.· So it's several
`
`17· ·places.
`
`18· · · · · · · Here's one.· It's at Column 4,
`
`19· ·Line 25, just talking about advantages.· And
`
`20· ·it says:· "An advantage achieved by some of
`
`21· ·the above-mentioned embodiments is that due
`
`22· ·to" -- the (sic) -- "use of indicator in
`
`23· ·report message of further remaining logged
`
`24· ·measurements providing the network, i.e. a
`
`25· ·network node, with information needed to
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 16 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`17
`
`·1· ·decide a timing of transmission of" ...
`
`·2· ·"logged measurements and a timing of when more
`
`·3· ·logged measurements should be requested."
`
`·4· · · · · · · So here, you know, it's explaining
`
`·5· ·the indicator provides information to the
`
`·6· ·network that there's more logged measurements
`
`·7· ·at -- at the -- at the UE.
`
`·8· · · · · · · And then it provides information --
`
`·9· ·that right there, that indicator provides
`
`10· ·information needed to decide the timing of
`
`11· ·transmission.
`
`12· · · · · · · So that that disclosure, actually,
`
`13· ·perhaps more emphatically than the last
`
`14· ·disclosure that we went through, suggests that
`
`15· ·the indicator does provide information needed
`
`16· ·to decide the timing of transmission of the
`
`17· ·logged measurements.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`19· · · · · · · So where specifically does the
`
`20· ·'658 Patent describe that the indicator
`
`21· ·indicates the state of a UE buffer?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·Well, what it describes in many
`
`23· ·places, including here, is that it's
`
`24· ·indicating the presence of additional
`
`25· ·measurements in the UE buffer.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 17 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`18
`
`·1· · · · · · · So a POSITA, looking at that, would
`
`·2· ·see that this is an indicator of state of the
`
`·3· ·buffer, and the state of the buffer could
`
`·4· ·include, for instance, whether there's data
`
`·5· ·left in it or not.
`
`·6· · · · · · · So it's just an indicator of buffer
`
`·7· ·state.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·Do you happen to have the "Patent
`
`·9· ·Owner Preliminary Response" handy?
`
`10· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, I do.· I think I do.
`
`11· · · · ·Q.· ·I can put it -- I think I can link
`
`12· ·it in the chat window if you do not.· I know
`
`13· ·it's technically not an exhibit.· We didn't
`
`14· ·reference it --
`
`15· · · · · · · (Simultaneous speaking.)
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·Oh.
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·-- but I would like --
`
`18· · · · ·A.· ·Patent owner --
`
`19· · · · ·Q.· ·-- to refer to it briefly.
`
`20· · · · ·A.· ·Right.· Patent owner response.
`
`21· · · · · · · Yeah, I do have it.
`
`22· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Hold on.· I think I accidentally
`
`24· ·just closed it.
`
`25· · · · · · · Preliminary response.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 18 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`19
`
`·1· · · · · · · Okay.· I'm there.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q.· ·Can you turn to Page 41 of the
`
`·3· ·patent owner preliminary response.
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q.· ·The -- the bottom portion of
`
`·6· ·Page 41 is describing claim Limitations 1C and
`
`·7· ·1D.
`
`·8· · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`·9· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`10· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`11· · · · · · · And there's a sentence in the
`
`12· ·middle of that second full paragraph that
`
`13· ·starts, "That is..."
`
`14· · · · · · · You see that?
`
`15· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`17· · · · · · · And that sentence reads:· "That is,
`
`18· ·the network node must first determine if the
`
`19· ·report message has an indicator of additional
`
`20· ·logged measurements or if the report message
`
`21· ·does not have such an indicator.
`
`22· · · · · · · "If the network node determines
`
`23· ·that such an indicator is present and, if so,
`
`24· ·the network node then decides whether to
`
`25· ·request or not request the additional logged
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 19 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`20
`
`·1· ·measurements."
`
`·2· · · · · · · You see that?
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q.· ·Is -- is that an accurate
`
`·5· ·description of what is required in
`
`·6· ·Limitations 1C and 1D?
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·For the most part, this appears to
`
`·8· ·be accurate.· There -- it is adding more to
`
`·9· ·the claim language than what is there.
`
`10· · · · · · · Of everything here, one thing that
`
`11· ·is not in the claim language, for instance, is
`
`12· ·in the last -- second-to-the-last sentence,
`
`13· ·"If the network node determines that such an
`
`14· ·indicator is present and, if so, the network
`
`15· ·node then decides whether to request" -- and
`
`16· ·then in parentheses -- "(or not request) the
`
`17· ·additional logged measurements."
`
`18· · · · · · · The "or not request" is not in the
`
`19· ·claim language, so the criteria is just,
`
`20· ·decide whether to request.· That's -- that's
`
`21· ·the way it's written.
`
`22· · · · ·Q.· ·Other than the "or not request,"
`
`23· ·you would agree with what is presented in
`
`24· ·those two sentences as a description of
`
`25· ·Limitations 1C and 1D?
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 20 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`21
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·Okay.· I think we only covered
`
`·2· ·the -- the tail end of 1C, the "if so" part.
`
`·3· · · · · · · Are you asking me to opine about
`
`·4· ·the other part of 1C, or just starting at
`
`·5· ·"and, if so"?
`
`·6· · · · ·Q.· ·The -- yes.
`
`·7· · · · · · · The sentence starts:· "That is, the
`
`·8· ·network node must first determine if the
`
`·9· ·report message has an indicator of additional
`
`10· ·logged measurements..."
`
`11· · · · · · · So my question is whether these two
`
`12· ·sentences are an accurate description of
`
`13· ·Limitations 1C and 1D?
`
`14· · · · ·A.· ·Okay.
`
`15· · · · · · · MR. HART:· Objection.· Form.
`
`16· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, I'll -- I can
`
`17· · · · ·break it down by sentence.
`
`18· · · · · · · The first part says that, "The
`
`19· · · · ·network node must first determine if the
`
`20· · · · ·report message has an indicator of
`
`21· · · · ·additional logged measurements."
`
`22· · · · · · · I would agree with that.
`
`23· · · · · · · "Or if the report message does not
`
`24· · · · ·have such an indicator," that part is
`
`25· · · · ·not disclosed.· It just says, "If it has
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 21 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`22
`
`·1· · · · ·an indicator."
`
`·2· · · · · · · So that last part is not in the
`
`·3· · · · ·claim language.
`
`·4· · · · · · · Now, it may be implied because of
`
`·5· · · · ·the "if so" that comes up, because if
`
`·6· · · · ·there is an "if so," that would then
`
`·7· · · · ·branch into the last claim element.
`
`·8· · · · · · · And then in the last claim element
`
`·9· · · · ·we did discuss, I would agree that the
`
`10· · · · ·network node needs to decide.· We
`
`11· · · · ·discussed different ways that it can do
`
`12· · · · ·that decision.
`
`13· · · · · · · "...whether to request the
`
`14· · · · ·additional logged measurements," the "or
`
`15· · · · ·not request" is not in there.
`
`16· · · · · · · So I would generally agree with the
`
`17· · · · ·statements.
`
`18· · · · · · · I think what's not in the claim
`
`19· · · · ·language itself is the alternatives, the
`
`20· · · · ·"if not"s.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· Okay.
`
`22· · · · · · · You would agree with that second
`
`23· ·sentence, or at least part of the second
`
`24· ·sentence, in that:· "If the network node
`
`25· ·determines that such an indicator is present,
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 22 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`23
`
`·1· ·the network node then decides whether to
`
`·2· ·request the additional logged measurements."
`
`·3· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think that would come from
`
`·4· ·the plain meaning of the claim.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·6· · · · · · · MR. WALTERS:· I would like to now
`
`·7· · · · ·turn to the Zhou reference,
`
`·8· · · · ·Exhibit 1005.
`
`·9· · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 1005 Previously
`
`10· · · · ·Marked.)
`
`11· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I'm there.
`
`12· · · · · · · MR. WALTERS:· And I would like to
`
`13· · · · ·turn to Figure 6 of the reference.
`
`14· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I'm there.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· What does this
`
`16· ·figure describe?
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·Well, the figure is an embodiment
`
`18· ·in the patent, the Zhou reference that we're
`
`19· ·looking at.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`21· · · · · · · Do you see Step A6 of Figure 6?
`
`22· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`23· · · · ·Q.· ·Zhou describes that:· "The UE
`
`24· ·determines if any logged measurements will
`
`25· ·remain after some logged measurements are sent
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 23 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`24
`
`·1· ·to the base station."
`
`·2· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·And in Step A7 Zhou describes that:
`
`·4· ·"If no logged measurements will remain, then
`
`·5· ·an availability indicator will be sent
`
`·6· ·indicating no further logged data."
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·But in Step 8 Zhou describes that:
`
`·9· ·"If logged measurements remain, then an
`
`10· ·availability indicator will be sent indicating
`
`11· ·there is further logged data."
`
`12· · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`13· · · · ·A.· ·Correct.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·And in that case the flowchart
`
`15· ·proceeds to Step A5, where the base station
`
`16· ·sends a request for logged measurements.
`
`17· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`18· · · · ·Q.· ·What is the time period between
`
`19· ·Steps A8 and A5?
`
`20· · · · · · · MR. HART:· Objection.· Foundation.
`
`21· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, I don't know if
`
`22· · · · ·the timing is specifically disclosed
`
`23· · · · ·in -- in describing this.
`
`24· · · · · · · There would be a transmission in
`
`25· · · · ·A8.· So whatever time it takes to do the
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 24 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`25
`
`·1· · · · ·transmission, I think A8 would conclude
`
`·2· · · · ·with a determination at the base station
`
`·3· · · · ·for determining if that indicator is
`
`·4· · · · ·there.
`
`·5· · · · · · · And, if so, it would -- the
`
`·6· · · · ·decision would go through that arrow to
`
`·7· · · · ·A5, and then A5 would then be where the
`
`·8· · · · ·base station can make its -- make its
`
`·9· · · · ·decision.
`
`10· · · · · · · So, yeah.· Things -- things happen
`
`11· · · · ·relatively quickly.· A lot of it would
`
`12· · · · ·depend on the implementation, but I
`
`13· · · · ·think it would be implied that these
`
`14· · · · ·steps occur rather quickly.
`
`15· · · · ·Q.· ·(BY MR. WALTERS)· Does Zhou ever
`
`16· ·describe, with respect to this figure, that
`
`17· ·the base station may not request additional
`
`18· ·logged data after receiving an indicator from
`
`19· ·the UE that there is additional logged data
`
`20· ·that has not been sent?
`
`21· · · · ·A.· ·Specifically when it's talking
`
`22· ·about this figure?
`
`23· · · · · · · (Witness reviewing exhibit.)
`
`24· · · · · · · Yeah, I think the disclosure of
`
`25· ·this figure is on Page 15, at Line 30.· And
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 25 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`26
`
`·1· ·here, yeah, the disclosure is fairly short,
`
`·2· ·and it just says that if sent, the base
`
`·3· ·station sends a request for the logged
`
`·4· ·measurement data.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q.· ·So is -- is the answer to my
`
`·6· ·question, "No"?
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·You may need to repeat the
`
`·8· ·question.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q.· ·Sure.
`
`10· · · · · · · Does Zhou ever describe, with
`
`11· ·respect to this figure, that the base station
`
`12· ·may not request additional logged data after
`
`13· ·receiving an indicator from the UE that there
`
`14· ·is additional logged data that has not yet
`
`15· ·been sent?
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·Well, as we just discussed, the
`
`17· ·specific description of that block in the --
`
`18· ·in the disclosure of Zhou is relatively short
`
`19· ·and it explains it is sending a request.
`
`20· · · · · · · There are other places in Zhou --
`
`21· ·and, of course, this -- this figure is in the
`
`22· ·context of other disclosures in Zhou where,
`
`23· ·you know, there are suggestions of other --
`
`24· ·other reasons other than just the indication
`
`25· ·of that bit for which Zhou can make this
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 26 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`27
`
`·1· ·decision.
`
`·2· · · · · · · You know, for instance, network --
`
`·3· ·network load and congestion was one.· And then
`
`·4· ·another one was number -- number of
`
`·5· ·measurements.
`
`·6· · · · · · · I'll actually point that one to
`
`·7· ·you, as well.· It's at the top of the same
`
`·8· ·page we were just looking at, Page 13.
`
`·9· · · · · · · Right at Line 1, the first -- the
`
`10· ·end of the first -- the beginning of the first
`
`11· ·full sentence in this paragraph at the top of
`
`12· ·Page 13 says:· "The number of logged
`
`13· ·measurements and/or the size of the response
`
`14· ·message may be capped or have an upper limit
`
`15· ·in order to keep the response message within
`
`16· ·an acceptable size."
`
`17· · · · · · · So here it's also disclosing a -- a
`
`18· ·possible reason for not requesting an
`
`19· ·additional message is if the number of logged
`
`20· ·measurements has exceeded some maximum number.
`
`21· · · · ·Q.· ·When you refer to Page 13, are you
`
`22· ·referring to -- there's two page numbers on
`
`23· ·each page.· One is the exhibit page number and
`
`24· ·one is the -- the original page number of the
`
`25· ·reference.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 27 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`28
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· ·Oh.· It's just the original page
`
`·2· ·number of the reference.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·So it's -- it's your opinion that
`
`·4· ·Zhou explicitly discloses that the base
`
`·5· ·station may not request additional logged data
`
`·6· ·after receiving an indicator from the UE that
`
`·7· ·there is additional logged data that has not
`
`·8· ·yet been sent?
`
`·9· · · · ·A.· ·That may be mischaracterizing my
`
`10· ·opinion.
`
`11· · · · · · · My opinion is that, you know,
`
`12· ·there's the ability to request or not request
`
`13· ·further measurements is suggested -- suggested
`
`14· ·and would be obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`15· ·skill in the art based on these other
`
`16· ·disclosures in Zhou.
`
`17· · · · · · · But to the extent that you're
`
`18· ·asking me whether this figure that we're
`
`19· ·looking at expressly discloses that feature,
`
`20· ·then in that case I would agree with you that,
`
`21· ·no, it's not expressly disclosing that
`
`22· ·particular feature of not requesting
`
`23· ·additional measurements after receiving the
`
`24· ·message.
`
`25· · · · ·Q.· ·Can we turn back to your
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 28 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`29
`
`·1· ·declaration?
`
`·2· · · · ·A.· ·Okay.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·4· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.· I'm there.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·6· · · · · · · Specifically Page 45.
`
`·7· · · · ·A.· ·Okay.· I'm there.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q.· ·In Paragraph 88, on Pages 45 to 46,
`
`·9· ·you address Claim Limitation 1C.
`
`10· · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`11· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`12· · · · ·Q.· ·And when doing so you address
`
`13· ·Figure 4 of Zhou and its related description.
`
`14· · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`15· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · ·Q.· ·And in the first full sentence on
`
`17· ·Page 46 of your declaration, you state:· "As
`
`18· ·illustrated in Figure 4, if the base station
`
`19· ·receives the indicator in Step T3 that
`
`20· ·additional logged measurement data is
`
`21· ·available, the base station transmits a
`
`22· ·request to the UE requesting the additional
`
`23· ·logged measurement data."
`
`24· · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`25· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001, Page 29 of 56
`Apple Inc., v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2022-00459
`
`
`
`30
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· ·When describing Figure 4, Zhou
`
`·2· ·never describes the possibility of a base
`
`·3· ·station not requesting additional logged
`
`·4· ·measurements after receiving an indicator that
`
`·5· ·additional logged measurement data is
`
`·6· ·available.
`
`·7· · · · · · · Is that fair?
`
`·8· · · · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think that's fair in the
`
`·9· ·sense that when it's just describing Figure 4
`
`10· ·and going through the steps, it discloses the
`
`11· ·Step T3 and T4 without disclosing any
`
`12· ·additional logic between those steps.
`
`13· · · · · · · If that was your question.
`
`14· · · · ·Q.· ·Can we go back to Zhou?
`
`15· · · · · · · And specifically exhibit Page 13.
`
`16· · · · ·A.· ·Okay.· I'm there.
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·At the top of exhibit Page 13,
`
`18· ·there's a paragraph that starts:· "However, in
`
`19· ·some embodiments of the invention the number
`
`20· ·of logged MDT measurements in UE may be too
`
`21· ·large in some cases to be practically
`
`22· ·contained in a single response message."
`
`23· · · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`24· · · · ·A.· ·Yes.
`
`25· · · · ·Q.· ·Can you just familiarize yourself
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2001,
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
