`
`·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,