DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2022-00601 of U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`IPR2022-00602 of U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`__________
`
`VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III
`
`TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
`
`ON FEBRUARY 27, 2023
`
`REPORTED BY: TRENA K. BLOYE, CSR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 1
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2022-00601 of U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`IPR2022-00602 of U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`__________
`
`VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III
`
`TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
`
`ON FEBRUARY 27, 2023
`
`REPORTED BY: TRENA K. BLOYE, CSR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 1
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`All parties appeared via videoconference.
`
`For the Petitioner:
`
` JENNIFER C. BAILEY
` ERISE IP, PA
` 7015 College Boulevard
` Suite 700
` Overland Park, Kansas 66211
` 913-777-5600
` jennifer.bailey@eriseIP.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
`
` JONAH B. HEEMSTRA
` K & L GATES, LLP
` 70 West Madison Street
` Suite 3300
` Chicago, Illinois 60602
` 312-807-4318
` jonah.heemstra@klgates.com
`
`Also Present:
`
` Virginia Brown
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 2
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 3
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
` Page
`
` Examination by Ms. Bailey 5
`
` Certificate 56
`
`
`
` (No exhibits marked.)
`
` * * * * * *
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 3
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 4
`
` S T I P U L A T I O N S
`
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY
`
`and between the parties hereto, through their respective
`
`attorneys, that the deposition of DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM,
`
`III, may be taken on behalf of the Petitioner on the
`
`27th day of February, 2023, via videoconference, by
`
`Trena K. Bloye, Certified Shorthand Reporter for the
`
`State of Oklahoma, by notice pursuant to the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
` * * * * * *
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 4
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 5
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III,
`
`after having been first duly sworn at 9:46 a.m., deposes
`
`and says in reply to the questions propounded as
`
`follows, to wit:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. BAILEY:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Easttom. Thank you for
`
`being, here. My name is Jennifer Bailey. I'm with the
`
`law firm of Erise IP and we represent Apple, Inc. in
`
`this matter.
`
` Could you state your name for the record,
`
`please?
`
` A William Charles Easttom, II.
`
` Q Great. Thank you. Dr. Easttom, have you been
`
`deposed before?
`
` A I have.
`
` Q Okay. Can you give me approximately how many
`
`times you have been deposed?
`
` A We're getting close to 60.
`
` Q Okay. So then you are very familiar with how a
`
`deposition works where I'm going to ask you questions,
`
`you'll answer the questions. Counsel may object, but
`
`unless counsel, instructs you not to answer the
`
`question, you need to go ahead and answer the question.
`
`Does that all sound familiar to you?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 5
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A It does, indeed.
`
` Q Okay. I usually like to take breaks at least
`
`once every hour. But, of course, if you ever need to
`
`take a break, just let me know. I'm happy to take a
`
`break at any time. Just ask that you go ahead and
`
`finish answering the question if there is one
`
`outstanding. Is that fair?
`
` A That's fair.
`
` Q Great. So we're here to take the deposition on
`
`two IPRs, IPR2022-006601 for the 208 patent and
`
`IPR2022-00602 for the 705 patent.
`
` Most of my questions today are going to be with
`
`respect to the 705 patent. And I'm just kind of letting
`
`you know that in advance. If I ask anything specific to
`
`the 208 patent, I will try to kind of identify and
`
`highlight the specific for the 208 patent.
`
` Can you confirm, I believe that your counsel
`
`provided you a clean, hard copy for the record for both
`
`IPRs; is that correct?
`
` A Yes, and I also have a clean PDF copy available
`
`I can use, whichever one you would rather me use.
`
` Q Right. It's really up to you what your
`
`preference on which one to use. I personally think
`
`using the hard copy is easier, but you can use whichever
`
`you like. I do want to confirm you don't have any other
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 6
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`notes in front of you, so nothing written or digital on
`
`your desk or your monitor in your line of sight; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A That's correct. I have also taken the time,
`
`since I have multiple computers in my office, to shut
`
`them all down except the one I'm on, turn off the phone,
`
`and e-mail is shut down, everything is shut down.
`
` Q Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.
`
` And is it fair for you to -- that we agree that
`
`you're only going to look at either that electronic
`
`digital copy or the hard copy of the reference when
`
`answering the questions today?
`
` A Yes, of course.
`
` Q Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and note some
`
`documents for you to pull out or pull up online just for
`
`ease since I know that we're going to be referring to
`
`these. If you want to go ahead and pull out the 705
`
`patent, which is Exhibit 1001.
`
` MS. BAILEY: And for the record, I am
`
`going to refer to the exhibits that are in the record
`
`for today's deposition. So in the record and the IPR,
`
`Exhibit 1001 is the 705 patent. And that's what I will
`
`reference today. I assume that's okay with you,
`
`Counsel?
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Yeah.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 7
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 8
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) So, Dr. Easttom, if you could
`
`go ahead and pull out the 705 patent, which is Exhibit
`
`1001.
`
` A I have it.
`
` Q The Mathieson reference, which is Exhibit 1004;
`
`the McKeeth reference, which is Exhibit 1005; the
`
`Anderson reference, which is Exhibit 1006; and your
`
`Declaration, which is Exhibit 2013.
`
` A Okay. One moment, please.
`
` Q Sure.
`
` A I have those open.
`
` Q Great. Thank you. I want to go ahead and pull
`
`out your exhibit, Exhibit 2013 -- I'm sorry -- your
`
`Declaration Exhibit 2013. And if you could, please turn
`
`to paragraph 45, which is on page 15.
`
` A It begins with, "The Board has construed this
`
`limitation"?
`
` Q Correct. So throughout today's deposition
`
`there are several times I'm going to ask you to review
`
`something and read it to yourself. You don't need to
`
`read it out loud unless I specifically request. So in
`
`this instance can you go ahead and read to yourself
`
`paragraph 45, please?
`
` A I have done so.
`
` Q So the beginning of paragraph 45 says, The
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 8
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 9
`
`Board has construed this limitation to mean and, quote,
`
`attribute that establishes whether and under which
`
`conditions access to the controlled items should be
`
`granted.
`
` And we're specifically referring to the claim
`
`term "accessibility attribute." Do you understand
`
`accessibility attribute to be that quoted, "attribute
`
`that establishes," that I just read back?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And that's the construction that you have
`
`applied in reviewing the claims in the prior art in this
`
`matter?
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q Okay. I now want you to pull out the 705
`
`patent, Exhibit 1001, and turn to column 8.
`
` And, Dr. Easttom, I want to reference the
`
`column and line numbers when I reference the patents.
`
`Do you understand what that means when I reference a
`
`column and line number?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Okay. So please turn to paragraph 8 and read
`
`the paragraph to yourself beginning at line 20. That's
`
`a long paragraph. I'm mostly interested in what's in
`
`lines 20 through 35. But feel free to read the entire
`
`paragraph and anything else you'd like.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 9
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A Certainly. I have read it.
`
` Q Okay. Great. So do you see this paragraph is
`
`discussing an accessibility attribute?
`
` A Well, that's certainly discussed within the
`
`patent, yes.
`
` Q Okay. And what are the examples of an
`
`accessibility attribute within the context of the 705
`
`patent?
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Objection, form.
`
` A Well, you can read it straight from the patent
`
`language. "Thus, for example, the accessibility
`
`attribute may comprise one or more of an access
`
`attribute granting unconditional access, a duress
`
`attribute granting access with activation of an alert
`
`tone to advise authorities of a duress situation, an
`
`alert attribute sounding a chime indicating an
`
`unauthorized but not necessarily hostile person is
`
`seeking access, and a telemetry attribute which
`
`represents a communication channel for communicating
`
`state information for the transmitter subsystem to the
`
`receiver subsystem such as a low battery condition."
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) Great. Thank you. So an
`
`access attribute is an example of an accessibility
`
`attribute within the 705 patent; is that correct?
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Objection, form.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 10
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A Well, I'm not sure an access attribute just
`
`granting unconditional access would be, because I'm
`
`reading the plain language here. It says, "For example,
`
`the accessibility attribute may comprise one or more of
`
`an access attribute." That indicates, "comprising,"
`
`there are more components, more pieces.
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) So let me reframe my question.
`
`Is an access attribute an example of an accessibility
`
`attribute within the 705 patent?
`
` A Well, as I read this language I just don't see
`
`that, as it describes here, an access attribute just
`
`simply grants unconditional access by itself would meet
`
`the criteria in the patent itself of an accessibility
`
`attribute.
`
` Q Is address attribute an example of an
`
`accessibility attribute as used within the 705 patent?
`
` A Well, I think we have the exact same situation
`
`here. What the actual language says, "For example, the
`
`accessibility attribute may comprise one or more of" --
`
`and then it lists several including the access attribute
`
`we just discussed, an address attribute what you're now
`
`asking about. From reading the language it does not
`
`appear to me that simply having an address attribute and
`
`nothing else would qualify as an accessibility
`
`attribute.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 11
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q Could you explain that opinion a little bit
`
`more?
`
` A Sure. First and foremost, we have the PTABs
`
`own construction, whether and under what conditions,
`
`which also happens to be taken straight out of the
`
`patent itself. If you simply have any binary decision,
`
`or in the case of simply granting unconditional access,
`
`which would also be a unitary condition, that doesn't
`
`tell us under what conditions. It just tells us whether
`
`to grant access.
`
` So based on the PTABs own construction and the
`
`patent's plain language, that could not possibly by
`
`itself be an accessibility attribute. The second issue
`
`is the language in this section we're actually reading
`
`"may comprise."
`
` They are simply giving you, the inventors, one
`
`of ordinarily skill in the art would see, the inventors
`
`are giving you the various things that might be part of
`
`an accessibility attribute. You might have an
`
`accessibility attribute that one of the things it can do
`
`is grant unconditional access, or one of the things it
`
`can do can be the duress attribute. And we could go
`
`down the whole list. One of it could be an alert, one
`
`of it could be a low battery signal. These are things
`
`that could be part of the accessibility attribute.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 12
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q So is it your opinion that an accessibility
`
`attribute has to have two of the described attributes?
`
`For example an access attribute and a duress attribute,
`
`in order to be an accessibility attribute?
`
` A Well, that's not quite what I said. My opinion
`
`is that -- well, first of all, I think my understanding,
`
`not being an attorney, is that we are all operating
`
`under the PTABs claim construction, period. Doesn't
`
`matter whatever else we might think. But I think they
`
`got this exactly right because they pulled the language
`
`directly from the patent.
`
` An attribute that establishes whether and under
`
`which conditions access the control item should be
`
`granted. So if you have anything that simply
`
`establishes whether, but it doesn't establish under
`
`which conditions, then it is not an accessibility
`
`attribute.
`
` Q So at column 8, lines 31 through 32, the 705
`
`patent references a duress attribute, and it has in
`
`parentheses, "Granting access that, but with activation
`
`of an alert tone, to advise authorities of the duress
`
`situation." Do you see that in the 705 patent?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q If an accessibility attribute is outputted that
`
`grants access, but with activation of an alert tone,
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 13
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`would you believe -- is it your opinion that that is an
`
`accessibility attribute applying the PTAB's claim
`
`construction.
`
` A I'd have to know more about the entire
`
`situation, because the PTAB's construction, as we have
`
`been talking about, is whether and under what
`
`conditions. So I would like to know in this
`
`hypothetical what are the other conditions, what are the
`
`possibilities of regarding granting access?
`
` For example, is it the case that the
`
`accessibility attribute, pardon me, can grant, say,
`
`administrative access and an alert, or can grant lesser
`
`access and an alert. We definitely in that scenario
`
`have whether and under what conditions.
`
` If the only option is grant you full access or
`
`grant you full access and sound an alert -- again, this
`
`is a purely hypothetical, we're not talking about a
`
`certain asserted priority -- that would tend, at least
`
`my initial thought would be not to meet the PTAB's
`
`construction.
`
` Q Going back to the columns 71 through 72 of the
`
`705 patent, it says that address attribute grants
`
`access. So let's break this down. Would if be --
`
`granting access, would that fall under one of the
`
`whether and under what conditions required by the claim
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 14
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`construction?
`
` A Well, that's why we have to look at specifics
`
`of -- because you have been giving me a hypothetical so
`
`far. I assume later we will talk about the actual
`
`assertive prior art. But if the -- what is the nature
`
`of the access? Are there possibilities?
`
` For example, my office happens to have a
`
`biometric lock because I sometimes do digital forensics.
`
`But there is no entries or even the possibility of entry
`
`for other people. You either get access or you don't.
`
`It's also the case that, given the layout of my office,
`
`there is no possibility of partial access. You're
`
`either in or you're not.
`
` That could not be an accessibility attribute
`
`because there is no under what conditions. It is simply
`
`a binary. You are granted access or not. Now, given a
`
`hypothetical, let's say I change this and what I did is
`
`my fingerprint would open the door, but someone else's
`
`fingerprint, say my grandson's, would open the door, but
`
`automatically lock all my desk drawers so that he could
`
`come into the office, but couldn't open my desk drawers.
`
` Now, that might be an accessibility attribute,
`
`because we certainly have under what conditions, we have
`
`varied conditions when someone is granted access. The
`
`problem with hypotheticals, however, we have to look at
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 15
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the entire system and see what's happening.
`
` So the best I can say about this hypothetical
`
`that I, myself, just posited, is the second example
`
`might be an accessibility attribute, but the first one
`
`absolutely could not be.
`
` Q If access is granted, but it's granted with the
`
`proviso that an alert is sent to the authorities, is the
`
`alert being sent to the authorities the "under what
`
`conditions" of the claim construction.
`
` A Well, again, speaking purely hypothetically,
`
`not about an actual system, the most one could possibly
`
`say in that situation is it might be. With no more
`
`information on the hypothetical, we don't know are there
`
`different levels of access? That's a very important
`
`thing. We don't know what are the options in this
`
`system.
`
` Is it simply you get in or you get in and
`
`resend an alert with no other options. And, again, I
`
`can't give a full answer without more details. But in
`
`general in that last option I just outlined, my initial
`
`thought would be it might not be an accessibility
`
`attribute.
`
` Q Is the sending of an alert, but also granting
`
`access, a condition on the granted access?
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Object to the form.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 16
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A Well, again, we've got a general hypothetical.
`
`I really think, with just that bare bones hypothetical,
`
`the most anyone can say is "might be." We don't have
`
`enough information what's happening in the system. It's
`
`possible, but it's also possible it's not. That's why
`
`we have to look in detail at a given proposed system to
`
`see what all it's doing.
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) Could you turn to the 705
`
`patent, column 11, and read -- I'm specifically
`
`interested in lines 50 through 55, but, of course, feel
`
`free to read the entire paragraph and anything else you
`
`would like to.
`
` A Certainly. I have read it.
`
` Q At the 705 patent, column 11, lines 50 through
`
`55, this section is discussing a duress class, and that
`
`if the signature is in a duress class, a duress bit is
`
`incorporated into the access signal; is that correct?
`
` A Well, partially correct. What this paragraph
`
`is actually discussing is figure 7. And if you scroll
`
`up to the figure 7 -- which my PDF version is page 9 --
`
`we have first a step where we compare the signatures.
`
`Then, frankly, if you don't match the signature we do
`
`nothing else. If you do then you ask, Is there also a
`
`duress signal? If not is there a telemetry signal?
`
`Then we have is the ID okay? We insert an access bit.
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 17
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` So one part of that section of reading and the
`
`figure 7 is, indeed, whether or not -- and in this
`
`example it's a duress bit should added to the
`
`accessibility attribute.
`
` Q So if the user that is providing their
`
`biometric signature wants to indicate a duress situation
`
`to the system, the person enters a duress signature; is
`
`that correct?
`
` A Well, no. You can't enter a signature. A
`
`signature is stored, and then your biometrics, for
`
`example your fingerprint, is taken down compared to the
`
`signatures that are stored in that database.
`
` Q So how would the person indicate a duress
`
`situation?
`
` A Well, let me just take a quick look at what the
`
`patent itself says on this. One moment, please.
`
` Well, probably the closest answer, I'm going to
`
`give more direct, but is actually in column 11 toward
`
`the bottom around 60. "The disclosed system 100
`
`utilizes four such user bits. Namely A, to indicate the
`
`user belongs to the duress category; B, to indicate low
`
`battery condition or other desired system state or
`
`telemetry variable for the code entry module 103; C, to
`
`indicate the biometric signal represents a legitimate
`
`user, in which case the secure access to the controlled
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 18
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`item is granted; or, D, to indicate the signal is
`
`unknown, in which case the control 109 -- excuse me --
`
`in the receiver subsystem 117 sounds an alert tone using
`
`a bell.
`
` Now, what this is saying in more plain English
`
`is that, um, the system has a way of handling a duress
`
`signal. But the system itself is not telling you how
`
`you must enter the duress signal. It is possible to
`
`implement it in a variety of ways.
`
` And as we go you through the patent there is
`
`actually a lot more that supports that perspective. One
`
`moment. I will give you something else here.
`
` Claim 3 itself talks about the database of
`
`biometric signatures, comprises signatures in at least
`
`one of a system of administrative class, user class, and
`
`a duress class.
`
` So one possibility -- this isn't explicitly
`
`stated in the patent, but it's implied from Claim 3.
`
`Perhaps I use my thumb print for my normal access and my
`
`pinky finger, I use that when I am being forced to open
`
`the door. That would be one possibility but it's not
`
`required. The focus of the 705 is what to do once you
`
`have entered your biometric signal and how we determine
`
`to proceed from that event.
`
` Q Is it fair to say that outputting a duress bit
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 19
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`in the access signal is done for safety reasons?
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Object to the form.
`
` A Well, I don't recall the 705 explicitly saying
`
`it had to be for safety reasons. But I do give one
`
`example of being forced to open a bank vault. Now, that
`
`might be a safety reason. But one in the skill of the
`
`art could immediately come up with reasons that are not
`
`safety implied. They are more about system security.
`
`My personal safety is not in danger, but the system
`
`security is.
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) So let me move on. Please turn
`
`to the 705 patent again and read paragraph 12, lines 25
`
`through 45.
`
` A Can you give me those line numbers again,
`
`please?
`
` Q Sure. 25, I said through 45, but really 42,
`
`just that paragraph beginning at line 25.
`
` A Thank you. I have read it.
`
` Q So this paragraph is discussing inserting an
`
`alert bit into the access signal; is that correct?
`
` A Well, I don't know if inserting is the right
`
`word, but preparing an alert bit.
`
` Q And the alert bit is an access attribute of the
`
`biometric signal?
`
` A Well, I believe there is very specific language
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 20
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`in here in this paragraph. Let me just see. Just one
`
`moment, please.
`
` I'm just not seeing that specific terminology.
`
`Perhaps I'm missing it.
`
` Q Okay. When is access granted to the system?
`
` A Well, in the 705 when signatures match and this
`
`is an actual authorized user -- and 705 describes both
`
`standard users and administrative uses that have
`
`different access. But when the signature matches, one
`
`of the stored signatures, then access is granted. Now,
`
`that access may be granted and an alarm set off in some
`
`situations.
`
` Q So if the user attempting to gain access has a
`
`stored signature in the database is that user considered
`
`a legitimate user?
`
` A Well, the user is considered legitimate, but as
`
`we discussed earlier, they might have an alternate
`
`signature used to indicate, yes, I'm legitimate, but I'm
`
`being forced to do this.
`
` Q So would an administrator whose signature is
`
`stored in the database be a legitimate user?
`
` A The user would certainly be legitimate.
`
` Q And if that legitimate user is granted access,
`
`would the system output an access attribute?
`
` A Well, I believe it outputs an accessibility
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 21
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`attribute that is now saying whether or not to grant
`
`them access in our hypothetical, yes, would be the
`
`answer to that. Under what conditions? Well, they are
`
`an administrator so we're going to grant them a much
`
`broader access than a standard user. So, yes, an
`
`accessibility attribute would be output from that
`
`process.
`
` Q Could you turn to claim 1 of the 705 patent,
`
`please.
`
` A I have it in front of me.
`
` Q Thank you. I specifically want you to read the
`
`limitation that begins at column 16, lines 1 through 4
`
`beginning at transmitter subsystem.
`
` A I have read it.
`
` Q Do you agree that claim 1 requires only 1
`
`accessibility attribute to be outputted?
`
` A Well, I guess I'm a little puzzled by the
`
`wording there. The accessibility attribute itself is
`
`not a binary thing. It allows, well, as the PTAB has
`
`correctly stated, whether and under what conditions.
`
` So I don't know that there would be a situation
`
`where you would need more than one accessibility
`
`attribute. That accessibility attribute, an
`
`accessibility attribute, in the singular, gives you the
`
`information of whether we grant access and, secondly,
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 22
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`what conditions are applied to that access, whether it
`
`be limiting access, sounding an alert, or whatever it
`
`might be.
`
` Q Within the context of the 705 patent, are there
`
`different types of accessibility attributes that can be
`
`outputted?
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Object to the form.
`
` A Well, pardon, but the framing of these two
`
`questions sounds like you might be mixing up two things.
`
`We have bits, like alert bits and things like that, but
`
`then we have an accessibility attribute. That attribute
`
`encompasses: Do we need to put off an alert, do we
`
`simply grant access, is it administrative access, is it
`
`standard user access. All of that is within the
`
`singular accessibility attribute.
`
` Now, I don't see anything in the patent that
`
`would limit you, prevent you from breaking that down
`
`into multiple signals, but it's not required certainly.
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) So let me make sure I
`
`understand your opinion correctly, and please correct me
`
`if I'm misstating. Is it your opinion that for any
`
`given access situation -- and what I mean by that is the
`
`user is trying to access for a particular situation. So
`
`for any given access situation the system will output an
`
`accessibility attribute; is that correct?
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 23
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` MR. HEEMSTRA: Object to the form.
`
` A Let me direct your attention back to figure 7.
`
`I think that will help elucidate this topic for
`
`everyone.
`
` Notice that we started -- well, first of all,
`
`step 602 just comparing signatures. Then 603, if it's
`
`duress then we insert a duress bit. If it's telemetry,
`
`we insert a telemetry bit. If the ID is okay, we insert
`
`an access bit. Now, it's possible all three of those
`
`are true and all three of them get inserted. But these
`
`are being inserted so that an accessibility attribute is
`
`sent.
`
` Now, I guess, this whole concept of plurality
`
`isn't addressed in the patent, so I'm not quite sure
`
`what you're meaning when you're discussing a plurality
`
`of accessibility attributes.
`
` Q (By Ms. Bailey) So is it your opinion that an
`
`accessibility attribute may include a duress bit and a
`
`telemetry bit and an access bit?
`
` A I would think, just as a practical matter, that
`
`all three of those being included would certainly be an
`
`unusual situation, but I don't see anything in the 705
`
`that prevents all of those from happening.
`
` Q Can you turn to the 705 patent, Claim 1. I
`
`think we're already there, but if not --
`
`www.lexitaslegal.com
`
`LEXITAS LEGAL
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Apple EX1089 Page 24
`
`
`
` DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, III 2/27/2023
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A I am.
`
` Q -- please turn to that. Great. So let's look
`
`at the limitation that is at column 16, lines 15 through
`
`18, the Receive A Series of Entries.
`
` A I'm there.
`
` Q So I want to understand that are your opinions
`
`on what a series of entries on a biometric signal symbol
`
`encompasses as it's used in claim 1 of the 705 patent.
`
` A Well, first of all, we start with the biometric
`
`signal, which I believe has been construed to be a
`
`physical attribute of the user, such as fingerprint,
`
`facial recognition, voice, iris retina, those sorts of
`
`things. So if we don't have that then the rest of the
`
`analysis is irrele
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
