`
`· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________________________________
`
`· · · · · · · SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`· · · · · · ·SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`_____________________________________________________
`
`· · · Case IPR2022-01005 (US Patent No. 9,084,291)
`_____________________________________________________
`
`· · · · · · · VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
`· · · · · · · · · DR. TODOR V. COOKLEV
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · JUNE 1, 2023
`
`· · · ·Page 1 - 174· · · ·8:02 a.m. - 3:58 p.m. PST
`
`REPORTED BY:
`Tamara L. Houston
`CA CSR No. 7244, RPR, CCRR No. 140
`Job Number 23-124485
`FR Ref. 39843-0129IP1
`
`SAMSUNG 1065
`SAMSUNG v. SMART MOBILE
`IPR2022-01004
`
`1
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · REMOTE VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
`·5· ·DR. TODOR V. COOKLEV, taken on behalf of the
`
`·6· ·Petitioner, commencing from 8:02 a.m. to 3:58 p.m.
`
`·7· ·PST, Thursday, June 1, 2023, before Tamara L.
`
`·8· ·Houston, CSR No. 7244, CCRR, RPR.
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· AAMIR KAZI, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · · · · SANGKI PARK, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 21st Floor
`·6· · · · · · ·Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`· · · · · · · ·kazi@fr.com
`·7· · · · · · ·spark@fr.com
`
`·8
`· · · · · On behalf of the Patent Owner and Witness:
`·9
`· · · · · · · ·GRAVES & SHAW LLP
`10· · · · · · ·BY:· REX HWANG, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · PHILIP GRAVES, ESQ.
`11· · · · · · ·355 S. Grand Avenue
`· · · · · · · ·Suite 2450
`12· · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90071
`· · · · · · · ·(213) 204-5101
`13· · · · · · ·pgraves@gravesshaw.com
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2· · · · · · · ·WITNESS:· DR. TODOR V. COOKLEV
`
`·3· ·EXAMINATIONS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·4· ·Mr. Kazi...................................· 6, 158
`· · ·Mr. Hwang..................................· · ·153
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`· · · · · · · ·QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page· · ·Line
`·9
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · None
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · ·MARKED TRANSCRIPT
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · ·Page· · · Line
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ·142· · · · 17
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · DR. TODOR V. COOKLEV
`
`·3· · · ·SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. vs. SMART MOBILE
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · JUNE 1, 2023
`
`·6· · · Tamara L. Houston, CSR No. 7244, CRR No. 140, RPR
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·EXHIBIT· · · · · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·None
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · --o0o--
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2023, 8:02 a.m.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · --o0o--
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·All counsel present stipulate
`
`·4· · · · · · that the witness shall be sworn remotely
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · ·by the court reporter
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · Whereupon, DR. TODOR V. COOKLEV,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · having been called as a witness was
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · duly sworn to tell the truth, the
`
`10· · · · · · · · · whole truth, and nothing but the truth
`
`11· · · · · · · · · testified as follows:
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--o0o--
`
`13· · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION BY MR. KAZI:
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Sir, can you please state your name and
`
`15· ·address for the record?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·My name is Todor Cooklev.· My permanent
`
`17· ·address is 1336 Sycamore Hills Parkway, Fort Wayne,
`
`18· ·Indiana 46814.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·And where are you testifying from today?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·I am testifying from Bulgaria today.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·You understand that you're under oath
`
`22· ·today, sir?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Which means that you have to tell the
`
`25· ·truth.
`
`6
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Of course.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And you will do that today, sir?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·I will.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Do you -- did you bring anything with you
`
`·5· ·to today's deposition?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·No.· I -- I mean, in the conference room
`
`·7· ·that I'm in, it -- it's a conference room of a -- of
`
`·8· ·a hotel.· I only have a bottle of water.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·And obviously your computer?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·And my computer, correct.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`12· · · · · · ·And on that computer, do you have access to
`
`13· ·any materials -- well, let me ask a different way.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Do you have access on that computer to
`
`15· ·materials related to this matter?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·I was -- before we began, I was generally
`
`17· ·reviewing.· I have two screens.· One is my
`
`18· ·declaration, and the other one is the patent, but I
`
`19· ·can -- I can close them right now.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Well, I think -- feel free to keep them
`
`21· ·open.
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·What I was going to tell you was today,
`
`24· ·throughout the course of this deposition, I will ask
`
`25· ·you questions about the petition on the '291 patent.
`
`7
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Are you familiar with the '291 patent?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·So I'll be asking you questions about the
`
`·4· ·IPR petition on the '291 patent.· So to the extent
`
`·5· ·you need to look at your declaration or the petition
`
`·6· ·or any materials that you have submitted in this --
`
`·7· ·associated materials such as exhibits, please feel
`
`·8· ·free to do so.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·I'd just like you to confirm that you're
`
`10· ·not looking at anything with any annotations on it,
`
`11· ·and separately, to the extent you're looking at
`
`12· ·something, I'd just ask you to indicate to me what it
`
`13· ·is you're looking at.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Is that fair?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes, understood, Counsel.
`
`16· · · · · · ·I did not -- I mean, maybe slightly -- you
`
`17· ·said the petition and materials that I submitted. I
`
`18· ·mean, I did not submit the petition, but I did --
`
`19· ·with my declaration, there were some exhibits that
`
`20· ·maybe I do not have them open right now but maybe --
`
`21· ·maybe we will at some point.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Yeah.· And to be clear, I think most of my
`
`23· ·questions relate to your declaration.· I suspect
`
`24· ·there may be questions that relate to the declaration
`
`25· ·that refer to underlying materials, which is why I
`
`8
`
`
`
`·1· ·phrased the question that way.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·I can absolutely provide you those exhibits
`
`·3· ·as I ask questions, but if you have clean, unmarked
`
`·4· ·copies of those, you know, you should feel free to
`
`·5· ·reference those.· I would just ask that you tell me
`
`·6· ·when you're doing so.
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·And I will be explaining what I'm doing.
`
`·8· ·All documents that I have are clean and unmarked.
`
`·9· ·And I confirmed that I do not have any notes with me
`
`10· ·at the moment.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.
`
`12· · · · · · ·So if you could pull up the '291 patent,
`
`13· ·and let me know when you have that.
`
`14· · · · A.· ·I have the '291 patent open.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·And you're familiar with the '291 patent,
`
`16· ·right, sir?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Yes, I am.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·And particularly, you're familiar with
`
`19· ·Claim 5 of the '291 patent?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·What is your understanding of the invention
`
`22· ·covered by Claim 5 of the '291 patent?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Claim 5, it's a little bit
`
`25· ·long claim.· Yes.· The claim has a preamble and then,
`
`9
`
`
`
`·1· ·after the preamble, several limitations.· And I
`
`·2· ·think, at the high level, this is my understanding of
`
`·3· ·Claim 5.
`
`·4· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Are you done, sir?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·My question is what is your understanding
`
`·8· ·as to what the scope of Claim 5 covers.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·So can you explain, in your own words, what
`
`10· ·it is that is the invention recited here in Claim 5
`
`11· ·of the '291 patent?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, I do not have -- I'm
`
`14· ·not going to rephrase claim terms.· The -- would --
`
`15· ·in my own words, Claim 5 covers a communication
`
`16· ·system.
`
`17· · · · · · ·And this communication system further
`
`18· ·includes "one or more communication modules and
`
`19· ·processors for use in a portable, handheld mobile
`
`20· ·device with a plurality of antennas."
`
`21· · · · · · ·And, "Said communication system implemented
`
`22· ·as a system on a chip," which system now comprises --
`
`23· ·and there are several here -- elements of this system
`
`24· ·that are also recited by Claim 5.
`
`25· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`10
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·So were you just reading from the text of
`
`·2· ·Claim 5, sir?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·I mean, basically.· There were some -- some
`
`·4· ·of my words in addition to -- to that, but basically,
`
`·5· ·yes.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Sir, are you able to summarize in any way
`
`·7· ·what it is that you believe is the novelty of Claim 5
`
`·8· ·over the prior art?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`10· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Let me just withdraw that question and ask
`
`12· ·it differently.
`
`13· · · · · · ·Sir, what is the novelty of Claim 5 over
`
`14· ·the prior art?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The entire Claim 5 is novel.
`
`17· ·And I say the entire Claim 5 because it is my
`
`18· ·understanding that one needs to look at the entire
`
`19· ·claim when identifying what is novel compared to the
`
`20· ·prior art.
`
`21· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Is there any specific limitation that you
`
`23· ·believe to be novel over the prior art?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, again, I think the --
`
`11
`
`
`
`·1· ·above all, the correct answer here, and truthful
`
`·2· ·answer, is that the entire Claim 5 is novel.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·I understood your answer, sir, but that
`
`·5· ·wasn't my question.· So let me just break this up in
`
`·6· ·a way that maybe is more helpful to you.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Looking at the first limitation where it
`
`·8· ·says "at least one processor," you would agree, sir,
`
`·9· ·that a processor was known in the art at the time of
`
`10· ·the '291 patent?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·In general, processors were known.· But
`
`12· ·even if -- if you combine this processor that's
`
`13· ·claimed here with the other limitations, then -- then
`
`14· ·we get to the novelty.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Sure.· Fair enough.· And I -- I have your
`
`16· ·opinion on what you perceive to be the novelty.· My
`
`17· ·limitation was -- my question was limited to that
`
`18· ·specific limitation.
`
`19· · · · · · ·So would you agree, sir, that a memory was
`
`20· ·known in the prior art at the time of the '291
`
`21· ·patent?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·In the abstract.· Again, in general,
`
`23· ·memories were known.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Would you agree that radiofrequency
`
`25· ·transmit-and-receive units were known in the art at
`
`12
`
`
`
`·1· ·the time of the '291 patent?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· First, regarding the
`
`·4· ·question, this is the beginning of another claim
`
`·5· ·limitation.· There's the claim limitation beginning
`
`·6· ·with, "A radiofrequency," in parenthesis, "(RF)
`
`·7· ·transmit-and-receive unit)," and then the claim
`
`·8· ·limitation continues on, "wherein the radiofrequency
`
`·9· ·unit is configured for," and continues.
`
`10· · · · · · ·So I'd say, like I believe I already said,
`
`11· ·that my understanding is that focusing just on
`
`12· ·certain words from a claim element is not proper
`
`13· ·validity analysis.
`
`14· · · · · · ·But in general in the abstract, again,
`
`15· ·radiofrequency transmit-and-receive units were known,
`
`16· ·but it's a different issue whether the claimed
`
`17· ·radiofrequency transmit-and-receive unit was known.
`
`18· ·And I don't think -- I don't think it was.
`
`19· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·So it's your opinion, sir, that a
`
`21· ·radiofrequency transmit-and-receive unit -- I guess
`
`22· ·I'm not sure I understood your answer.· It was kind
`
`23· ·of long.
`
`24· · · · A.· ·I can --
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Yeah, let me just ask it semi differently.
`
`13
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·So without looking at the claim language,
`
`·2· ·do you agree that a radiofrequency
`
`·3· ·transmit-and-receive unit was known at the time of
`
`·4· ·the '291 patent?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· Outside the context here,
`
`·6· ·radiofrequency transmit-and-receive units were known.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And would you agree, sir, that
`
`·8· ·radiofrequency transmit-and-receive units that are
`
`·9· ·able to transmit and receive multiple signal streams
`
`10· ·were known at the time of the '291 patent?
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, that -- I think -- I'm
`
`13· ·not sure I would agree with that because I cannot
`
`14· ·talk about and cannot answer about the plurality of
`
`15· ·signal streams in the abstract.
`
`16· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Sir, that wasn't my question.· My question
`
`18· ·never used the word "plurality."· So please listen to
`
`19· ·the question.· I'll ask it one more time.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Would you agree, sir, that radiofrequency
`
`21· ·and transmit -- excuse me.
`
`22· · · · · · ·Would you agree, sir, that radiofrequency
`
`23· ·transmit-and-receive units that are able to transmit
`
`24· ·and receive multiple signal streams were known at the
`
`25· ·time of the '291 patent?
`
`14
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I cannot answer about
`
`·3· ·multiple signal streams in the abstract.· Which --
`
`·4· ·which signal streams?
`
`·5· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·So you just don't know if a radiofrequency
`
`·7· ·transmit-and-receive unit at the time of the '291
`
`·8· ·patent could transmit only one signal stream or
`
`·9· ·multiple signal streams?· You don't know; is that
`
`10· ·right, sir?
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not quite.· In some
`
`13· ·contexts -- in some contexts, radiofrequency
`
`14· ·transmit-and-receive units that could transmit
`
`15· ·multiple signal streams were known.
`
`16· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Would you agree with me, sir, that
`
`18· ·transmitting signal streams using multiple antennas
`
`19· ·was known at the time of the '291 patent?
`
`20· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· In some contexts,
`
`22· ·transmitting using multiple antennas was known.
`
`23· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Do you agree with me, sir, that receiving a
`
`25· ·signal stream using multiple antennas was known at
`
`15
`
`
`
`·1· ·the time of the '291 patent?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·In some contexts, receiving signal streams
`
`·3· ·using multiple antennas was known.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And would you agree with me, sir, that
`
`·5· ·systems were capable of communicating using multiple
`
`·6· ·protocols at the time of the '291 patent?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·Multiple protocols.· I'm not sure that's
`
`·8· ·true.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Well, last time you and I were together, we
`
`10· ·talked about a system that could use cordless and
`
`11· ·cellular protocols at the same time.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Do you recall that, sir?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Excuse me, Counsel.· I'm doing my best --
`
`14· ·maybe -- maybe I don't completely -- maybe I don't
`
`15· ·completely recall.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Well, we have your testimony from
`
`17· ·the prior matter.· So if today it's your testimony
`
`18· ·that you don't know if there were systems that could
`
`19· ·communicate with multiple protocols, that's fine.
`
`20· ·I'll move on.
`
`21· · · · A.· ·No, I -- and let me -- while still -- while
`
`22· ·we are still on this topic, I said I'm not sure.· Not
`
`23· ·exactly that I don't know, but it's -- I need a
`
`24· ·little more context as far as protocols, as far as
`
`25· ·what exactly do we need to be able to answer your
`
`16
`
`
`
`·1· ·question.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Well, does the word "protocol" have a
`
`·3· ·meaning to you, sir?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's -- it -- not with
`
`·6· ·sufficient specificity.
`
`·7· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·So in your opinion, the word "protocol" has
`
`·9· ·no specific meaning?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Well, I --
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· -- don't -- I think it to be
`
`13· ·correct to say that.· I think it's fairly general,
`
`14· ·the meaning.· And it depends -- it just -- it
`
`15· ·depends.· What exactly is a protocol, it depends.
`
`16· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Sir, I'll just rely on your
`
`18· ·testimony from ten days ago, which it sounds like
`
`19· ·you're not recalling today.· We had a seven-hour
`
`20· ·deposition ten days ago.· If you don't recall, then
`
`21· ·I'll just move on.· We don't need to debate this
`
`22· ·issue.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Is it -- sir, do you know if systems were
`
`25· ·capable of supporting video processing at the time of
`
`17
`
`
`
`·1· ·the '291 patent?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Object to form.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Just -- just systems?
`
`·4· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Correct.
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·I mean, what kind of systems?
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Communication systems.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You mean communication
`
`10· ·systems could do video?
`
`11· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Correct.
`
`13· · · · A.· ·I mean, the way I understand the question,
`
`14· ·I think televisions did exist, and that's a
`
`15· ·communication system that could do video.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·So that's at least one example of a
`
`17· ·communication system that could do video processing
`
`18· ·at the time of the '291 patent?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I think -- I think televisions did exist
`
`20· ·and it seems to me is one example of a system that
`
`21· ·would do video at the time of the invention.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Would you agree, sir, that communication
`
`23· ·systems were capable of performing wireless
`
`24· ·communications at the time of the '291 patent?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·In a -- Excuse me, could you please repeat,
`
`18
`
`
`
`·1· ·Counsel?
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Would you agree with me, sir, that
`
`·3· ·communication systems were capable of providing
`
`·4· ·wireless communications at the time of the '291
`
`·5· ·patent?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·The way I understand your question is was
`
`·7· ·wireless communications known.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Well, were they?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·The idea of wireless communications was
`
`10· ·known.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· What about the idea of wide area
`
`12· ·communications?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The -- it seems to me the
`
`15· ·idea of wide area communications was known.
`
`16· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·What about the idea of local area
`
`18· ·communications?
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I -- maybe you have in mind
`
`21· ·local area networks.
`
`22· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·What -- well, happy to use your
`
`24· ·terminology.
`
`25· · · · · · ·What about the idea of communications on
`
`19
`
`
`
`·1· ·local area networks?· Was that known at the time of
`
`·2· ·the '291 patent?· Excuse me.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Local area networking was known at
`
`·4· ·the time of the '291 patent.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Was USB communication known at the time of
`
`·6· ·the '291 patent?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.· Scope.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think, in general, USB
`
`·9· ·communication -- in general, I think it was known.
`
`10· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·With respect to Claim 5, you offered an
`
`12· ·opinion that the preamble of Claim 5 is limiting; is
`
`13· ·that right, sir?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Yeah, I think I offered opinion that the
`
`15· ·preamble recites its essential structure.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And what's the basis for your
`
`17· ·opinion that the preamble recites essential
`
`18· ·structure?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·And I'm just turning to my declaration.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Well, as I explained in paragraph 35, the
`
`21· ·system and the antennas recited are referenced
`
`22· ·extensively and provide antecedent basis for terms
`
`23· ·that are repeated in the body of the claim.· So this
`
`24· ·is part of the answer as to my basis.
`
`25· · · · · · ·Also on the preamble is -- is important in
`
`20
`
`
`
`·1· ·understanding the claim because the preamble recites,
`
`·2· ·"Communication modules and processors for use in a
`
`·3· ·portable, handheld mobile device."· And, "The said
`
`·4· ·communication system is implemented as a system on a
`
`·5· ·chip."
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So this is my basis.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·So let's start with paragraph 35, sir.· You
`
`·8· ·mentioned antecedent basis, right?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·And in paragraph 35, you indicate that at
`
`11· ·least the terms "communication system" and "plurality
`
`12· ·of antennas" serve as --
`
`13· · · · · · ·(Court reporter requested clarification.)
`
`14· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·-- antecedent basis for terms later in the
`
`16· ·claim; is that right?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's what paragraph 35 says.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Would you agree, sir, that the term
`
`19· ·"portable, handheld mobile device" does not serve as
`
`20· ·antecedent basis for any language in Claim 5?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·And to the extent you're looking at
`
`24· ·something, sir, just let me know.
`
`25· · · · A.· ·I -- for my declaration, I started looking
`
`21
`
`
`
`·1· ·at Claim 5.· And I will move that -- move it back to
`
`·2· ·a different window.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·I think I can agree that the term
`
`·4· ·"portable, handheld" -- "handheld mobile device" that
`
`·5· ·appears in the preamble of Claim 5 does not appear in
`
`·6· ·the rest of Claim 5.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·It appears in a dependent claim -- for
`
`·8· ·example, Claim 9 -- but it does not appear in the
`
`·9· ·rest of Claim 5.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·So your opinion, sir, that, despite the
`
`11· ·fact that "portable, handheld mobile device" does not
`
`12· ·appear in Claim 5, it is a limitation -- is a
`
`13· ·limiting part of the preamble, nonetheless, for
`
`14· ·Claim 5, correct?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do not understand the
`
`17· ·question.
`
`18· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Yeah.· I think I messed up the question.
`
`20· ·Let me ask it again.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Is it your opinion, sir, that, despite the
`
`22· ·fact that "portable, handheld mobile device" in the
`
`23· ·preamble of Claim 5 does not provide antecedent basis
`
`24· ·for any other limitation in Claim 5, it is still
`
`25· ·limiting, nonetheless, in Claim 5?
`
`22
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm looking at my
`
`·3· ·declaration, for the record.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·If your question about limiting applies to
`
`·5· ·"portable, handheld mobile device," I don't
`
`·6· ·understand.· I don't understand the question.
`
`·7· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Well, sir, in paragraph 35, you identified
`
`·9· ·certain terms from the preamble of Claim 5 that
`
`10· ·served as antecedent basis for subsequent claim
`
`11· ·language, correct?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·And in that paragraph, you did not identify
`
`14· ·the phrase "portable, handheld mobile device,"
`
`15· ·correct?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·It does not appear in paragraph 35,
`
`17· ·correct.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·It's your opinion, sir, that "portable,
`
`19· ·handheld mobile device" is a limitation of Claim 5
`
`20· ·nonetheless, correct?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·A limitation?
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Correct.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Let me -- let me just ask -- it seems like
`
`24· ·my phrasing is tripping you up.· Let me just ask the
`
`25· ·question a different way.
`
`23
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Do you agree with me, sir, that Claim 5
`
`·2· ·requires a portable, handheld mobile device?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Claim 5 does require a portable,
`
`·4· ·handheld mobile device.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·You agree that the language in the
`
`·6· ·limitation has limiting effect, correct -- sorry.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·You agree that the language in the preamble
`
`·8· ·requiring a portable, handheld mobile device has
`
`·9· ·limiting effect, correct?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Claim 5 does require a portable, handheld
`
`11· ·mobile device.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Well, what I'm trying to understand is why
`
`13· ·it is that you believe the language in the preamble,
`
`14· ·"portable, handheld mobile device," is limiting if,
`
`15· ·as we seem to agree, it does not serve as antecedent
`
`16· ·basis for any subsequent language in Claim 5.
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection --
`
`18· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Do you have an opinion on that anywhere in
`
`20· ·your declaration?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.· Scope.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't think I provide an
`
`23· ·opinion about your question in my declaration.
`
`24· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Sitting here today, do you have any opinion
`
`24
`
`
`
`·1· ·as to whether the phrase "portable, handheld mobile
`
`·2· ·device" found in the preamble is a limitation on
`
`·3· ·Claim 5?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.· Scope.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, first, I don't
`
`·6· ·completely understand what you mean, "limitation."
`
`·7· ·But my opinion is that Claim 5 does require portable,
`
`·8· ·handheld mobile device, as it says in the preamble.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Well, you understand, sir, that a preamble
`
`11· ·is generally nonlimiting, correct?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Counsel, your question is --
`
`14· ·I mean, I have some -- some familiarity with the --
`
`15· ·as said, the subject matter of your question.· But it
`
`16· ·seems to me you're asking me about legal standards,
`
`17· ·and -- which obviously my understanding of legal
`
`18· ·standards only comes from counsel.
`
`19· · · · · · ·But furthermore, I don't think this legal
`
`20· ·standard appears in my declaration to be able to
`
`21· ·agree with you that preambles are, in general, one
`
`22· ·way or the other.
`
`23· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Well, that's a fair point.
`
`25· · · · · · ·You would agree, sir, that nowhere in your
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· ·declaration do you recite the legal standard for
`
`·2· ·determining whether a preamble is limiting or not,
`
`·3· ·correct?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I mean, I can -- I can take
`
`·6· ·another look.
`
`·7· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Well, sitting here today, you're not aware
`
`·9· ·of any particular paragraph without rereading your
`
`10· ·whole declaration, correct?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·I think that's -- that is correct.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·And in assessing whether the preamble is a
`
`13· ·limitation or not, you applied the legal standards
`
`14· ·that are included in your declaration, correct?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. KAZI:· Let me strike that and ask it
`
`17· ·differently.
`
`18· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·In providing the opinions that you have
`
`20· ·offered in your declaration, you applied the legal
`
`21· ·standards that you have included in your declaration,
`
`22· ·correct?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think that's correct.
`
`25· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`26
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·But sitting here today, you don't know what
`
`·2· ·the legal standard is for determining whether a
`
`·3· ·preamble is limiting or not, correct?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Like I testified a short
`
`·6· ·while ago, I'm -- I'm -- I will not be providing any
`
`·7· ·legal opinions.· So I'm not able to tell you, as you
`
`·8· ·said, sitting here today, what is the legal standard
`
`·9· ·for whether a preamble is limiting or not.
`
`10· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·So is it fair that, sitting here today,
`
`12· ·you're not offering any opinions as to whether the
`
`13· ·preamble of Claim 5 is limiting or not?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't say this in my
`
`16· ·declaration.· But based on my analysis, the preamble
`
`17· ·provides antecedent basis for several terms used in
`
`18· ·the rest of Claim 5 and also recites essential
`
`19· ·structures such as one or more communication modules
`
`20· ·and processors.· And specifies that the system is
`
`21· ·implemented; there's a system on a chip.
`
`22· · · · · · ·So these are essential structures for the
`
`23· ·claimed system.· And, therefore, it's also my opinion
`
`24· ·that the preamble is instrumental in understanding
`
`25· ·the -- the other limitations of Claim 5.
`
`27
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Would you agree with me, sir, that the
`
`·3· ·phrase "portable, handheld mobile device" is
`
`·4· ·instrumental for understanding the scope of Claim 5?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is instrumental.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And that is because the phrase "portable,
`
`·7· ·handheld mobile device" identifies the intended use
`
`·8· ·of the system; is that fair, sir?· In Claim 5?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`10· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Let me -- let me just strike that
`
`12· ·because -- I'll try to rephrase it.
`
`13· · · · · · ·So Claim 5 recites in -- well, strike that
`
`14· ·again.
`
`15· · · · · · ·The preamble of Claim 5 strikes a relevant
`
`16· ·part -- third time is the charm.· Let's try that one
`
`17· ·more time.
`
`18· · · · · · ·The preamble of Claim 5 recites, in
`
`19· ·relevant part, "a communication system including one
`
`20· ·or more communication modules and processors for use
`
`21· ·in a portable, handheld mobile device."
`
`22· · · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·And in particular, the claim refers to the
`
`25· ·system of Claim 5, including modules and processors
`
`28
`
`
`
`·1· ·for use in a portable, handheld mobile device, right?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·I mean, the way I understand the question,
`
`·3· ·yes.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·So would you -- sorry.· Go ahead and
`
`·5· ·finish.
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·No, I'm done.· I'm done.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·So would you agree with me, sir, that the
`
`·8· ·phrase "portable, handheld mobile device" is useful
`
`·9· ·in understanding the scope of Claim 5 because it
`
`10· ·identifies the intended use of the system recited in
`
`11· ·Claim 5?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I mean, the -- I do agree
`
`14· ·that portable -- the requirement for portable,
`
`15· ·handheld mobile device is important.· And, in fact,
`
`16· ·it's very important for the understanding of Claim 5
`
`17· ·because -- and you said "use."· But just in general,
`
`18· ·there are different types of use.
`
`19· · · · · · ·As the preamble says, that the
`
`20· ·communication system includes one or more
`
`21· ·communication modules and processors in.· So these
`
`22· ·communication modules and processors are used in a
`
`23· ·portable, handheld mobile device, so this is
`
`24· ·important.
`
`25· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`29
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·That language that you just quoted from
`
`·2· ·Claim 5, sir, would you agree with me, sir, that that
`
`·3· ·language that you just quoted -- strike that.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·What do you mean when you say "these
`
`·5· ·communication modules and processors are used in a
`
`·6· ·portable, handheld mobile device, so this is
`
`·7· ·important"?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Well, I mean what the claim says.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Well, the claim says -- and I think the
`
`10· ·part of the claim you're reading from, it says,
`
`11· ·quote, "One or more communication modules and
`
`12· ·processors for use in a portable, handheld mobile
`
`13· ·device," end quote; is that right?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·So would you agree with me, sir, that the
`
`16· ·language "portable, handheld mobile device" recites
`
`17· ·an intended use of Claim 5?· Strike that.
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Object to form.
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. KAZI:· I'll withdraw the question.
`
`20· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Would you agree with me, sir, that the
`
`22· ·language "portable, handheld mobile device" recites
`
`23· ·an intended use of the system of Claim 5?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Same objection.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, the communication
`
`30
`
`
`
`·1· ·system of Claim 5 is used in a portable, handheld
`
`·2· ·mobile device.· But the term "portable, handheld
`
`·3· ·mobile device" is associated with certain types of
`
`·4· ·devices.
`
`·5· ·BY MR. KAZI:
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·And here in Claim 5, that term is
`
`·8· ·describing the use of the system in those types of
`
`·9· ·devices, correct?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. HWANG:· Objection.· Form.
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The use.· The communication
`
`12· ·system, which includes -- which includes these
`
`13· ·ele