CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`· · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`· · · · · · · · ·____________________
`
`· · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`· · · · · · · · ____________________
`
`· · ·ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., ASSA ABLOY
`· · · · · · · · · · ·RESIDENTIAL
`· · ·GROUP, INC., AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL
`· · · · · · · · · · ·CORPORATION,
`· · · · · ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`· · · · · CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · · · · · · · _____________________
`
`· · · Case IPR2022-01093 (US Patent No. 8,620,039)
`
`· · · Case IPR2022-01094 (US Patent No. 8,620,039)
`· · · · · · · ·______________________
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · VOLUME II
`
`· · · · · · VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
`· · · · · · · · · · STUART LIPOFF
`
`· · · · · · INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ASSA ABLOY AB
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·August 30, 2023
`
`· · · ·Page 39 - 101· · · 9:02 a.m. - 11:21 a.m.
`
`REPORTED BY:
`Tamara L. Houston
`CA CSR No. 7244, RPR, CCRR No. 140
`Job Number 127929
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 2
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · ·REMOTE VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF:
`
`·5· ·STUART LIPOFF, taken on behalf of the Patent Owner,
`
`·6· ·commencing from 9:02 a.m. to 11:21 a.m., Wednesday,
`
`·7· ·August 30, 2023, before Tamara L. Houston, CSR No. 7244,
`
`·8· ·CCRR, RPR.
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 3
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW V. DEVKAR, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · ·1400 Page Mill Road
`· · · · · · · ·Palo Alto, California 94304
`·6· · · · · · ·(310) 255-9070
`· · · · · · · ·andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`·7
`
`·8· · · · On behalf of the Patent Owner and Witness:
`
`·9· · · · · · ·CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW C. RYAN, ESQ.
`10· · · · · · · · · STEVEN M. COYLE, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·20 Church Street
`11· · · · · · ·22nd Floor
`· · · · · · · ·Hartford, Connecticut 06103
`12· · · · · · ·860) 286-2929
`· · · · · · · ·ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`13· · · · · · ·scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 4
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · WITNESS:
`
`·3· ·EXAMINATIONS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·4· ·Mr. Ryan.........................................· ·44
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · Page· · ·Line
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·None
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 5
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·STUART LIPOFF
`
`·3· · ·ASSA ABLOY AB vs. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · August 30, 2023
`
`·5· · · TAMARA L. HOUSTON, CSR No. 7244, CRR No. 140, RPR
`
`·6
`
`·7· ·EXHIBIT· · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · None marked.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · --o0o--
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 6
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Wednesday, August 30, 2023, 9:02 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 STUART LIPOFF, having been
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · called as a witness was sworn to
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · tell the truth, the whole truth,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · nothing but the truth.)
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · --o0o--
`
`12· · · · · · ·CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. RYAN:
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Good morning, Mr. Lipoff.· Nice to see you
`
`14· ·again.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Good morning, Mr. Ryan.· Likewise.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·So as you know, I represent the patent owner
`
`17· ·CPC Patent Technologies in this matter, and we're here
`
`18· ·today to talk about the second declaration that you have
`
`19· ·submitted in Assa Abloy's IPRs filed against the '039
`
`20· ·patent.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Is that your understanding?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·That's my understanding, yes.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·And for the record, your declaration has been
`
`24· ·submitted as Exhibit 1032 in both IPRs.
`
`25· · · · · · ·Is that your understanding?
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 7
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Yes.· That's my understanding.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Are the two declarations substantively
`
`·3· ·identical, sir?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I think with the exception of the first
`
`·5· ·paragraph where it lays out the -- the patent numbers;
`
`·6· ·otherwise, the rest are -- is the same.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·So for the purposes of the deposition today,
`
`·8· ·unless I indicate otherwise, I will be referring to your
`
`·9· ·declaration submitted in the first numbered IPR; namely,
`
`10· ·IPR 2022-01093, but I'd like to agree that your
`
`11· ·testimony will apply equally to both declarations.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Is that okay with you?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's okay.· That's fine.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·And does your declaration submitted as
`
`15· ·Exhibit 1032 in each of the IPRs, does it contain the
`
`16· ·opinions that you've formulated with regard to the '039
`
`17· ·patent?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Is there any reason you cannot give truthful
`
`20· ·and accurate testimony today, sir?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Nothing I'm aware of.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Do you have any documents with you today, sir?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I do.· I got a witness binder from -- from
`
`24· ·counsel.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·And do you have a copy of your declaration in
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 8
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·that binder?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·I -- I do.· And I actually took it out of the
`
`·3· ·binder.· I have it here on my desk in front of me.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Can you tell me what else is in the
`
`·5· ·binder?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Sure.· Hold on just a second.· It's basically
`
`·7· ·the documents of record here.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Well, let me just ask you, is there anything
`
`·9· ·in the binder that hasn't been submitted in either of
`
`10· ·the IPRs, as far as you know?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·I believe -- I believe everything in the
`
`12· ·binder has been submitted with perhaps the exception of
`
`13· ·the institution decision, which is in the binder which I
`
`14· ·didn't submit, but it's -- it's a document of record.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yep.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Do you have any documents with any handwritten
`
`18· ·notes of any kind with you?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I do not.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·So when I refer to a document, I'll drop it in
`
`21· ·the chat box, and you're free to open and scroll through
`
`22· ·that version or you can refer to your own version.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Does that sound okay?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· That's fine.· I -- it's easier to look
`
`25· ·at the hard copy, but if I don't have the hard copy, I
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 9
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·appreciate seeing it on the screen.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Sure.· That's fine.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·And did you do anything to prepare for your
`
`·4· ·deposition today, sir?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.· I reviewed my declaration and
`
`·6· ·some of the -- some of the other documents, the patent
`
`·7· ·and the prior art references.· And I had a discussion
`
`·8· ·with Counsel.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·You met with Mr. Devkar?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Remotely, virtually, yes.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when was that?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yesterday -- yesterday and then last week
`
`13· ·also.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And how long were each of those
`
`15· ·meetings with Mr. Devkar?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yesterday a couple hours, and I think about
`
`17· ·the same last week.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Was there anyone else present during those
`
`19· ·discussions?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·No.· Just -- just myself and Mr. Devkar.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with anybody else about your
`
`22· ·deposition today?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I have not.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with anybody else, other than
`
`25· ·counsel, about this matter in general?
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 10
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·No.· I don't -- I don't think so.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Can you describe for me how your
`
`·3· ·declaration -- your second declaration was prepared?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·Sure.· I read the patent owner's response and
`
`·5· ·Dr. Russ's supporting declaration and developed my
`
`·6· ·opinions regarding the patent owner and Dr. Russ's
`
`·7· ·position where they were -- I guess I would say
`
`·8· ·rebutting or critiquing my -- my previous declaration
`
`·9· ·and the -- and the petition, and I formulated opinions
`
`10· ·which I documented in the second declaration.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Did you prepare your declaration or were you
`
`12· ·provided with a draft to review?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·All of the opinions in it are my own, and I
`
`14· ·don't know what else to say.· These are all my opinions
`
`15· ·that I formulated independently.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Understood, but did you sit down at the
`
`17· ·computer and draft up the declaration yourself or were
`
`18· ·you provided with a draft to review?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I did some cutting and pasting from my -- my
`
`20· ·previous declaration.· And I did discuss the outline of
`
`21· ·it as I was preparing it with Counsel.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·What did you cut and paste from your previous
`
`23· ·declaration?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Oh, I guess there were some of the claim
`
`25· ·construction charts, some of the figures that I included
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 11
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·in here.· And, you know, I think that was basically it.
`
`·2· ·There may have been some excerpts in here where I
`
`·3· ·previously pointed to something.· Mainly -- mainly the
`
`·4· ·figures, I guess.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·In your declaration you refer to some articles
`
`·6· ·or publications that you hadn't referred to before in
`
`·7· ·your previous declaration.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Are you familiar with the -- with the articles
`
`·9· ·I'm talking about?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I believe so.· I don't know.· It's
`
`11· ·comprehensive, but in my declaration, one example would
`
`12· ·be Exhibit 1036.· I think these were -- were largely
`
`13· ·related to support for fingerprint -- the length of a
`
`14· ·fingerprint record.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·So taking Exhibit 1036 specifically, did
`
`16· ·you -- did you find Exhibit 1036 or was that supplied to
`
`17· ·you?· How did that work?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·No, I found the -- let me make sure I'm --
`
`19· ·certainly 1036 I found myself.· 1037, 1038, 1039, which
`
`20· ·is the excerpt from the SQL manual, and 1040.· These
`
`21· ·were -- these were all I found myself to deal with
`
`22· ·the -- Dr. Russ's critique of Tsukamura as a -- not
`
`23· ·supporting variable length records.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Let's go ahead and look at your second
`
`25· ·declaration, Exhibit 1032, which I've put into the chat
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 12
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·box.· I'm going to ask you to turn to paragraph 11
`
`·2· ·that's on page 4.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Give me a second.· I'm just turning to
`
`·4· ·it.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·Yeah.· Go ahead.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·So in paragraph 11 you say -- in the second
`
`·7· ·sentence, you say, "If Claim 1's defining step
`
`·8· ·establishes for the first time the memory location for
`
`·9· ·storing the fingerprint data, it would be illogical to
`
`10· ·determine whether the memory location is occupied or
`
`11· ·not."· Do you see that?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·I see that.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Would it be illogical in your opinion to
`
`14· ·determine if the memory location is occupied or not
`
`15· ·during enrollment?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Let me just make sure I understand -- I
`
`17· ·understand the question.· So with respect to Claim 1,
`
`18· ·which is the method for enrolling, it would -- because
`
`19· ·the Limitation [D] in Claim 1 is determining the memory
`
`20· ·location, it would not be illogical to perform claim
`
`21· ·element Limitation [D] because it's part of Claim 1
`
`22· ·enrollment, so...
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So it's your testimony that it's not
`
`24· ·illogical to determine whether the memory location is
`
`25· ·occupied or not during the method for enrollment claimed
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 13
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·in the '039 patent?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection to the form.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So just to be clear to what I'm
`
`·4· ·testifying about, there is a limitation -- limitation
`
`·5· ·in -- I've noted Limitation [D] in Claim 1, which is
`
`·6· ·part of the method of enrollment that determines if the
`
`·7· ·memory location is -- is unoccupied.
`
`·8· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·So I just want to be clear.· When you -- when
`
`10· ·you describe Limitation 1[D] as illogical, you're not
`
`11· ·saying it's illogical to perform Limitation 1[D] during
`
`12· ·enrollment; is that right?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· It's not just logical, it is -- it's
`
`14· ·one of the steps of the method claim.· So -- so, yeah,
`
`15· ·there's -- it's something that the method claim calls
`
`16· ·for being performed during enrollment.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Now, like you said, Limitation 1[D] -- well,
`
`18· ·strike that.
`
`19
`
`20· · · · · · ·Limitation 1[E] of the '039 patent requires
`
`21· ·storing the biometric signature at a memory location; is
`
`22· ·that right?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·It -- yeah, to be precise, it requires storing
`
`24· ·it at the defined memory location, if the location is
`
`25· ·unoccupied.
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 14
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Now, is the biometric signature stored during
`
`·2· ·the verification process?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·So by the verification process, I assume
`
`·4· ·you're -- you're referring to the '039 patent, for
`
`·5· ·example, Figure 5, and the associated text.· And so in
`
`·6· ·the flowchart associated with Figure 5, that the -- the
`
`·7· ·biometric signature is not stored, but it's accessed.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So just to back up a second, so the
`
`·9· ·'039 patent discloses both a verification process and an
`
`10· ·enrollment process; is that correct?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Yeah, they are -- that's correct.· There's
`
`12· ·both verification and enrollment.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And does the '039 patent teach and does
`
`14· ·Claim 1 claim that the biometric signature is stored
`
`15· ·during the enrollment process?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, so there's -- there's a
`
`18· ·discussion in the '039 patent about a variety of things
`
`19· ·that are happening; but if your question is specifically
`
`20· ·directed to Claim 1, Claim 1 is identified as the
`
`21· ·enrollment, and it does teach during Claim 1 that you --
`
`22· ·you store the biometric signature as the last
`
`23· ·limitation, Limitation [E], if the defined memory
`
`24· ·location is unoccupied.
`
`25· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 15
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·So Claim 1 is directed to a method of
`
`·2· ·enrollment; you agree with that?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.· That's how it -- the preamble
`
`·4· ·reads.· Method of enrollment.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Even if you were to disregard the preamble,
`
`·6· ·would you agree that Claim 1 is describing a method of
`
`·7· ·enrollment?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I believe that's -- that's -- that's a
`
`·9· ·fair characterization of Claim 1, yes.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·I'd ask you to take a look at Claim 3 of the
`
`11· ·'039 patent --
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·-- which is Exhibit 1001, which I'll put into
`
`14· ·the chat box.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Now let me just grab the patent here.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Yeah.· Take your time.
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I've got it.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·And you're open to Claim 3?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I am.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·So is it your understanding that Claim 3
`
`21· ·describes both an enrollment method and a verification
`
`22· ·method?· Is that a fair characterization?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Let me -- let me just look at it
`
`25· ·here again.
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 16
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Yep.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yeah, so this is -- Claim 3 is another method
`
`·4· ·claim, and it has one limitation, D, which involves
`
`·5· ·storing the biometric signature in a memory location
`
`·6· ·defined by the card information if the card information
`
`·7· ·has not been previously provided.· So it's got slightly
`
`·8· ·different steps or detail in Claim 1, but Limitation [D]
`
`·9· ·at Claim 3 involves some of the steps associated with
`
`10· ·enrollment.
`
`11· · · · · · ·And then Limitation [E] of Claim 3 involves
`
`12· ·comparing the biometric signatures, so it's got steps
`
`13· ·associated with -- with verification of the signature.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And just to be clear, when you say
`
`15· ·Limitation [D] and Limitation [E], are you also
`
`16· ·referring to the sub limitations within those
`
`17· ·limitations, specifically Limitation [D-A] and [D-B] and
`
`18· ·Limitations [E-A] through [E-C]?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Under Limitation [D], both the storing
`
`20· ·and performing the process, and under Limitation [E],
`
`21· ·comparing would be part of verification [E-A].· [E-B]
`
`22· ·would be checking the match that's part of the
`
`23· ·verification.· And I guess Limitation [E-C] is not
`
`24· ·really, you know -- it's part of the "not verification."
`
`25· ·So they all relate to verification, but --
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 17
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yep.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So just to recap succinctly, you would
`
`·4· ·agree that Limitation [D] in its entirety including
`
`·5· ·through Limitation [D-B] is directed to an enrollment
`
`·6· ·method, and Limitation [E] in its entirety through
`
`·7· ·Limitation [E-C] is directed to a verification method;
`
`·8· ·is that fair?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Any -- they both involve elements of
`
`10· ·verification and -- and enrollment with further detail
`
`11· ·that's not in the claim.· But it's -- further detail
`
`12· ·exists in the specification of the patent.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·And would you agree that both the enrollment
`
`14· ·method described in Limitation [D] and the verification
`
`15· ·method described in Limitation [E] mention a memory
`
`16· ·location defined by the card information?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· So Limitation [D-A] specifically says,
`
`18· ·memory -- memory location defined by the provided card
`
`19· ·information, and Limitation [D], sub B, doesn't use the
`
`20· ·word "defined," but it also says it's performed
`
`21· ·dependent upon the card information.
`
`22· · · · · · ·And then with respect to Limitation [E],
`
`23· ·Limitation [E-A] is specific memory location defined by
`
`24· ·the card information.· [E-B] does not mention define,
`
`25· ·but it says, "dependent upon it," and Limitation [E-C]
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 18
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·again doesn't mention define, but it says it's dependent
`
`·2· ·upon the received card information.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, in Limitation [D-E] -- [D-A], do
`
`·4· ·you see how it refers to "a memory location defined by
`
`·5· ·the provided card information"?
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I'm sorry.· I'm looking
`
`·8· ·at the Limitation [D-A], and could you just repeat the
`
`·9· ·question?
`
`10· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· When it refers to the memory location
`
`12· ·defined by the card information, it says, "A memory
`
`13· ·location defined by the provided card information."
`
`14· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I do see that, yes.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·And then down in Limitation 3[E] -- 3[E-A],
`
`17· ·excuse me, it says that, "The biometric signature is
`
`18· ·stored in the memory at the memory location defined by
`
`19· ·the provided card information."
`
`20· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· I lost where -- I lost navigation.
`
`22· ·Limitation 3 what?
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·[E-A].
`
`24· · · · A.· ·[E-A].· Okay.· [E-A], and the question was?
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·You see where [E-A] refers to, "The biometric
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 19
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·signature stored in the memory at the memory location
`
`·2· ·defined by the provided card information"?· Do you see
`
`·3· ·that?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·I believe you read that correctly.· Yes.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·So in your understanding, is there a
`
`·6· ·distinction between the use of "a" defined memory
`
`·7· ·location in Limitation [D] and the use of "the" memory
`
`·8· ·location in Limitation 3[E]?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't -- I don't believe so.
`
`11· ·There -- they're both state that the memory location
`
`12· ·defined by the provided card information.· They don't
`
`13· ·seem to distinguish memory -- in both cases it's a
`
`14· ·memory location defined by the card information.
`
`15· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Is it the same memory location referred to in
`
`17· ·both Limitation [D] and Limitation [E]?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·It's my understanding that defined -- the
`
`19· ·memory location defined by the -- the card information
`
`20· ·is the same throughout all these claims.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Are you familiar with the concept of
`
`22· ·antecedent basis with respect to patent claims?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I -- I have a non-attorney's
`
`25· ·understanding of it.· I believe that in Limitation 3[A]
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 20
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·where they -- they mention a memory location, that's the
`
`·2· ·first -- first mention of it, and then in Limitation
`
`·3· ·3[E], they're referring to the -- the first mention of
`
`·4· ·it in [D], which I -- I guess that would be called the
`
`·5· ·antecedent basis for what's in [E].
`
`·6· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the memory location in Limitation
`
`·8· ·[E-A] is referring back to the same memory location as
`
`·9· ·in Limitation 3[D]; is that your understanding?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·As I previously testified, I believe wherever
`
`11· ·the -- wherever the patent talks about the memory
`
`12· ·location defined by the card information, it means the
`
`13· ·same memory location.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·I'm going to ask you to take a look at the Hsu
`
`15· ·reference, which I'll put into the chat box.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Okay.· That's the H-S-U?
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Correct.· Exhibit 1003.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Okay.· Let me get that out of the
`
`19· ·binder.· I don't have that.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Yep.· Take your time.
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I've got that in front of me.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·And I'm also going to refer you to paragraph
`
`23· ·29 of your second declaration.
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Juggling a little paper here.· Hold on.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Yep.· Yep.· Take your time.
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 21
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·All right.· I'm at paragraph 29.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So in paragraph 29 you're discussing
`
`·3· ·Hsu, correct?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·Yes, I'm responding in this entire section to
`
`·5· ·patent owner and Dr. Russ's contention that Hsu-Sanford
`
`·6· ·does not teach Limitation 1[C], which is the defining
`
`·7· ·limitation.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And the second sentence of paragraph 29
`
`·9· ·you mention that the card information in Hsu was used as
`
`10· ·a pointer to the memory address.
`
`11· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·The memory address of the fingerprint.
`
`14· · · · · · ·So looking at Figure 4 -- and there's a
`
`15· ·representation of it both in your declaration or you can
`
`16· ·refer to Hsu itself, but Figure 4 of Hsu.
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see it.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·So I want to make sure I understand.· So you
`
`19· ·see Box 66?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see that.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And you see the arrow coming out of Box 66
`
`22· ·pointing back at Box 44?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see that.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Are you saying that that arrow is a pointer?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·So the card information is the -- is the -- is
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 22
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·the pointer.· And the card information in this case is
`
`·2· ·the -- as it's shown in Figure 4, is the account number.
`
`·3· ·And the account number is the pointer.· The account
`
`·4· ·number comes from a process which is described in Box 66
`
`·5· ·that includes a variety of things such as the
`
`·6· ·verification of the identity and the account number
`
`·7· ·assignment; in this particular case, the account number
`
`·8· ·being assigned prior to the enrollment process.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·So is there a representation in Figure 4 of
`
`10· ·the account number pointing to the memory address of the
`
`11· ·fingerprint?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·There is a representation in Figure 4 of a
`
`13· ·database where the account number is -- I would describe
`
`14· ·it in database terminology.· The account number is
`
`15· ·the -- is the key that allows you to access the
`
`16· ·fingerprint database, so it tells you where in the
`
`17· ·fingerprint database to find the biometric signature
`
`18· ·that exists.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·But in terms of database technology, a pointer
`
`20· ·is a term of art.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Would you agree with that?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Well, a pointer can mean a variety of things
`
`23· ·in computer network technology.· But using the -- the
`
`24· ·same -- here I'm using the same terminology that is in
`
`25· ·Figure 4 of the '039 patent where you -- the '039 data
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 23
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·refers to the card data pointing to the address of the
`
`·2· ·biometric signature in a database, exactly analogous to
`
`·3· ·Figure 4 of Hsu.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Well, looking at Figure 4 of the '039
`
`·5· ·patent, is the -- is the pointer represented
`
`·6· ·illustratively in Figure 4?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·So I see -- I see the text in Figure 4 that
`
`·8· ·says the card data points to the address of the
`
`·9· ·biometric signature, and it shows it pointing to a
`
`10· ·memory address defined by the card data 607.
`
`11· · · · · · ·There is an Item 608 in Figure 4 which is not
`
`12· ·labeled in Figure 4, but I'll try and look it up and
`
`13· ·see -- see what it's labeled as, if I can find it
`
`14· ·quickly, or if you know where it is and want to tell me.
`
`15· · · · · · ·But, let's see, so I guess it's in Column 7 of
`
`16· ·the '039 patent, and deferring to Item 608, the card
`
`17· ·data -- I'm sorry, I'm reading from Column 7, line 31.
`
`18· ·"In one example of the BCP approach, the card data 608
`
`19· ·[sic] acts as a memory reference which points, as
`
`20· ·depicted by arrow 608, to a particular memory location"
`
`21· ·in the local database.
`
`22· · · · · · ·So I think it is -- it doesn't explicitly say
`
`23· ·here in Column 7 that arrow 608 is -- is -- is labeled
`
`24· ·as a pointer, but the text I just read is equivalent.
`
`25· ·It's saying it's -- it's pointing to it.
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 24
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·So I would say in Figure 4 of the 608 [sic]
`
`·2· ·patent, it is designating 608 as a pointer, which is
`
`·3· ·based upon the card data in the same way that is in
`
`·4· ·Figure 4 of the Hsu reference.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Well, let me ask you about that.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So in Figure 4 of the Hsu reference, is -- is
`
`·7· ·there a representation of the pointer similar to 608 in
`
`·8· ·the '039 patent that you were just discussing?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Yes.· There are obviously different graphics,
`
`10· ·but the account number in item 44, which is the database
`
`11· ·of Hsu, has the account number which corresponds to the
`
`12· ·pointer in Figure 4 of the '039 patent because it's the
`
`13· ·account number, which is a thing that's in the card
`
`14· ·data.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So as I say here in paragraph 39 -- I'm sorry,
`
`16· ·paragraph 29 of my second declaration, Hsu uses the card
`
`17· ·information as a pointer to locate the associated
`
`18· ·specific memory address where it stores a fingerprint.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Right.· I understand that's your opinion, but
`
`20· ·I'm asking specifically -- a specific question.
`
`21· · · · · · ·In Figure 4 is the pointer depicted as part of
`
`22· ·the illustration in a similar way as it is in Figure 4
`
`23· ·of the '039 patent?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't -- there's some
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 25
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·ambiguity to the word "similar," so I'll reword it. I
`
`·2· ·believe in Figure 4 of the Hsu reference the pointer is
`
`·3· ·illustrated in an equivalent manner to the pointer in
`
`·4· ·Figure 4 of the '039 patent.
`
`·5· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And when you say "equivalent manner," can
`
`·7· ·you -- can you show me an equivalent illustration in
`
`·8· ·Figure 4 of Hsu that's equivalent to 608 in the '039
`
`·9· ·patent?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection to form.
`
`11· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·And is there an actual part of the
`
`13· ·illustration is my question?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Yes, the representation of the account number
`
`15· ·as being the -- the key -- in Dataverse terminology,
`
`16· ·being the key or, as it's used in the '039 patent --
`
`17· ·"pointer" and "key" I think are the -- have an
`
`18· ·equivalent meaning in database technology.
`
`19· · · · · · ·So in the '039 patent they use the term
`
`20· ·"pointer."· I would say -- and they show it pointing to
`
`21· ·the inside of a database.· I think it's understood as
`
`22· ·it's being used in the '039 patent, what they call the
`
`23· ·card data pointing and arrow 608, 608 is the key that's
`
`24· ·being used to find the memory address within the
`
`25· ·database.
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 26
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·And in Hsu the account number is within the
`
`·2· ·database.· It's the same key that's illustrated in
`
`·3· ·Figure 4 of the '039 patent.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But you would agree that
`
`·5· ·notwithstanding how you otherwise might interpret Figure
`
`·6· ·4, there's -- there's no physical representation of the
`
`·7· ·pointer in Figure 4 that would correspond to the
`
`·8· ·physical representation of Item 608 in Figure 4 of the
`
`·9· ·'039 patent; you agree with that?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So I would agree that there --
`
`12· ·there are different graphical representations, but I
`
`13· ·believe there's a one-to-one correspondence in that the
`
`14· ·account number in the database of Figure 4 has a
`
`15· ·one-to-one correspondence to the card data that's shown
`
`16· ·in Figure 4 of the '039 patent, even though the figures
`
`17· ·are different graphical representations, but they are
`
`18· ·representing corresponding things.
`
`19· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Do any of the arrows in Figure 4 of Hsu
`
`21· ·represent a pointer?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The graphical representations of
`
`24· ·Figure 4 of Hsu and Figure 4 of the patent are
`
`25· ·different, but there -- there is an arrow in Figure 4
`
`CPC Ex. 2049 – Page 27
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`·1· ·from Box 66 to Box 44 that shows the card data coming
`
`·2· ·into the database in an equivalent way that arrow 608 in
`
`·3· ·Figure 4 shows the card data coming into the database.
`
`·4· ·So --
`
`·5· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·So there is an arrow that has the same
`
`·8· ·corresponding data in Figure 4 of Hsu, which is the
`
`·9· ·account number that has the same corresponding data
`
`10· ·that's in the item shown in arrow 608 of Figure 4 of the
`
`11· ·'039.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·So the arrow coming out of Box 66 is pointing
`
`13· ·to the account number, not to the fingerprint database;
`
`14· ·isn't that right?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·It's pointing to the account number in the
`
`16· ·fingerprint datab
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
