`
` __________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` __________________
`
`Page 1
`
` GOOGLE, LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`
` JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` --------------------
`
` Case IPR 2022-01059
`
` U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080
`
` --------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, Ph.D.
`
` Washington, D.C.
`
` Monday, March 6, 2023 - 10:30 a.m.
`
`Reported by:
`
`Laurie Donovan, RPR, CRR, CSR
`
`Job No.: 6693
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 001
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Deposition of
`
` Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`Held at the offices of:
`
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
` Garret & Dunner, LLP
`
` 1875 Explorer Street
`
` Suite 800
`
` Reston, Virginia 20190
`
` (404)653-6574
`
` Taken pursuant to notice, before
`
` Laurie Donovan, Registered Professional
`
` Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
`
` notary public in and for the Commonwealth
`
` of Virginia.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 002
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
` Garret & Dunner, LLP
`
` 271 17th Street, NW
`
` Suite 1400
`
` Atlanta, Georgia 30363
`
` (404)653-6400
`
` By: Robert High, Esq.
`
` robert.high@finnegan.com
`
` Daniel C. Cooley, Esq. (DC office)
`
` daniel.cooley@finnegan.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` Fabricant, LLP
`
` 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue
`
` Suite 206 South
`
` Rye, New York 10580
`
` (212)257-5797
`
` By: Peter Lambrianakos, Esq.
`
` plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Bowen Li, with Finnegan
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 003
`
`
`
` EXAMINATION INDEX
`
` PAGE
`
`EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS . . . . . . . 5
`
`Page 4
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (None 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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 004
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`--------------------------------------------------
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 10:30 a.m.
`
`--------------------------------------------------
`
`Whereupon,
`
` JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, Ph.D.,
`
` having been first duly sworn, testified
`
` upon his oath as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Good morning.
`
` A Good morning.
`
` Q Would you please state your name for the
`
`record?
`
` A Sure. It's Jeffrey S. Vipperman.
`
` Q You understand we're here today with
`
`respect to the deposition for IPR 2022-01059?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q And that proceeding relates to U.S.
`
`Patent Number 10,779,080?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q In that proceeding, Petitioner asserted
`
`grounds of invalidity under obviousness, right?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q You submitted a declaration in this
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 005
`
`
`
`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
`
`matter?
`
` A Yes, I did.
`
` Q Are all your obviousness opinions
`
`included in your declaration?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not offering any
`
` new obviousness grounds today.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Will you be offering any new evidence to
`
`support your obviousness grounds today?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I'm here to answer
`
` questions for you. I may not recite my deck
`
` word for word. I'm here to answer questions.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Is it your intention, in answering
`
`questions, to provide new evidence?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
`
` "new evidence"?
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Evidence which is not already in your
`
`declaration.
`
` A I mean I plan to provide clarifications
`
`for what's already in the declaration.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 006
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q So you're going to clarify the evidence
`
`in your declaration?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: If, if you request me
`
` to do so.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q And in providing clarification, would
`
`that include also providing new evidence which is
`
`not already in your declaration?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I'm here under
`
` oath to answer questions about my
`
` declaration, and that may include
`
` clarification of what's there.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q I'm just asking you if clarification, in
`
`your mind, includes offering new evidence.
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I mean I don't know
`
` how else to answer that. I'm here to talk
`
` about the evidence that's already in my
`
` declaration.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Have you been deposed before?
`
` A Yes.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 007
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`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 How many times, approximately?
`
` A Maybe 15 or so.
`
` Q Are you familiar with the ground rules
`
`of a deposition?
`
` A I think so.
`
` Q Let's just go through a couple of them.
`
` I'm here to ask questions, and you're
`
`here to answer them. If I ask you a question that
`
`you don't understand, please let me know. If you
`
`answer a question, I'll assume that you understood
`
`it.
`
` Is that okay?
`
` A That's okay.
`
` Q If your attorney objects to any
`
`question, you're still to answer it unless he
`
`instructs you not to answer and you take his
`
`instruction.
`
` Do you understand that?
`
` A Indeed.
`
` Q If you need a break at any point, let me
`
`know, and we'll end the -- or we will wait until
`
`we've completed the line of questioning, and then
`
`we'll take that break.
`
` Does that work?
`
` A Mm-hmm, yes.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 008
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`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 Are you under medication that would
`
`prevent you from providing full and truthful
`
`answers?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Is there any reason why you can't
`
`provide full and truthful answers today?
`
` A No.
`
` Q When were you retained in connection
`
`with this IPR?
`
` A I believe it was March of 2022. I
`
`believe. I'm not completely sure.
`
` Q Who retained you?
`
` A I'm retained directly by Google.
`
` Q Were you also retained in connection
`
`with the underlying patent infringement case?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection. I think that
`
` goes to privilege, so I'll instruct the
`
` witness not to answer.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The fact of his
`
` retention is privileged?
`
` MR. HIGH: I think that -- yeah, I
`
` think that goes to privilege. I think you're
`
` asking him about what's going on with respect
`
` to the district court litigation, so . . .
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: I disagree --
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 009
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. HIGH: Okay.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: -- but I don't
`
` think it's important enough to fight about
`
` it.
`
` MR. HIGH: Okay.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Did you conduct any prior art searches
`
`against the '080 patent in connection with your
`
`work on this IPR?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; privilege.
`
` Instruct the witness not to answer.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The fact of his
`
` conducting prior art searches is relevant to
`
` the fact that he's provided opinions on, on
`
` validity, and it's not privileged, because
`
` he's providing those opinions, and so his
`
` efforts in connection with that are
`
` discoverable, and in any event, the fact of
`
` his conducting a prior art search is not a
`
` communication, which is what's covered by the
`
` privilege.
`
` MR. HIGH: I disagree. I think it
`
` goes to, you know, something that he's
`
` potentially been instructed to do by an
`
` attorney. I think he's here to answer
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 010
`
`
`
`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
`
` questions about his declaration. If you want
`
` to ask him opinions about what he's placed in
`
` his declaration, that's one thing, but if you
`
` want to ask him about underlying prior art
`
` searches, then that's privileged, and I'm
`
` going to instruct him not to answer.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: I didn't ask
`
` about who asked him or if he was asked. I
`
` asked him what he did, and without asking
`
` about who asked him to do it, it's not
`
` privileged. It's just a question about his
`
` activities in connection with providing
`
` opinions here.
`
` He's a testifying expert, so I'm
`
` entitled to know what he did to come to his
`
` opinions. That is not privileged.
`
` MR. HIGH: I disagree.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Well, we'll come
`
` back to that later, and maybe we'll call the
`
` board with all the questions at the same
`
` time.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q How did you decide to include these
`
`references in your declaration?
`
` MR. HIGH: I'm going to say that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 011
`
`
`
`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
`
` that's also privileged. Objection;
`
` privilege. Instruct the witness not to
`
` answer.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: He didn't say
`
` that an attorney told him to. It's not
`
` privileged. I'm asking the expert how he did
`
` his analysis. I'm entitled to know that.
`
` MR. HIGH: If you want to ask him
`
` about his analysis, that's one thing, but
`
` you're asking underlying decisions that were
`
` made.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: I'm asking the
`
` expert about his decisions with respect to
`
` the references that he's opining on. I'm
`
` entitled to know that.
`
` MR. HIGH: Yeah, I'm going to
`
` maintain my objection.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Are you the person who chose the
`
`combinations that are in your declaration? That's
`
`a yes-or-no question.
`
` A It was a collaborative effort. We
`
`worked together. We had several meetings where we
`
`worked together to put together the grounds.
`
` Q Who is "we"?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 012
`
`
`
`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
`
` A Me and my counsel.
`
` Q You have your declaration in front of
`
`you?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Do you see in paragraph 23, beginning at
`
`page 10, you identify the qualifications that you
`
`believe a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had at the time of the filing of the
`
`'080 patent?
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes I see it.
`
` Q And it's your opinion that you were at
`
`least a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`June 13, 2007.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes, I see that.
`
` Q Does your level of skill in the art
`
`exceed that of a person of ordinary skill?
`
` A To be honest, probably, but I did my
`
`analysis through the lens of this imaginary person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
` Q So --
`
` A "Hypothetical" would be a better word.
`
` Q And why do you think your qualifications
`
`exceed that of a person of ordinary skill?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 013
`
`
`
`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
`
` A I don't know that they do. I've never
`
`been told or evaluated as to that, but I do have
`
`more education and more experience than what's
`
`listed here.
`
` Q So you don't know whether your
`
`qualifications exceed that of a person of ordinary
`
`skill; is that your testimony?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would assume I
`
` exceed the level of ordinary skill in the
`
` art, but again I did my analysis through the
`
` lens of the POSITA that I defined here.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q So you have a master's degree; is that
`
`right?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q And you have a doctorate?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q And a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in certain
`
`fields, right?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q As well as certain industry experience,
`
`right?
`
` A That's right.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 014
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q So how did you create this lens that you
`
`used in order to ensure that you were not applying
`
`a level of ordinary skill that exceeded that of a
`
`POSITA, as you have defined it?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So as I mention in
`
` paragraph 22, I looked at "the type of
`
` problems encountered in the art; the prior
`
` art solutions to those problems; rapidity
`
` with which innovations are made;
`
` sophistication of the technology; and the
`
` educational level of active workers in the
`
` field."
`
` I also looked at the legal
`
` standards and applied those, and I used my
`
` experience as a professor, and even a
`
` consultant, to apply this definition to the
`
` obviousness combination in considering the
`
` prior art.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q But how specifically did you make sure
`
`that when you were applying that standard, that
`
`you didn't perhaps unwittingly apply your
`
`expertise which exceeds that of the person of
`
`ordinary skill?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 015
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I haven't always
`
` exceeded a person of ordinary skill in the
`
` art, and so I would reflect back to the
`
` period when I was just a POSITA.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q During what period of time were you
`
`"just a POSITA"?
`
` A I would say probably at the time I was
`
`getting my master's degree and working as a
`
`research associate, because as I mention -- as I
`
`mention, "Work experience can substitute for
`
`formal education, and additional formal education
`
`can substitute for work experience."
`
` Q So you got your Ph.D. about ten years
`
`before the effective U.S. filing date of the '080
`
`patent; is that right?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q So how did you put yourself in the place
`
`of someone who didn't necessarily have a master's
`
`or a Ph.D. as of June 13, 2007?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, again, I was
`
` once a POSITA, and I know what the knowledge
`
` base of the POSITA is, and so I applied that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 016
`
`
`
`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
`
` and legal standards to the obviousness
`
` analyses.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q In your declaration you use a simulation
`
`as part of the evidence you present; isn't that
`
`right?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q Why did you decide to conduct a
`
`simulation?
`
` A Well, I wanted to determine the linear
`
`responses of the Akeda McCowan Kanamori system.
`
` Q Why did you want to do that?
`
` A Because I needed to know what the
`
`performance of that system was so they could be
`
`compared to the '080.
`
` Q When you say "performance," are you
`
`referring to the linear responses of the
`
`microphones in the combination?
`
` A I believe that's all I simulated was
`
`linear responses.
`
` Q And you wanted to be able to compare the
`
`linear responses of those microphones with the
`
`linear responses of the microphones disclosed in
`
`the '080 patent?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 017
`
`
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: I needed to -- well,
`
` there's no way for me to determine whether
`
` the Akeda McCowan Kanamori reference is
`
` obvious over the '080 without comparing the
`
` linear responses between the two.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q As part of your analysis, you reviewed
`
`the '080 patent, right?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q Does the '080 patent disclose the
`
`structure of the circuits that it uses?
`
` A What do you mean by "circuits"?
`
` Q I'm just referring to the apparatus that
`
`is used in the '080 patent and which is claimed.
`
` A And the '080, for example, presents a
`
`general structure in Figure 3 for creating a
`
`virtual microphone from omnidirectional
`
`microphones.
`
` Q Is Figure 3 a circuit diagram?
`
` A It's more of a schematic than a circuit
`
`diagram.
`
` Q What in the specification of the '080
`
`patent did you look at, if anything, to understand
`
`the structure of the system that's claimed?
`
` A I referenced the '080 throughout my
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 018
`
`
`
`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
`
`declaration, so the '080 patent has equations in
`
`the specification, for example. You also have
`
`linear response plots. You have -- we have
`
`photographs. We have this general schematic that
`
`I was talking about earlier. So quite a bit, and
`
`I read the claims, of course.
`
` Q Is the information that you just cited
`
`sufficient for a person of ordinary skill to build
`
`the claimed system?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form, scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, in paragraph 25
`
` of my declaration, I talk about how I was
`
` told that the proper obviousness analysis
`
` requires, "(a), determining the scope and
`
` content of the prior art; (b), ascertaining
`
` the differences between the prior art and the
`
` claims at issue; (c), resolving the level of
`
` ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (d),
`
` concerning evidence of secondary indicia of
`
` non-obviousness (if available)."
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q The question was whether the information
`
`that you cited in your previous answer is
`
`sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to build the claimed system.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 019
`
`
`
`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
`
` Yes or no, sir?
`
` MR. HIGH: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: There is an
`
` assumption that patents generally teach how
`
` to create the invention.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q And in your opinion, does that
`
`assumption hold with respect to this patent, based
`
`on its disclosure?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form, scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: If you're asking if I
`
` understand the claims, yes, I do.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q What I'm asking you is whether the
`
`specification provides sufficient information for
`
`you to understand how one would structure a system
`
`that meets the claims.
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form, scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: The '080 patent does
`
` present some embodiments that can meet the
`
` claim language.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Can you point to an embodiment in the
`
`spec of the '080 patent that you believe meets the
`
`claim language?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 020
`
`
`
`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
`
` A So columns 9 and 10 describe an
`
`embodiment that I believe meets the claim
`
`language.
`
` Q Just 9 or 10, or does the description of
`
`the embodiment you were pointing to continue
`
`thereafter?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I mean I
`
` considered the entire specification in my
`
` analysis, so just sitting here today, I
`
` remember -- yes, I mean it does continue into
`
` columns 11 and 12. It's -- sitting here
`
` today, it's kind of hard to pull out exact
`
` sections of specification other than what
`
` I've referenced in my declaration.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Did you familiarize yourself with the
`
`specification of the '080 patent and its claims
`
`before you performed your obviousness analysis?
`
` A I believe the first reference I read was
`
`the '080 patent.
`
` Q So you read and studied the '080 patent
`
`before you analyzed obviousness or performed any
`
`simulations, right?
`
` A I didn't do the deep dive. I just did a
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 021
`
`
`
`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
`
`cursory reading through it. I had to understand
`
`the specification and the claims in order to
`
`provide my obviousness analysis.
`
` Q And the purpose of your obviousness
`
`analysis was to find a combination of prior art
`
`that together you believe would show that the
`
`claims are invalid; is that right?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I laid out a
`
` logical path for the obviousness analysis,
`
` starting with Akeda, which provides -- so
`
` Akeda is a very similar system to the '080
`
` that a POSITA would be aware of, and so it
`
` provides the virtual microphones and the
`
` adaptive voice reduction application.
`
` And then a POSITA would look to
`
` McCowan to figure out how to handle near
`
` field sources, such as at the headset, and
`
` then a POSITA would look to Kanamori to
`
` figure out how to prevent leakage of the
`
` speech signal into the noise reference
`
` signal.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q I object to that answer as not
`
`responsive. The question, sir, was about the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 022
`
`
`
`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
`
`purpose of your analysis, not how you did it.
`
` Was the purpose of your analysis to find
`
`a combination of prior art that together you
`
`believe would show that the claims are invalid?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I just
`
` explained how I approached it in lieu of what
`
` you're suggesting.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking
`
`you about the purpose, not, not your procedure.
`
` Was the purpose of your analysis to find
`
`a combination of prior art that you believe would
`
`show that the claims were obvious?
`
` MR. HIGH: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I mean I'm not sure
`
` how else to answer that.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Do you know what the purpose of your
`
`obviousness analysis was?
`
` A It was to look to the art and figure out
`
`how to improve noise reduction systems.
`
` Q So it's your testimony that the purpose
`
`of your conducting your obviousness analysis was
`
`just to come up with some improvement of noise
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 023
`
`
`
`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
`
`reduction systems?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form,
`
` mischaracterizes.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I looked to the
`
` '080 patent to see its teachings, which I had
`
` to do in order to realize that my obviousness
`
` analysis produced similar results.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q What do you mean when you say in order
`
`to realize that your "obviousness analysis
`
`produced similar results"?
`
` A To -- well, to -- well, I mean that I
`
`was, looked at the prior art and the obviousness
`
`analysis through the eyes of a POSITA, and
`
`compared that to teachings in the '080.
`
` Q And the purpose of your looking at the
`
`prior art was what; to help formulate an
`
`invalidity argument against the '080 patent?
`
` A I can't perform an obviousness analysis
`
`without understanding the '080 patent.
`
` Q And so you reviewed the prior art with
`
`the purpose of formulating an invalidity argument
`
`against the '080 patent?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection. Objection;
`
` form.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 024
`
`
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: Could you please
`
` repeat the question?
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Did you review the prior art with the
`
`purpose of formulating invalidity arguments
`
`against the '080 patent?
`
` MR. HIGH: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I only provided -- so
`
` again, I, I think I answered this, but I
`
` reviewed the '080 patent and its teachings,
`
` and I have to understand that patent in order
`
` to perform an obviousness analysis that's
`
` created by looking at teachings of the prior
`
` art and evaluating them as a POSITA would.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Would you turn to Exhibit 1006, which is
`
`the Akeda records.
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q Would you turn to page 8 of the
`
`document.
`
` Do you see Figure 3 there?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Is this the frequency response of the
`
`main virtual microphone?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 025
`
`
`
`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 WITNESS: Figure -- would you
`
`Page 26
`
` repeat the question?
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Does Figure 3 show the frequency
`
`response of the main virtual microphone?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Figure 3 displays
`
` what the '080 refers to as a linear response.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Does this figure show that there are
`
`angles that would null out the incoming noise
`
`signal?
`
` A To me, yes.
`
` Q Approximately what angles would you say
`
`have nulls?
`
` A Looks like approximately 135 and
`
`225 degrees.
`
` Q Now, turning to Figure 5, is this the --
`
`does this figure show the linear response of the
`
`reference microphone?
`
` A Yes, from paragraph 24 it says, "The
`
`reference microphone illustrated in Figure 4 has
`
`directional characteristics with respect to the
`
`back surface side, as illustrated in Figure 5."
`
` Q Is there a null shown in Figure 5 at
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 026
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
`135 degrees?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Are there nulls shown in Figure 5 at
`
`225 degrees?
`
` A No.
`
` Q If noise were coming at some angle
`
`between 90 degrees and 270 degrees, do the mics
`
`shown in Figure 3 and Figure 5 have similar linear
`
`responses?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form, scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would consider
`
` those dissimilar.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q What about if noise were coming in from
`
`an angle between 270 degrees and 90 degrees; do
`
`the mics shown in Figures 3 and 5 have similar
`
`linear responses?
`
` A Between 90 and 270?
`
` Q I was going counter-clockwise between
`
`270 and 90.
`
` A Counter-clockwise. Well, Figure 5 has a
`
`null at zero degrees, so I would consider those
`
`dissimilar responses.
`
` Q They're dissimilar because Figure 5
`
`shows a null at zero degrees, but Figure 3 does
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 027
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`not?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: They're dissimilar
`
` for that reason. Plus, we're taught in the
`
` patent that they are dissimilar.
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q Does Akeda explicitly disclose that a
`
`null in the direction of a target sound source is
`
`only effective for noise sources at a given
`
`distance?
`
` A As I recall, Akeda deals with far field,
`
`far field sources, and McCowan teaches how to deal
`
`with near field sources.
`
` Q I object to that answer as
`
`nonresponsive.
`
` Does Akeda explicitly disclose that a
`
`null in the direction of a target sound source is
`
`only effective for noise sources at a given
`
`distance?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I say, Akeda deals
`
` with far field sound, which has a, you know,
`
` a distance associated with it, and McCowan,
`
` it deals with near field sound.
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2015, IPR2022-01124
`Page 028
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
`BY MR. LAMBRIANAKOS:
`
` Q I object to that answer as
`
`nonresponsive. I'm asking you about Akeda's
`
`explicit disclosure, not McCowan or anything else.
`
`Akeda.
`
` Does Akeda say anywhere in the patent
`
`that, that a null in the direction of a target
`
`sound source is only effective at nulling noise
`
`sources at a given distance?
`
` MR. HIGH: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Is there a particular
`
` section you're r