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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________________
`
`)
`APPLE INC. And GOOGLE LLC, )CASE NO.:
`)
`Petitioner, )IPR2023-003431;
`)
`v. )IPR2023-003442
`)
`SPACETIME3D, INC., )
`)
`Patent Owner. )
`_________________________________)
`
`DEPOSITION OF HENRY FUCHS, PH.D.
`VOLUME I
`REMOTELY IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
`MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2023
`
`REPORTED BY: NATALIE PARVIZI-AZAD, CSR, RPR, RSR
`CSR NO. 14125
`6120716
`
`JOB NO.:
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 1
`
`

`

`5
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS
`4 HENRY FUCHS, PH.D.
`5 EXAMINATION BY MR. CORDREY
`
`PAGE
`
`6 7
`
` E X H I B I T S
`PAGE
`8 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION
`9 EXHIBIT 1006 HANGGIE REFERENCE, US 15
`2005\0088447
`
`EXHIBIT 1007 ANTHONY REFERENCE
`
`51
`
`EXHIBIT 1003 DECLARATION OF HENRY 54
`FUCHS, PH.D.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`3 _________________________________
`)
`4 APPLE INC. AND GOOGLE LLC, )CASE NO.:
`)
`5 Petitioner, )IPR2023-003431;
`)
`)IPR2023-003442
`)
`7 SPACETIME3D, INC., )
`)
`8 Patent Owner. )
`_________________________________)
`
`v.
`
`6
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14 DEPOSITION OF HENRY FUCHS, PH.D., VOLUME I
`15 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER
`16 REMOTELY VIA ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCING, IN
`17 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, BEGINNING AT
`18 10:14 A.M. AND ENDING AT 1:27 P.M., ON
`19 MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2023, BEFORE
`20 NATALIE PARVIZI-AZAD, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND
`21 REPORTER NUMBER 14125.
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 REMOTELY IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
`2 MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2023, 10:14 A.M.
`
`3 4
`
` THE CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER: Please raise
`5 your right hand to be sworn.
`
`6 7
`
` HENRY FUCHS, Ph.D.,
`8 having declared under penalty of perjury to tell
`9 the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
`10
`11 EXAMINATION
`12 BY MR. CORDREY:
`13 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Fuchs. I forget; do
`14 you go by Dr. Fuchs or Professor Fuchs or Henry or
`15 Mr. Fuchs or...
`16
`A. If -- I'll call you Mr. Cordrey?
`17
`Q. Yes, Mr. Cordrey would be fine.
`18 And I'm sorry. Is it --
`19
`A. Professor will be fine.
`20
`Q. Okay.
`21
`A. I go by doctor also; whatever you're more
`22 comfortable with.
`23
`Q. Okay. Professor Fuchs, have you taken
`24 any medication that would affect your ability to
`25 testify truthfully and fully today?
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`23
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER, APPLE INC. AND GOOGLE LLC:
`4 FISH & RICHARDSON
` BY: USMAN KHAN, ESQ.
`5 BY: ANDREW PATRICK, ESQ.
` 1000 MAINE AVENUE SW.
`6 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024
`(202) 626-6383
`7 KHAN@FR.COM
`8
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER, SPACETIME3D, INC.:
`
`9
`
` JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`10 BY: GREGORY S. CORDREY, ESQ.
` 3 PARK PLAZA
`11 SUITE 1100
` IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
`12 (949) 623-7236
` GCORDREY@JMBM.COM
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 2
`
`

`

`A. No, I have not.
`1
`Q. Okay. We had your deposition in a
`2
`3 related IPR a few weeks ago.
`4 Do you recall that?
`5
`A. Yes.
`6
`Q. So the rules that we're going to use
`7 today are going to be the same rules that we used
`8 a few weeks ago with your deposition, and I'll
`9 just briefly touch on a couple of them just so
`10 we're on same page, okay?
`11 So firstly, if you do need a break, just
`12 let me know, and we'll go off the record. Again,
`13 the only caveat that I would ask is, if we're in
`14 the middle of a question, that we finish up that
`15 question or line of questioning and then we'll
`16 take the break.
`17 Is that all right?
`18 A. Yes.
`19 Q. Okay. Another quick reminder: I know
`20 you probably know this, but we're not videotaping
`21 it, so I do need audible yeses or noes. We can't
`22 pick up the head shakes. I can see them but they
`23 won't show up on the transcript.
`24 Is that all right?
`25 A. Yes.
`
`1 past week, and, as I recall, several sessions the
`2 week before.
`3
`Q. When you say "several sessions," how many
`4 is that? Is that two, three, four? What is that?
`5
`A. I think three maybe each week.
`6 That's the best of my recollection.
`7
`Q. Approximately how long were each of those
`8 sessions?
`9
`A. An hour or two.
`10
`Q. So roughly spent about, say, six to nine
`11 hours preparing for your deposition.
`12 Does that sound right?
`13
`A. I would guess six to nine hours meeting
`14 with counsel, and in addition to that, I read the
`15 various documents.
`16
`Q. Thank you for that clarification;
`17 that's -- you anticipated -- that's the way I was
`18 asking.
`19 The prior art that you reviewed. What
`20 prior art was that?
`21
`A. Mostly the prior art that I referred to
`22 in my declarations.
`23
`Q. All right. So I'll refer to them by the
`24 inventor's first name and see if this -- if this
`25 identifies them for you.
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 Q. Okay. And then, as you probably know, at
`2 the end of this deposition, we'll have a
`3 transcript prepared. You'll have the ability to
`4 make corrections to that transcript. But you
`5 understand that I will be able to comment to the
`6 trial board on any comments -- any changes you may
`7 make to that transcript? Do you understand that?
`8
`A. I understand that.
`9
`Q. Okay. Do you have any questions for me
`10 before we begin with the deposition?
`11
`A. I cannot think of any questions right
`12 now.
`13
`Q. If you think of any during the course of
`14 the deposition, you know, by all means feel free
`15 to ask me, and I'll do my best to clarify my
`16 questions to the extent they need clarification.
`17 Let's start out with first question here,
`18 which is: What did you do to prepare for this
`19 deposition?
`20 A. I looked at and read the two declarations
`21 that I think you're going to ask me about, the one
`22 on the '654 patent and the '868 patent. I studied
`23 some of the prior art. And I met with counsel.
`24 Q. How long did you meet with counsel?
`25 A. I had several sessions with counsel this
`
`Page 7
`
`1 I think one is referring to an Anthony.
`2 Is that one of them?
`3
`A. Yes.
`4
`Q. And for the record, that's US patent
`5 publication 2005\0091596; is that right?
`6
`A. Just a minute. Let me look. I'm
`7 grateful for Mr. Khan sending me printouts of a
`8 number of these, and so I got to read them on
`9 paper. And I hope it's okay I have them here. I
`10 just put them into some folders I had around the
`11 house.
`12 Q. I don't have an objection to you using
`13 hard copies if that helps you in reviewing the
`14 prior art as we ask questions. I would -- if
`15 these copies are marked up or annotated, though, I
`16 would ask that we get provided a copy of those if
`17 you're going to use those today.
`18
`A. I did not mark them at all.
`19
`Q. Okay.
`20
`A. I very was careful not to mark them.
`21
`Q. Okay.
`22
`A. In fact, I don't -- I'm happy to send hem
`23 to you.
`24
`Q. As long as you represent to me on the
`25 record that they're not annotated or highlighted
`
`Page 9
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 3
`
`

`

`1 or marked up in any way, they're just clean
`2 copies, I don't have an objection to you using
`3 those.
`4 A. As far as I know, these are clean copies
`5 without any marks or annotations.
`6 Q. That's fine.
`7 So one of the prior art references I
`8 believe we were referring to here was the Anthony
`9 patent publication and that was the one that was
`10 US 2005/0091596.
`11 A. That's what I read here.
`12 Q. Okay. And another prior art reference
`13 is -- I don't know how you pronounce it --
`14 Hanggie, H-A-N-G-G-I-E. And that's US patent
`15 publication number 2 -- US 2005\0088447.
`16 A. That's what I have here.
`17 Q. Okay. And that was another reference
`18 that you reviewed in anticipation of your
`19 deposition today?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. The third prior art reference is -- we'll
`22 call "Matthews," which is another US patent
`23 publication, number US 2006/0107229.
`24 Do you have that?
`25 A. That's correct.
`
`Page 10
`
`1 Q. And was that another prior art reference
`2 that you reviewed today in connection with your
`3 preparation for this deposition?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. Were there any other pieces of prior art
`6 that you reviewed in preparation for your
`7 deposition today?
`8 A. I reviewed parts of several others.
`9 Q. Okay. Can you give me -- identify those
`10 for me.
`11 A. Yes. Give me a minute here.
`12 I reviewed parts of Robertson. That's
`13 patent US 6414677. I reviewed parts of Apple
`14 Document 1010, which is a dictionary of electrical
`15 and computer engineering.
`16 Q. Let me stop you there for a second.
`17 The Apple 1010 sounds like an exhibit
`18 number on the document -- what?
`19 A. That's what I --
`20 Q. Yeah. What -- what IPR does that relate
`21 to in which case?
`22 A. Um --
`23 Q. Or maybe -- it turns out it looks like it
`24 might be the same exhibit in both IPRs -- both
`25 IPRs that we're talking about today.
`
`Page 11
`
`1 A. It might be the same. If you give me a
`2 minute, I could look for it. I could look at my
`3 declarations.
`4 Would you like me to do that?
`5 Q. No. I don't think that's necessary. I
`6 think I was able to check and confirm that that is
`7 the case.
`8 A. Okay.
`9 Q. Were there any other pieces of prior art
`10 that you have reviewed in connection with your
`11 deposition today?
`12 A. There were several that I briefly looked
`13 at. Let's see.
`14 I briefly looked at patent inventor
`15 Satpute, S-A-T-P-U-T-E. It has Apple 1011 on it.
`16 I briefly looked at Blumberg,
`17 B-L-U-M-B-E-R-G. It has Apple number 1012.
`18 I think I briefly looked at Baker,
`19 B-A-K-E-R, Apple 1013, but only very briefly.
`20 There may have been others that I looked
`21 at online. I don't remember them specifically.
`22 Oh, and I remember I looked at a number
`23 of other things online, but I didn't keep track of
`24 that.
`25 Q. When you say you looked at "other things
`Page 12
`
`1 online," what kinds of things?
`2 A. I think I looked at online versions of
`3 some of the same references. I remember looking
`4 at Google patent to look up some things. I don't
`5 remember anything else offhand.
`6 Q. That's fine. If you recall, as you sit
`7 here today -- later on, some of those things, if
`8 you could let us know, I would appreciate that.
`9 Let me -- just so the record is clear,
`10 let's see if we get another standing on certain
`11 terms, shorthands that we might be using today you
`12 if -- and is it okay if I use the term "IPR" to
`13 refer to an inter partes review proceeding?
`14 A. Yes, I think that's fine.
`15 Q. You've -- as I recall from your prior
`16 testimony, you've testified -- I think you even
`17 said maybe in a dozen IPRs in the past; is that
`18 right?
`19 A. I think what I said is maybe half a
`20 dozen.
`21 Q. Okay.
`22 A. It's up to a dozen.
`23 Q. Fair enough. Your recollection is
`24 that -- sitting here today is that you've been
`25 involved with about half a dozen IPRs; is that
`
`Page 13
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 4
`
`

`

`1 right?
`2 A. I think so.
`3 Q. And that excludes the three related to
`4 this matter involving Apple and the patent owner,
`5 SPACETIME3D?
`6 A. I have not counted but I think so.
`7 Q. We also will be referring today to
`8 graphical user interfaces.
`9 Is it okay if I refer to those as "GUI,"
`10 G-U-I?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. And by the way, if you have a different
`13 way that you'd like me to refer to those things,
`14 I'm happy to consider that. I understand that --
`15 I think it's common nomenclature to refer to it as
`16 a GUI, graphical user interface.
`17 We're also going to be talking about US
`18 patent number 9304654.
`19 Is that all right with you if I refer to
`20 it as the '654, or '654 patent?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. We also will be referring to US patent
`23 number 9696868.
`24 It's okay with you if I refer to that as
`25 the '868, or the '868 patent?
`
`1 is the Hanggie reference, US 2005\0088447.
`2 Do you have that, Dr. Fuchs?
`3 A. I have the paper copy in front of me.
`4 Can I also look at the digital copy.
`5 Q. Sure. It should be -- I published it, so
`6 it should be available to you.
`7 THE CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER: Doctor, you
`8 may just have to refresh the exhibit share page.
`9 THE WITNESS: Okay. I see it come up in
`10 a browser window.
`11 Can I download this copy, Mr. Cordrey.
`12 MR. CORDREY: That's fine by me.
`13 THE WITNESS: Ms. Natalie, can you help
`14 me with that.
`15 THE CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER: Do you mind
`16 if I go off the record for just a minute, just so
`17 I'm not talking and typing?
`18 MR. CORDREY: That's fine.
`19 (Discussion held off the record.)
`20 MR. CORDREY: Yes. I'm here, Professor
`21 Fuchs.
`22 THE WITNESS: I'll deal with the
`23 interface the way it is.
`24 BY MR. CORDREY:
`25 Q. Okay. Well, I understand you have a hard
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. And for the record, this deposition
`3 relates to IPR numbers -- there's two of them:
`4 IPR number 2023-00343 and IPR 2023-00344.
`5 Do you see that?
`6 A. Where would I see those numbers, sir?
`7 Q. Sure. If you have your deposition -- I'm
`8 sorry -- your declaration in front of you.
`9 A. I have my '654 declaration in front of
`10 me.
`11 Q. Oh, actually, strike that. It's not on
`12 it.
`13 Well, I will represent for the record,
`14 and Apple's counsel can confirm, that the IPR
`15 related to the '654 patent is IPR number IPR
`16 2023-00343, and the IPR related to the '868 patent
`17 is IPR 2023-00344.
`18 MR. CORDREY: Mr. Khan, you're okay with
`19 that?
`20 MR. KHAN: Yes.
`21 (Exhibit 1006 marked.)
`22 BY MR. CORDREY:
`23 Q. Okay. Great.
`24 With that, let me turn to Exhibit 1006
`25 which I've published. And again, for the record,
`Page 15
`
`1 copy of the prior art reference. Okay. So I
`2 think we'll go -- we'll go with that with the
`3 assumption that you'll have that to refer to as I
`4 refer to the portions of it.
`5 This first reference -- and this is,
`6 again, US patent publication 2005\0088447 to
`7 inventors Hanggie, et al., and Professor Fuchs.
`8 I'll refer to this as "Hanggie," if
`9 that's fine with you.
`10 A. That's fine with me.
`11 Q. In connection with your declaration in
`12 the -- in both the '343 and '344 IPRs, you used
`13 Hanggie in combination with other prior art
`14 references to express your opinion that the
`15 challenge claims of the '654 and the '898 patents
`16 were obvious.
`17 Is that accurate?
`18 MR. KHAN: Objection. Form.
`19 A. Can you repeat the question, please.
`20 Q. Can the court reporter read back the
`21 question.
`22 (Record read.)
`23 MR. CORDREY: I'm sorry. Let me correct
`24 that real quickly. That should be the '868
`25 patent.
`
`Page 17
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 5
`
`

`

`1 A. I stated that the '868 patent and the
`2 '654 patent claims were obvious in view of the
`3 references in various combinations.
`4 Q. Those combinations that you referred to
`5 involved the prior art Hanggie reference; is that
`6 right?
`7 A. The combinations involve Anthony and
`8 Hanggie and Hanggie and Anthony and the
`9 combination of those two ways with Matthews and
`10 with Robertson.
`11 Q. And it was your opinion that the
`12 combination of those references rendered obvious
`13 certain claims of the '654 patent and the '868
`14 patent; is that right?
`15 A. What I concluded was that the claims in
`16 the '868 patent were obvious in view of the
`17 references and the various combinations I
`18 expressed in these declarations.
`19 Q. And one of those references is the
`20 Hanggie patent; is that right?
`21 A. That's correct.
`22 Q. And you also rendered an opinion in your
`23 declaration in the '343 IPR that the Hanggie
`24 reference in combination with other prior art
`25 rendered certain claims of the '654 patent
`
`Page 18
`
`1 obvious; correct?
`2 A. That's correct.
`3 Q. In the '654 IPR, which is the '343 IPR,
`4 didn't you use the Hanggie reference as an
`5 anticipatory reference to the challenged claims?
`6 MR. KHAN: Objection. Scope.
`7 A. Can I ask for a clarification,
`8 Mr. Cordrey. The numbers of the IPRs are not
`9 familiar to me because I didn't use those numbers.
`10 Could I ask you to use the patents, the
`11 patent numbers, like '654 and '868.
`12 Q. No problem. I'm happy to do that.
`13 A. So if you could rephrase that number to
`14 make sure that I understood the reference
`15 correctly, I would be grateful.
`16 Q. Sure.
`17 My question is: In the IPR involving the
`18 '654 patent, why didn't you use the Hanggie
`19 reference as an anticipatory reference?
`20 MR. KHAN: Objection. Scope.
`21 A. In my '654 declaration, I use the
`22 combination of Anthony and Hanggie, Hanggie and
`23 Anthony, and the combination of that with Matthews
`24 because that was the conclusion that I came to.
`25 As to why I didn't make another kind of
`
`Page 19
`
`1 argument, I think that's outside the scope of the
`2 declaration.
`3 Q. How did you come to identify the grounds
`4 of invalidity in the '654 patent IPR that are in
`5 your declaration?
`6 MR. KHAN: I just caution, Dr. Fuchs,
`7 please don't disclose any confidential
`8 information, but feel free to answer the question
`9 otherwise.
`10 A. Can you repeat the question, please.
`11 MR. CORDREY: Can the court reporter
`12 repeat the question for me, please.
`13 (Record read.)
`14 A. Can you clarify that question, please.
`15 Are you asking me how I came to these grounds or
`16 what the process was?
`17 I'm not sure I understand the question,
`18 sir.
`19 Q. The former, which is: How did you come
`20 to identify these grounds that you assert in your
`21 declaration?
`22 A. As best as I recall sitting here today, I
`23 read the patent. I thought about some prior art
`24 that I was familiar with. I met with the
`25 attorneys. I gave them my opinions of the various
`Page 20
`
`1 grounds on which I thought the '654 patent was
`2 obvious.
`3 I'm not an attorney, so I hope I'm
`4 answering your question -- I hope I'm answering
`5 your question appropriate to what you're seeking.
`6 Q. In reviewing the prior art and
`7 formulating the grounds upon which you articulated
`8 that the claims of the '654 patent were
`9 purportedly invalid, did you consider using the
`10 Hanggie reference as an anticipatory reference?
`11 MR. KHAN: Objection. Asked and
`12 answered.
`13 A. Sitting here today, I cannot remember all
`14 the different possibilities that I considered.
`15 This was a long time ago. This was -- the
`16 conclusion that I came to was the combinations
`17 that I put down in my declaration. I don't
`18 remember if I considered the possibility that you
`19 bring up.
`20 Q. Has your understanding of a -- when I use
`21 the term "an anticipatory reference," what is your
`22 understanding of that term?
`23 MR. KHAN: Objection. Scope.
`24 A. Wow. I'm not an attorney, and so I don't
`25 deal these terms very frequently, but I think that
`Page 21
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 6
`
`

`

`1 an anticipatory reference is one that anticipates
`2 the -- all the claims in the way that they are set
`3 forth in the challenged patent.
`4 Q. In connection with your opinions in the
`5 '654 patent IPR, did you consider the Hanggie
`6 reference an anticipatory reference?
`7 MR. KHAN: Objection. Asked and
`8 answered.
`9 A. As I mentioned, this was a long time ago,
`10 and I don't remember all the things that I
`11 considered when I first started.
`12 Q. In connection with your opinion in the
`13 '654 patent IPR, did you conclude that the Hanggie
`14 reference did not disclose all of the features in
`15 the challenge claims?
`16 A. Mr. Cordrey, should I wait until you're
`17 back on camera?
`18 Q. No. I'm here. I'm just waiting for you.
`19 A. Oh, okay.
`20 As I said, there were many things I
`21 considered. This was like a year ago or more and
`22 I don't remember all the various possibilities
`23 that I considered. What I put down in my '654
`24 declaration is my conclusions. I didn't put down
`25 all the various things that I considered
`
`Page 22
`
`1 beforehand.
`2 Q. In connection with the conclusions that
`3 you put down in your declaration in the '654
`4 patent IPR, is it accurate to say that you did not
`5 conclude that the Hanggie reference disclosed all
`6 of the features in the challenge claims?
`7 MR. KHAN: Objection. Form. Objection.
`8 Asked and answered.
`9 A. As I said, I considered lot of
`10 possibilities and I don't remember all of them
`11 because this was a very long time ago. I put down
`12 what my conclusions were in my '654 declaration.
`13 Q. My question was directed to what your
`14 conclusions are in your '654 declaration and not
`15 what you considered when you forming the opinions
`16 that became embodied in your declaration.
`17 So sitting here today, the conclusions
`18 set forth in your '654 patent IPR declaration; did
`19 you conclude that the Hanggie reference did not
`20 disclose all of the claim features of the
`21 challenged patent claims?
`22 A. I don't think one can draw that
`23 conclusion from reading my declaration. I did not
`24 address that question in my declaration.
`25 I address the obviousness argument.
`
`Page 23
`
`1 Q. Why didn't you address the anticipatory
`2 invalidity argument with respect to the Hanggie
`3 reference in your declaration?
`4 MR. KHAN: Objection. Scope. Objection.
`5 Ambiguous.
`6 A. I wrote my conclusions on obviousness. I
`7 did not address anticipation.
`8 Q. Why not?
`9 A. There were a lot of things that I did not
`10 address in my declaration. I was asked to opine
`11 on the validity of the '654 patent. And I studied
`12 the '654 patent and I studied the prior art and I
`13 came to this conclusion and I wrote my
`14 declaration. That is lot of things that I could
`15 have considered. And I considered many of the
`16 things.
`17 But what you have before you is what I
`18 concluded was in my declaration. There are a lot
`19 of things that I didn't include in the declaration
`20 because they were out of scope.
`21 Q. When you say they're "out of scope," what
`22 do you mean?
`23 A. There are many things that I studied and
`24 many things that I considered. And what I mean by
`25 "out of scope" is out of scope of the declaration
`Page 24
`
`1 that I wrote here for '654.
`2 Q. In writing your declaration for the '654
`3 patent IPR, why wouldn't you have included
`4 anticipatory invalidity arguments on the Hanggie
`5 reference?
`6 MR. KHAN: Objection. Asked and
`7 answered. Objection. Speculation.
`8 A. I explained there are many things that I
`9 considered, and I don't remember all the reasons
`10 why I decided to include some things and not other
`11 things. This was what I included and I wrote the
`12 declaration.
`13 I'm sorry if I don't remember all the
`14 things that I -- all the other things I left out
`15 that I could have maybe put in.
`16 Q. Sitting here today, is it your testimony
`17 that you don't recall why you didn't include the
`18 Hanggie reference as an anticipatory reference in
`19 your declaration for the '654 IPR?
`20 MR. KHAN: Objection. Misstates
`21 testimony.
`22 A. As I sit here today, I do not recall -- I
`23 do not recall all my considerations for Hanggie
`24 and -- and anticipation arguments. I'm sorry. I
`25 just don't recall many of these details because
`
`Page 25
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 7
`
`

`

`1 they were a long time ago.
`2 What I can tell you is what I came up
`3 with was this declaration and the obviousness
`4 argument and the conclusion that I think that the
`5 claims of '654 are obvious in light of the prior
`6 art combinations that I've explained in my '654
`7 declaration.
`8 Q. In connection with your declaration in
`9 the '868 patent IPR, why didn't you include the
`10 Hanggie reference as an anticipatory reference?
`11 A. When I formulated the '868 declaration
`12 was also a long time ago and I don't remember all
`13 the things that I had considered. And what I
`14 would tell you is: What I concluded is what I
`15 wrote down in my '868 declaration.
`16 Q. When were you -- when was it you were
`17 considering the grounds that you were going to
`18 include in your declaration for the '868 IPR --
`19 '868 patent IPR?
`20 A. This must have been over a year ago
`21 because I'm looking here and seeing my signature
`22 on it as 2022 December 13th and I was working on
`23 this for a long time. I would guess months. So
`24 it must have been over a year ago that I
`25 considered these.
`
`1 A. Hanggie's disclosure involves much, much
`2 more than just a 3D GUI. It goes into great
`3 detail, for example, about 2D and 2D interfaces
`4 and it goes into great detail about many other
`5 items in addition to a 3D desktop window manager.
`6 Q. Let me ask it this way then.
`7 The discussion in Hanggie of a 3D GUI
`8 interface. Hanggie discloses that that's
`9 generated by the 3D compositing desktop window
`10 manager; is that accurate?
`11 MR. KHAN: Objection. Form.
`12 A. There are many possibilities within
`13 Hanggie. Among them, the 3D GUI, but there are
`14 many other things; for example, he describes how
`15 just the 2D legacy desktop window manager can be
`16 supported in 2D mode, among many other things.
`17 Q. Focusing on the 3D GUI described in
`18 Hanggie, is it accurate to say that Hanggie
`19 describes that that's generated by the 3D
`20 compositing desktop window manager?
`21 MR. KHAN: Objection. Form.
`22 A. I disagree with that statement.
`23 The compositing desktop window manager is
`24 one of a multiplicity of modules within Hanggie
`25 that are involved in the 3D graphics user
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 Q. Would it have been sometime in fall of
`2 2022?
`3 A. I don't remember precisely but that would
`4 be my guess, sitting here today.
`5 Q. Is that also true for the work that you
`6 did in connection with the '654 patent IPR?
`7 A. Again, I don't remember the precise dates
`8 but I think it would be in the fall of 2022.
`9 Q. Is it your understanding that the Hanggie
`10 reference describes a 3D compositing desktop
`11 window manager for presenting content in 3D space?
`12 MR. KHAN: Objection. Form.
`13 A. The Hanggie reference teaches many, many
`14 items. A compositing desktop window manager is
`15 one of many.
`16 Q. The compositing desktop window manager.
`17 Can I refer to that as the "CDWM" in our
`18 discussions.
`19 A. I would prefer to use the full name, if
`20 that's okay with you, sir.
`21 Q. That's fine.
`22 Hanggie's disclosure of the 3D
`23 compositing desktop window manager was in
`24 connection with a 3D GUI; is that right?
`25 MR. KHAN: Objection. Form.
`
`1 interface.
`2 Q. Can you point me to a disclosure in
`3 Hanggie where another module is responsible for
`4 the 3D GUI interface of Hanggie?
`5 A. Yes. If you turn to page 32 of my '868
`6 declaration, I show there Hanggie's Figure 1(b),
`7 and you will see there that the compositing
`8 desktop window manager is 190 and there are many
`9 other modules that are involved in generating the
`10 3D GUI that will show up on the display divorce.
`11 Q. Which module are you referring to?
`12 A. Module 190 called "compositing desktop
`13 window manager."
`14 Q. You stated there were other modules that
`15 were responsible for generating the 3D GUI
`16 interface in reference to Figure 1.
`17 What other modules were you referring to?
`18 A. 194: The universal compositing engine.
`19 195: The 3D graphics interface.
`20 196: The video driver.
`21 192: The legacy graphics user interface.
`22 191: The application software.
`23 193: The theme manager.
`24 There may be other ones that are not
`25 illustrated in this figure.
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2017 - PAGE 8
`
`

`

`1 Q. Professor Fuchs, let me refer you to
`2 Figure 3(g) in Hanggie.
`3 Do you have that in front of you?
`4 A. Just a minute, please.
`5 MR. KHAN: By the way, Counsel, if we
`6 could -- we're hitting the one-hour mark. Can we
`7 take a break sometime soon.
`8 MR. CORDREY: Yeah, that's fine. In
`9 fact, why don't we just -- we'll take a break
`10 right now and come back in, say, five or so
`11 minutes.
`12 MR. KHAN: Great.
`13 (Recess.)
`14 BY MR. CORDREY:
`15 Q. Professor Fuchs, let me turn your
`16 attention to figure 3 of the Hanggie reference.
`17 Do you have that in front of you?
`18 A. One minute, please. I'm just getting it.
`19 I have that in front of me.
`20 Q. You relied on figure 3 in connection with
`21 your reliance on Hanggie in the '654 patent and
`22 the '868 patent IPRs; correct?
`23 A. I use many aspects of Hanggie in both
`24 declarations. One of many was figure 3.
`25 Q. What do you understand figure 3 to show?
`Page 30
`
`1 Q. What did you understand it to mean in the
`2 context of Hanggie's disclosure?
`3 A. I understood it to mean a variety of
`4 things, like restore, and I think a POSITA at that
`5 time would understand that restore could mean a
`6 variety of things, depending on the design
`7 decisions and the implementations and the context.
`8 Q. And in the context of the Hanggie
`9 reference, what did you understand it to mean?
`10 MR. KHAN: Objection. Asked and
`11 answered.
`12 A. As I said, I think a person of ordinary
`13 skill in the art at the time of Hanggie would have
`14 understood "restore" to mean a variety of
`15 different restorations, depending on design
`16 decisions and context.
`17 Q. What do you mean by a "variety" of
`18 "restorations"?
`19 A. They might include, for example, the
`20 state of the window being restored to the state
`21 that it was just before the current state or it
`22 could be restoring to a state that was some
`23 standard state. It could be a variety of things.
`24 And I think Hanggie would -- that's what
`25 I think he intended to mean: A variety of things
`Page 32
`
`1 A. Figure 3 illustrates an application
`2 window, according to an illustrative aspect of
`3 this invention.
`4 Q. And focusing on figure 3, what do you
`5 understand numerals 305 to disclose?
`6 A. Mr. Cordrey, can I use a bookmark here.
`7 I wanted to look up one thing.
`8 Q. Sure.
`9 A. Thank you. I'm just using these
`10 bookmarks.
`11 I understand 305 to be buttons that could
`12 be used for various items in the graphics user
`13 interface, like restore, maximize, minimize, close
`14 window, et cetera.
`15 Q. When you refer to the control buttons,
`16 305, being used to restore the window and
`17 that's -- is that window 30 -- what is it --
`18 that's the -- 301 to restore the window? What is
`19 it you mean?
`20 A. "Restore" can mean different things in
`21 different implementations of graphics u