Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 6783
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 6783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 6783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 6784
`
`Transcript of the Testimony of Alan C. Bovik
`
`Date: November 6, 2019
`
`Case: Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`Phone: 202-347-3700
`Fax: 202-737-3638
`Email: info@acefederal.com
`Internet: www.acefederal.com
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 6785
`Alan C. Bovik
`November 6, 2019
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Page 1
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` TEXARKANA DIVISION
`MAXELL, LTD., )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` )
`vs. ) Civil Action No.
` )
`APPLE INC., ) 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
` )
` Defendant. )
`
` ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
` ALAN C. BOVIK, Ph.D.
` November 6, 2019
`
`Reported by
`Rebecca Callow, RMR, CRR, RPR
`Job No. 43583
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 6786
`Alan C. Bovik
`November 6, 2019
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Page 65
`ordinary meaning. Is that your understanding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And Apple is proposing a different
`construction. Correct?
` A. Apple is not proposing plain and
`ordinary meaning. They are proposing something
`that reflects the inventor's intention, in my
`opinion.
` Q. And there would be a differing claim
`scope between these two proposals. Correct?
` MR. ZHOU: Objection to form.
` A. As I understand it, I mean, plain
`and ordinary meaning, especially for a term
`like "culling" which, you know, is crying to be
`construed in this patent, it would be
`extraordinarily broad in -- yeah. So, I mean,
`if that's what you mean.
`BY MR. BAKEWELL:
` Q. So is that a yes?
` A. It means that, without construction,
`the term can't properly be understood within
`the claim language, you know, as -- and its
`relevance to this technology.
` Q. It's your opinion that the Court
`shouldn't simply say plain and ordinary
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 6787
`Alan C. Bovik
`November 6, 2019
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Page 66
`
`meaning. Correct?
` A. I think that the Court couldn't say
`because, you know -- because I don't think
`that, you know, within my field, that the term
`we're talking about here has a plain and
`ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art. It certainly isn't a term of my
`art.
` Q. Does the term get used in your art?
` A. You know, I've contemplated that and
`I've searched my mind, and I have no
`recollection of ever encountering "culling"
`used in the way it's used in this specification
`and claim, over four decades of working in the
`field.
` The same thing with "mixing," by
`the way.
` Q. "Culling" outside of this field of
`art has a dictionary definition, say, in
`Webster's dictionary. Right? It's not a
`made-up word?
` A. Yeah. Culling. You know, I mean,
`but it means something different in every use,
`I would say. I think "culling" is one of those
`words that can mean a lot of things.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6788
`Alan C. Bovik
`November 6, 2019
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Page 67
` You know, I mean, it might be,
`you know, you're going shopping and you find a
`potato bin, and you see some good ones and you
`see some rotten ones. And so, you know, you
`throw the good ones over here and you throw the
`rottens over there.
` And, well, there's some rule
`underlying all of that. You're making a
`judgment there that's specific to this
`application, this experience you're undergoing.
`Okay?
` And this is extremely different.
`I mean, those will be in any order. I mean,
`they could be five rottens in a row and then,
`you know, one and then whatever. Okay? So
`you'd need to -- you'd need understand that
`area of culling.
` But now we're talking about
`computers and pictures, which are arranged in,
`you know, rows and columns and are very precise
`and which, you know, in some context might be,
`you know, synchronized, and there's a system
`clock that's guiding everything that happens in
`here.
` And, you know, when we do the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 6789
`Alan C. Bovik
`November 6, 2019
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Page 68
`processes which we're talking about in here, if
`you're not precise in determining, you know,
`say, intervals, as we'll be talking about, and
`that sort of thing, and the lines and so on,
`and the way that they move in a synchronous way
`and in a regular way and a precise way, then
`the meaning will be lost, and the device or the
`invention probably wouldn't operate properly.
` It couldn't be explained or
`taught to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, so it's begging for construction.
` Q. I think I understand that. I had
`chickens when I was growing up. We would
`occasionally cull the flock. I'm pretty sure
`that's a different meaning than you're talking
`here.
` A. I think you and I agree on that
`example.
` Q. We mentioned earlier exception 1 and
`exception 2 were the terms that we had agreed
`on.
` Were either of those exceptions
`in your mind when you offered your opinions
`under subheading B?
` A. So, you know, you look at 1 and, you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 161-12 Filed 12/09/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 6790
`Alan C. Bovik
`November 6, 2019
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Page 69
`know, the -- I don't think that the patentee
`defined "culled." He used it, but he never
`defined. Okay. So that's -- what did you call
`it? Something 1?
` Q. Exception 1?
` A. Exception 1. Okay.
` I mean, again, I've already
`stated that, you know, this doesn't constrain
`my understanding of whether something should
`have, you know, plain and ordinary meaning in
`any way. And I've given multiple examples of
`that already and, you know, how you go through
`that process. Okay?
` You know, and I -- I don't recall
`any disclaiming or disavowing with respect to
`culling going on here either. So that's why,
`you know, I mean, this is legalese, but my
`understanding is what I've been expressing.
` Q. So you weren't specifically applying
`either of these two exceptions?
` A. Well, I mean, I used number 1. I
`certainly looked to see if the inventor had
`defined his term. So I wouldn't say that.
` Q. I wouldn't think you were.
` Thinking of them, you didn't see
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`
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
