Page 1
`
`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
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` TYLER DIVISION
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., )
`ET AL., )
` Plaintiffs, )
` )
`vs. ) No. 6:13-CV-880-JDL
` )
`ALCATEL-LUCENT, INC., )
`ET AL., )
` Defendants. )
` )
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., )
`ET AL., )
` Plaintiffs, )
` )
`vs. ) No. 6:13-CV-881-JDL
` )
`AMX, LLC, )
` Defendant. )
` )
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., )
`ET AL., )
` Plaintiffs, )
` )
`vs. ) No. 6:13-CV-882-JDL
` )
`GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, )
`INC., )
` Defendant. )
` )
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., )
`ET AL., )
` Plaintiffs, )
` )
`vs. ) No. 6:13-CV-883-JDL
` )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., )
`ET AL., )
` Defendants. )
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF LESLIE ALAN BAXTER
` TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT AMX, LLC
` OCTOBER 22, 2014
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` Dell Inc.
` Exhibit 1011
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in
`2 the afternoon of that day, at the offices of The
`3 Simon Law Firm, 800 Market Street, St. Louis,
`4 Missouri, before Tara Schwake, a Certified Realtime
`5 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State
`6 of Illinois, in a certain cause now pending in the
`7 United States District Court, Eastern District of
`8 Texas, Tyler Division, wherein Chrimar Systems,
`9 Inc., et al., are Plaintiffs and Alcatel-Lucent,
`10 Inc., et al., are Defendants; et cetera.
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`1 APPEARANCES
`
`Page 5
`
`23
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`4 THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`5 800 Market Street, Suite 1700
`6 St. Louis, Missouri 63101
`7 (314) 241-2929
`8 by: Mr. Timothy D. Krieger
`9 tkrieger@simonlawpc.com
`10
`11 FOR THE DEFENDANT AMX, LLC:
`12 McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
`13 227 West Monroe Street
`14 Chicago, Illinois 60606-5096
`15 (312) 984-5484
`16 by: Mr. David H. Bluestone
`17 dbluestone@mwe.com
`18
`19 DUANE MORRIS, LLP
`20 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2000
`21 Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`22 (404) 253-6935
`23 by: Mr. Matthew S. Yungwirth
`24 (via telephone)
`25 msyungwirth@duanemorris.com
`
`1 I N D E X
`2 WITNESSES
`3 ALL WITNESSES PAGE
`4 For Defendant AMX, LLC
`5 LESLIE ALAN BAXTER
`6 Examination by Mr. Bluestone 8
` Examination by Mr. Krieger 172
`7 Re-Examination by Mr. Bluestone 173
`
`89
`
` EXHIBITS
`10 NO. PAGE
`11 Exhibit 1 US Patent No. 8,155,012 10
`12 Exhibit 2 October 20, 2014,
` Declaration 52
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 3 August 11, 2014,
`14 Declaration 63
`15 Exhibit 4 9/22/14 Declaration of Les
` Baxter 110
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 5 Claims 31 and 67 116
`
`Exhibit 6 US Patent No. 4,723,267 123
`
`Exhibit 7 Figure from paragraph 77 126
`
`Exhibit 8 Case No. 12-cv-623,
`20 Document 94, filed on July
` 25, 2014, Declaration of
`21 Les Baxter 144
`22 Exhibit 9 Modification of Figure 2 169
`23
`24
`25 (Exhibits attached to transcript.)
`
`1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`2 TYLER DIVISION
`3 CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC , )
`ET AL , )
`4 Plaintiffs, )
` )
`5 vs ) No 6:13-CV-880-JDL
` )
`6 ALCATEL-LUCENT, INC , )
`ET AL , )
`7 Defendants )
` )
`8 CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC , )
`ET AL , )
`9 Plaintiffs, )
` )
`10 vs ) No 6:13-CV-881-JDL
` )
`11 AMX, LLC, )
` Defendant )
`12 )
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC , )
`13 ET AL , )
` Plaintiffs, )
`14 )
`vs ) No 6:13-CV-882-JDL
`15 )
`GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, )
`16 INC , )
` Defendant )
`17 )
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC , )
`18 ET AL , )
` Plaintiffs, )
`19 )
`vs ) No 6:13-CV-883-JDL
`20 )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO , )
`21 ET AL , )
` Defendants )
`
`22
`23 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WITNESS,
`24 LESLIE ALAN BAXTER, produced, sworn and examined on
`25 the 22nd day of October, 2014, between the hours of
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 MR. BLUESTONE: David Bluestone,
`2 McDermott Will & Emery on behalf of Defendant AMX.
`3 MR. KRIEGER: Tim Krieger with The
`4 Simon Law Firm on behalf of Plaintiffs.
`5 MS. PESCHEL: Leisa Peschel with
`6 Williams Morgan, P.C., on behalf of the
`7 Alcatel-Lucent Defendants in the 880 case.
`8 MR. PARK: Jin-Suk Park with the law
`9 firm of Akin Gump for Samsung.
`10 MR. YUNGWIRTH: This is Matt
`11 Yungwirth of the law firm Duane Morris for AMX.
`12 MR. AUSTERMANN: John Austermann,
`13 CMS.
`14 LESLIE ALAN BAXTER,
`15 of lawful age, having been produced, sworn, and
`16 examined on the part of Defendant AMX, LLC,
`17 testified as follows:
`18 EXAMINATION
`19 QUESTIONS BY MR. BLUESTONE:
`20 Q Good morning, Mr. Baxter.
`21 A Good morning.
`22 Q Could you please state your full name
`23 for the record?
`24 A My name is Leslie Alan Baxter.
`25 Q Is there anything preventing you
`
`Page 9
`
`1 today from providing complete testimony, like any
`2 medications or anything like that?
`3 A No.
`4 Q And you got a good night's sleep?
`5 A Yes.
`6 Q I know you've been deposed before, so
`7 I'll skip with a lot of the formalities but one
`8 thing I want to make clear. If there's anything
`9 that I ask you that's unclear, please ask for
`10 clarification.
`11 If you don't ask for clarification,
`12 the record will assume that you understood the
`13 question; is that fair?
`14 A Yes.
`15 Q Okay. Why don't we --
`16 MR. PARK: I apologize for
`17 interrupting --
`18 MR. BLUESTONE:
`19 MR. PARK: -- but I can't really hear
`20 the witness's response. If there's any way to push
`21 the telephone closer to him, that would be
`22 appreciated.
`23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One moment please,
`24 we're going off the record at approximately 9:03
`25 a m.
`
`1 FOR THE DEFENDANT ALCATEL-LUCENT, INC.:
`2 WILLIAMS MORGAN, P.C.
`3 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
`4 Houston, Texas 77042
`5 (713) 934-4096
`6 by: Ms. Leisa Talbert Peschel, Ph.D.
`7 lpeschel@wmalaw.com
`
`8 9
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO.:
`10 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
`11 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`12 Washington, DC 20036
`13 (202) 887-4465
`14 by: Mr. Jin-Suk Park
`15 (via telephone)
`16 jspark@akingump.com
`17
`18 ALSO PRESENT:
`19 Mr. John F. Austermann, III
`20 President & CEO, CMS Technologies
`21
`22 Ms. Tara Schwake, CRR, RPR
`23 Mr. John Niehaus, Videographer
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
`1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by
`2 and between Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for
`3 Defendants that this deposition may be taken by
`4 Tara Schwake, Notary Public and Certified Realtime
`5 Reporter, thereafter transcribed into typewriting,
`6 with the signature of the witness being expressly
`7 reserved.
`8 * * * * *
`9 (Deposition commenced at 9:01 a m.)
`10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: My name is John
`11 Niehaus of Veritext, the date today is October 22,
`12 2014, and the time is approximately 9:01 a m. This
`13 deposition is being held in the office of The Simon
`14 Law Firm located at 800 Market Street, St. Louis,
`15 Missouri 63101.
`16 The caption of this case is Chrimar
`17 Systems, Inc., et al., versus AMX, LLC, in the U.S.
`18 District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
`19 Division, Case Number 6:13-CV-881-JDL. The name of
`20 the witness is Les Baxter.
`21 At this time the attorneys will
`22 identify themselves and the parties they represent,
`23 after which our court reporter, Tara Schwake of
`24 Veritext, will swear in the witness and we can
`25 proceed.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 (Off the record.)
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
`3 record at approximately 9:05 a m.
`4 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I'm going to mark
`5 as Exhibit 1 a copy of US Patent No. 8,155,012.
`6 (Exhibit 1 marked for identification
`7 by the court reporter.)
`8 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I am assuming you
`9 have seen Exhibit 1 before, sir?
`10 A Yes. Yes, I have.
`11 Q If you could turn to claim 31,
`12 please? Do you see that claim 31 uses the term
`13 "distinguishing information"; correct?
`14 A Yes, I do.
`15 Q I'd just like to ask you some
`16 questions about distinguishing information as you
`17 understand it.
`18 A Okay.
`19 Q Who decides what is distinguishing
`20 information under the claims?
`21 A Who decides? Well, distinguishing
`22 information is information that can allow you to
`23 classify or categorize the equipment.
`24 Q Okay. Is there -- does the person
`25 making the device decide whether they have
`
`1 A Well, I think -- obviously if it's a
`2 dispute we can't resolve, the court will decide for
`3 us, correct? That's the way any patent would work.
`4 Q Fair enough. But if we're going to
`5 go look at just the term "distinguishing
`6 information," where do we go to decide what that
`7 means? Is it the intent of the person making the
`8 device? Is it the intent of the patent owner, for
`9 example, either or both?
`10 A Well, I would look at the device and
`11 the way it operates, the supporting documentation
`12 and so on, and if the elements of this claim were
`13 met, then I would say it infringes.
`14 Q Okay. But -- and you are not -- you
`15 are a third party, you are not the manufacturer?
`16 A Correct.
`17 Q So it could be the person making the
`18 device, it could be you in your role as an expert
`19 witness, for example?
`20 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`21 A I don't quite follow that.
`22 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I guess what I'm
`23 jut trying to figure out is there's obviously
`24 disputes in this case as to what is distinguishing
`25 information.
`
`Page 11
`1 categorized or classified the equipment, or is it
`2 someone else?
`3 A Yes, I believe at the time of
`4 manufacture you have done that.
`5 Q Okay. But from -- let's start kind
`6 of from an expansive thing and funnel it down. I'd
`7 like to just get a sense of who all the respective
`8 parties could be that would make that
`9 determination.
`10 So it could be the person making a
`11 device; correct?
`12 A Yeah.
`13 Q Could it be anyone else?
`14 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`15 A I think the -- I guess the way I read
`16 this, the distinguishing information would be
`17 defined and built into the device. So that it
`18 would be recognized by another device.
`19 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. But let's
`20 say you and I have a dispute as to whether it's
`21 distinguishing information.
`22 A Mm-hmm.
`23 Q Whose -- whose -- and I am the
`24 manufacturer. Whose determination governs whether
`25 it's distinguishing or not?
`
`Page 13
`
`1 In looking at the Exhibit 1, is there
`2 anything in Exhibit 1 that defines an objective
`3 standard of what is distinguishing information?
`4 A They give a number of examples.
`5 Q Okay. But is there one objective
`6 standard beyond the examples that's provided?
`7 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, vague.
`8 A Well, in my opinion, plain and
`9 ordinary meaning of the term coupled with the
`10 examples they give would allow one of skill in the
`11 art to determine that.
`12 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. Now, with
`13 respect to distinguishing information, I'd like to
`14 know, from a temporal aspect, at what time does
`15 information become distinguishing? And let me
`16 rephrase that, that was a little long.
`17 When does -- when do you evaluate
`18 when the information is distinguishing? At what
`19 time frame?
`20 A I'm sorry, you lost me there.
`21 Q Okay. You had referred previously
`22 about the manufacturer of a product.
`23 A Correct.
`24 Q When you are assessing whether that
`25 product has distinguishing information, do you look
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 at it as of the date of manufacture?
`2 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3 A Well, for a product, I would look at
`4 the product as it's made.
`5 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And are
`6 you analyzing whether it had distinguishing
`7 information as of the time that I manufactured it,
`8 or at the time you are looking at it?
`9 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`10 A Well, unless someone has done
`11 something to it in the meantime, I would assume
`12 those are the same.
`13 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) What if a
`14 standard has come out in the meantime that would
`15 apply to that device? Would that change the
`16 analysis?
`17 A In terms of whether it meets these
`18 claim elements?
`19 Q In terms of whether it has
`20 distinguishing information.
`21 A Well, I -- it would I guess make it
`22 easier to show if the standard defines some
`23 distinguishing information and the device includes
`24 it, that would be one way to show that it is
`25 distinguishing. I don't know if that's what you're
`
`1 more at prior art than infringement.
`2 Q Well, pick any date. It doesn't
`3 matter to me. You know, you could say it's 2000
`4 and 2005. I don't care.
`5 A Okay.
`6 Q Same -- same hypothetical, though,
`7 you know, at the -- at 2000 it's designed and first
`8 manufactured, 2002 a standard comes out that
`9 applies to it --
`10 A Okay.
`11 Q -- and 2005 we are looking at the
`12 same exact product again. Could it be that in 2000
`13 it didn't have distinguishing information but now
`14 in 2005 it does?
`15 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`16 A Well, again, you know, I look back at
`17 the claims and if it does every element of the
`18 claims, if it puts the distinguishing, if it puts
`19 the impedance there, puts impedance in the path to
`20 associate with that distinguishing information,
`21 then I think it would.
`22 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. But how do
`23 we know if it's put in the path to be associated
`24 with distinguishing information?
`25 A Well, you would have to look at the
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 looking for or not.
`2 Q Could it be that you, as of the date
`3 of the design of the product, there was no
`4 standard, but subsequent manufacture there was a
`5 standard and now distinguishing information applies
`6 where it previously did not?
`7 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`8 A Can you give me that a little -- I'm
`9 not quite sure what you're getting at.
`10 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Sure. Well,
`11 let's say you're looking at the first -- let's say
`12 you have a product that was manufactured in 1995,
`13 and it's continuously being manufactured for ten
`14 years, let's say.
`15 Could it be that the information --
`16 that it didn't have any distinguishing information
`17 in 1995 but the same exact design manufacture in
`18 2005 has distinguishing information now?
`19 A The same exact product ten years
`20 later?
`21 Q The same exact product, yeah, ten
`22 years later.
`23 A If at the time it was manufactured in
`24 1995, which, of course, predates the priority of
`25 this thing, right? Then I think you're looking
`
`1 product, the documentation and so on. If the
`2 product manual has -- says, hey, under these
`3 conditions we put X impedance on this path to
`4 indicate Y, then that's a pretty strong indication
`5 that maybe you're doing that.
`6 Q Okay.
`7 A If it just happens to have some
`8 random impedance because we're trying to mask the
`9 transmission log or something, then I would not
`10 think that would be distinguishing information.
`11 Q Okay. So if you had a product that
`12 was doing -- putting in 150 ohms resistor for the
`13 purpose of impedance matching, for example --
`14 A Correct.
`15 Q -- and at that time there was no
`16 standard ascribing any meaning to 150 ohms, it
`17 would not read on those elements that you're
`18 referencing?
`19 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`20 A I would not think so. I mean, again,
`21 you have to analyze the entire product. We are
`22 taking one isolated feature out of context, but
`23 yeah, I think that's very possible.
`24 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And just
`25 to make sure that I'm understanding, your point was
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Page 18
`1 I need to look at this supporting documentation and
`2 that's going to tell me why they put it in; is that
`3 right?
`4 A Well, yes. Why I interpret the
`5 claims, the impedance in the path is there for the
`6 purpose of indicating that distinguishing
`7 information.
`8 Q Okay. And you could have an
`9 impedance in the path for a variety of reasons;
`10 right?
`11 A Sure.
`12 Q And one reason you gave, for example,
`13 is impedance matching?
`14 A Yes.
`15 Q Could you just briefly describe what
`16 that is at high level?
`17 A Yeah, the transmission line is a
`18 characteristic impedance if you want to match the
`19 impedance of that in your receiver, for instance,
`20 for signal transmission reasons.
`21 Q Sorry, you might have been doing a
`22 little fast for the court reporter.
`23 A You need me to repeat it?
`24 Q Okay, sorry. So that's one thing you
`25 could put -- could you put a filter on the line,
`
`Page 20
`1 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So if you put in
`2 a device that -- you put impedance matching -- you
`3 put in an impedance for the purpose of impedance
`4 matching, pardon me.
`5 A Correct.
`6 Q At that time, because it's solely for
`7 that purpose, it doesn't have distinguishing
`8 information; correct?
`9 A Correct.
`10 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`11 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But let's say,
`12 for example -- you're familiar with a Bob Smith
`13 termination; correct?
`14 A Yes.
`15 Q So at some point, if you've put on a
`16 Bob Smith termination, it's going to serve the
`17 purpose of impedance matching; correct?
`18 A Well, it's -- yeah, roughly. I mean,
`19 it's terminating common mode noise.
`20 Q And could you just give a brief
`21 explanation of why the Bob Smith termination is in
`22 place?
`23 A Yeah, because you can have common
`24 mode currents on pairs that will radiate noise and
`25 by putting on impedance at the end between them,
`
`Page 19
`
`1 for example?
`2 A You could put a filter on the line.
`3 Q Okay. Is there anything else you
`4 could think of that you would serve the purpose of
`5 a ranging impedance for something other than
`6 distinguishing?
`7 A Quite often put a termination on the
`8 line and that's so you're just matching the
`9 impedance. You could put something in to limit the
`10 current so you don't draw too much current, for
`11 instance, in there.
`12 Q Okay. Like you could put an
`13 isolation transformer on the line, for example?
`14 A You could.
`15 Q Okay. And all these serve purposes
`16 that you would say are separate and apart from
`17 providing distinguishing information?
`18 A The way we have discussed them here,
`19 yes, I would say.
`20 Q Okay. Is it possible for a device to
`21 put on, to arrange an impedance for multiple
`22 reasons?
`23 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`24 A I don't know offhand. I can't say
`25 that it's impossible.
`
`Page 21
`1 you can terminate those currents and keep them from
`2 reflecting back and forth.
`3 Q Okay. And is a Bob Smith termination
`4 typically used these days?
`5 A I believe so.
`6 Q So if I put a Bob Smith termination
`7 on my device for the additional reason of wanting
`8 people to know that it does impedance matching,
`9 have I now provided distinguishing information?
`10 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`11 A You put it on for what purpose?
`12 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So one purpose of
`13 putting a Bob Smith termination on a Ethernet
`14 connector across a path would be to serve for
`15 impedance matching; correct?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q And my question to you is take that
`18 same exact example and now in my head not only do I
`19 want to put it in for impedance matching, I want
`20 people to know that I'm smart enough to put on a
`21 Bob Smith termination. Specifically, I want people
`22 to know that this device is compliant with any
`23 requirement that you put on a Bob Smith
`24 termination.
`25 Does it have distinguishing
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 information?
`2 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3 A Not in my opinion, no.
`4 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Why not?
`5 A Because you put the Bob Smith
`6 termination there to cancel common mode noise and
`7 if you -- as your common mode noise you'll see is
`8 canceled, okay, fine. I mean, I don't -- you're
`9 simply meeting the EMC requirements for rating
`10 emissions, which everyone has to meet. So I don't
`11 see that as being distinguishing.
`12 Q But there was a time before where
`13 there was no Bob Smith termination on it, right?
`14 Like when Bob Smith invented it, for example;
`15 correct?
`16 A Right. Correct.
`17 Q Okay. So there was a time where Bob
`18 Smith terminations didn't exist?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q And then after Bob Smith terminations
`21 come into play, now there is a different category
`22 of devices, isn't there?
`23 A I don't know that I recall a
`24 different category of devices, but...
`25 Q Well, there would be a universe of
`
`1 distinguishing information on that device?
`2 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3 A It does not seem that way to me, no.
`4 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Because?
`5 A Because you're simply -- you're
`6 putting that in to minimize the emissions. And
`7 other than that, there would be no point in doing
`8 it.
`9 Q So, but if there is a -- but if there
`10 is a point in doing it -- so let's give a different
`11 example. I don't know Bob Smith personally, I am
`12 assuming that he's a humble man, from what I've
`13 heard, and he is a nice guy.
`14 But let's say that Bob Smith
`15 requires, because he has a patent, that people put
`16 in his termination so that he can get credit for
`17 it. So that people know it's a Bob Smith device.
`18 Does the arrangement of a Bob Smith
`19 termination now provide distinguishing information?
`20 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`21 A Yeah, I'm struggling with that one.
`22 I still don't see how it does.
`23 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Because you're
`24 saying there is a more primary purpose other than
`25 that? Is that correct?
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 devices that have Bob Smith terminations and a
`2 universe that don't; correct?
`3 A I suppose that's so.
`4 Q Okay. And the impedance arrangement
`5 that identifies it as a Bob Smith termination would
`6 also serve to categorize it as a Bob Smith
`7 termination device, wouldn't it?
`8 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`9 A Well, it serves primarily to limit
`10 common mode emissions, is the reason why it was put
`11 there.
`12 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Right. But you
`13 said primarily. There also could be an additional
`14 reason, and that would be I am putting it in so
`15 people know it's got impedance matching. I could
`16 do that, couldn't I?
`17 A I -- that really doesn't make any
`18 sense to me, but...
`19 Q Well, let's say I have a document
`20 that says, in my spec sheet for my company, you are
`21 to put in a Bob Smith termination because we want
`22 you to do impedance matching and we want it to
`23 satisfy the IEEE standards requirement that you put
`24 in a Bob Smith termination.
`25 In that instance, have I put in
`
`1 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`2 A I guess what I'm saying is I don't
`3 see that as distinguishing information. I see that
`4 as one design technique you could use to minimize
`5 common mode emission, and to the -- as opposed to
`6 something you want to communicate, say, to the
`7 device on the other end of the link.
`8 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But if it serves
`9 two purposes, step away from Bob Smith, for
`10 example, and just say you have a simple low-pass
`11 filter --
`12 A Okay.
`13 Q -- across the context of an Ethernet
`14 connector. I could arrange that low-pass filter
`15 for two purposes; right? I could do it, one, for
`16 filtering out high frequencies; correct? I could
`17 also do it as some sort of signature for the
`18 device, couldn't I?
`19 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`20 A Typically, if you describe it as a
`21 low-pass filter, you're doing it for filtering.
`22 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Mm-hmm. But I
`23 could create the filter so that it is different
`24 enough from a generic low-pass filter that people
`25 would know it was my device, couldn't I?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 A I don't know that I've ever seen
`2 anything like that.
`3 Q Could it be done?
`4 A I don't know offhand.
`5 Q Okay. So let's take a company that's
`6 selling a product with an Ethernet connector. Does
`7 that Ethernet connector have an impedance across a
`8 path?
`9 A Yes, in general there will be some
`10 paths that have some impedance across.
`11 Q Okay. Is there ever going to be --
`12 and we can use either definition of impedance,
`13 plaintiffs' or defendants', it doesn't matter to
`14 me, just please specify which one you want to use.
`15 Is there ever going to be an instance in which an
`16 Ethernet device with an Ethernet connector is not
`17 going to have an impedance across a path?
`18 A No, I think there's always going to
`19 be some path with some impedance.
`20 Q Okay. And just to clarify for the
`21 record, is that under your proposed construction,
`22 or defendants'?
`23 A Certainly under ours.
`24 Q Okay. Would you believe that's the
`25 case under defendants' as well? Or --
`
`1 Q How do I know if it's for the purpose
`2 of?
`3 A Again, I would look to the
`4 documentation specifications of the product that
`5 would typically say that because if you're trying
`6 to indicate that information, there's really, I
`7 mean, in an Ethernet system you're talking to
`8 another terminal at the other end of the link;
`9 right?
`10 So if you're putting impedances in to
`11 indicate things, they have to know about it or
`12 you're not really indicating, right? So there
`13 would have to be some type of documentation that
`14 says when do I this, it means that.
`15 Q And is there any particular language
`16 you'd be looking for it to say?
`17 A I would be looking for descriptions
`18 sort of like that, that when I put this impedance
`19 in under these conditions, it means that.
`20 Q And what's "that" in that phrase?
`21 A Some distinguishing information that
`22 you want convey.
`23 Q Okay. So in the absence of a
`24 document that says we put in the impedance to
`25 convey distinguishing information, would the device
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`1 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`2 A It might be. I haven't really
`3 thought that through.
`4 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. That's
`5 fair. Okay. So how does a company -- okay. So
`6 taking your construction of impedance, company
`7 selling a product with an Ethernet connector. We
`8 know it has an impedance across a path. Across the
`9 contacts; correct?
`10 Given all of that, how does the
`11 company look at the device and say it has or it
`12 doesn't have distinguishing information?
`13 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`14 A Well, again, I think if you look at
`15 the claims, if you do the elements in the claims,
`16 where I think distinguishing information is fairly
`17 clear from the context of this, that one of skill
`18 in the art could determine that.
`19 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) How? How would
`20 they do that?
`21 A Well, as I said before, you look at
`22 the product, the documentation and so on, see how
`23 it works and whether it is providing an impedance
`24 for the purpose of indicating distinguishing
`25 information about the product.
`
`1 lack distinguishing information?
`2 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3 A Are you asking is that the -- is that
`4 the only way to prove it? Is that what you're
`5 asking?
`6 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) We can go that
`7 way. Go ahead and answer that question that you've
`8 raised, that's fine.
`9 A No, I don't think that's the only
`10 way. You could talk to the people who designed it.
`11 You could test it and analyze how it performs.
`12 Q Okay. So if there was no document
`13 and no person saying we put it in for this reason,
`14 would you lack distinguishing information?
`15 MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`16 A Well, I think if it, if it's -- I
`17 would imagine in many cases, by testing and
`18 analyzing the product, you could -- you could
`19 discover, sort of reverse engineering the product,
`20 you could discover that.
`21 Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. What would
`22 you look for in reverse engineering the product
`23 that would tell you what the purpose was for that
`24 impedance?
`25 A If the impedance in the product
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 correlated with a distinguishing characteristic.
`2 Q Where do you go to look for the
`3 distinguishing characteristic that's relevant?
`4 A I'm not sure I follow the question.
`5 Q Well, I think you said you were
`6 looking to see if the impedance of the product
`7 co