Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` -------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` -------------
`
` KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` POLARIS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`
` Patent Owner
`
` -------------
`
` Case IPR2016-01623
`
` Patent 7,315,454
`
` DEPOSITION OF PROF. JOSEPH B. BERNSTEIN
`
` JUNE 29, 2017
`
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Reported by:
`
`Paula A. Pyburn
`
`Job no. 19114
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
` 1
`
`KINGSTON 1014
`Kingston v. Polaris
`IPR2016-01622
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX
`
` WITNESS: PROF. JOSEPH B. BERNSTEIN
` EXAMINATION PAGE
` BY MR. HOFFMAN: 6
` BY MR. HOOVER: 74
` BY MR. LOWENSTEIN: 171
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
` DEPOSITION OF PROF. JOSEPH B. BERNSTEIN, taken
` at 1880 Century Park East, Suite 815, Los Angeles,
` California, on Thursday, June 29, 2017, at 9:04 a.m.,
` before Paula A. Pyburn, RPR, CLR, Certified Shorthand
` Reporter, in and for the State of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` APPEARANCES:
` FOR PETITIONER:
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` BY: DAVID M. HOFFMAN, ESQ.
` BY: KENNETH J. HOOVER, ESQ.
` One Congress Plaza
` 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810
` Austin, Texas 78701
` (512) 226-8154
` hoffman@fr.com
` hoover@fr.com
`
` FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
` LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
` BY: NATHAN LOWENSTEIN, ESQ.
` BY: SHAWN CHI, ESQ.
` 1880 Century Park East, Suite 815
` Los Angeles, California 90067
` 310.307.4500
` lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` chi@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Claire Krebs, Fish & Richardson Summer
` Associate
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
` EXHIBITS MARKED
` Exhibit 1016 Nikhilon Website Printout 74
` Exhibit 1017 Handwritten Diagram 130
` Exhibit 1018 Document with Kingston Model 143
` KVR16R11D4/16 Photo with
` Handwritten Notations
` Exhibit 1019 Excerpt from the book "Ceramic 147
` Tile Setting," by John P. Bridge
`
` Exhibit 1020 Handwritten Diagram 151
`
`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
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 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
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`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
`
`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
`
` THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2017, 9:04 A.M.
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
` * * *
` PROF. JOSEPH B. BERNSTEIN,
` having been first duly affirmed, testifies as follows:
` * * *
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Good morning, again, sir.
` A Good morning.
` Q So I need you to state your name for the
` record.
` A Joseph Bernstein. I'm from --
` Q Your address?
` A And address, yes.
` -- from Arveinahal 4, which is
` A-r-v-e-i-n-a-h-a-l, No. 4, in town of Hashmonaim,
` H-a-s-h-m-o-n-a-i-m in Israel.
` Q This morning is there any reason you feel you
` can't give complete and accurate testimony?
` A No, sir.
` Q All right. You understand I'm going to ask you
` a series of questions and you need to provide answers?
` A I understand.
` Q Unless your counsel tells you not to.
`
`Page 7
`
` A Yes.
` Q You understand you're under oath?
` A I understand.
` Q Okay. My questions are not meant to be tricky.
` I'm going to believe you understood them unless you tell
` me otherwise.
` A Uh-huh.
` Q Is that fair?
` A That's fair.
` Q So if you think you don't understand a
` question, you'll let me know; right?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. As we talked about yesterday, the court
` reporter is writing everything down; so it's important
` that you answer audibly and not nodding or shrugging.
` You can do that?
` A I understand.
` Q Okay. You can take a break any time you want,
` roughly probably about an hour between breaks, but if
` you want a break, will you let me know?
` A Okay.
` Q And if for any reason anything changes, you get
` a pounding headache in the middle of the deposition,
` will you let me know?
` A Okay.
`
`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
`
`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 Okay, great.
` Just so you know, the structure today is going
` to be a little bit different. We've broken this up
` between the two of us. And roughly the way we've done
` this, just so there's no secrets, it's done by section
` of your declaration.
` So the sections that Mr. Hoover is going to ask
` you about, I am going to avoid. And we'll certainly
` endeavor not to ask anything we feel would be
` overlapping between the sections. I can't promise you
` there won't be a little bit of overlap, but we have
` endeavored to break it up.
` And you'll probably only get an hour or so from
` me. So I know you're disappointed. But I will be
` starting. Could be a little longer than an hour. Never
` know.
` Just to confirm, like yesterday, you understand
` you've been retained, at least indirectly, by Polaris in
` this matter?
` A I understand that.
` Q Okay. And just to keep things quick, could you
` describe your methodology, your way of preparing your
` declaration in this matter?
` A Okay. Well, I used the same basic procedure
` that I've done on other declarations, including the one
`
`Page 9
`
` we discussed yesterday, which is I would basically go
` over the material, review the material, taking what I
` would say -- notes, which I would then work into sort of
` a draft, which I would then send to the lawyers.
` And the lawyers would then take my draft and
` put it into a format that's comfortable for them, and
` take my CV and -- take parts of my CV and put it
` together into the introductory part, where they will
` say -- put in all the words about how counsel has
` informed me -- that's pretty much a sign that it was
` verbiage that was not of my own.
` Then they would send back to me, the larger
` draft, which included all the preliminary and my notes
` organized in a proper way, and then I would go through
` the whole thing, the whole document, and see what I
` agreed with, didn't agree with, made sure it was all
` understood and proper.
` I tried to take out all the dangling
` participles and the split infinitives; I don't know if I
` got them all. I at least like good grammar.
` And then I would send it back, and then they
` would make whatever modification to make sure it was
` correct.
` Of course, they would send it to me to make
` sure I agreed with the whole thing before they asked for
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`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
`
`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
`
` my signature.
` Q So just to summarize, you would prepare some
` notes on your thoughts; you'd send those to your
` counsel; they would put those into a draft, adding the
` legal sections.
` And then there would be a iterative process
` back and forth between you and counsel until you arrived
` at the final draft that was submitted. Is that fair?
` A That's fair.
` Q I know yesterday you had made some corrections
` to your declaration. At least one of them I think would
` apply again.
` Do you want to provide some corrections?
` A Oh, there is the one on the CV.
` Q If you don't want to, that's fine. I just want
` to give you the opportunity.
` A We did over there. It's just -- again, for
` someone who doesn't like to see improper grammar, if
` it's -- that says "Professor's Bernstein's expertise
` lie," should be "areas of expertise" or "expertises."
` So, again, that's -- we can just leave it the way it is
` for now, because I think you already have it on that
` document. Or change it.
` But I did not go through this document prior to
` today, like I did over there, to know all the cases. So
`
`Page 11
`
` there are probably several -- I think when I was reading
` over one to one, I did see a split infinitive, which
` troubled me, but I didn't make a note to where it was.
` So I think it will still be legally understood.
` Q If you see anything during the course of the
` testimony today that you think is an error, needs to be
` corrected, you'll let us know?
` A That's a good idea. I can do that.
` Q Okay. Thank you.
` Let's turn to paragraph 25 of your
` declaration -- actually even 24. And if you want, you
` can take a look at 24 and 25. I'm going to ask you
` about those.
` A (As read):
` My opinions in this declaration,
` include [verbatim] opinions on validity
` and claim construction, are based on
` the understandings of a person of
` ordinary skill in the art (which I
` understand is sometimes referred to as
` a POSITA or PHOSITA) the time of the
` effective filing" -- "at" -- I guess
` that's missing -- I would say "at the
` time."
` Is that right? Oh. "At," da, da, da (as
`
`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
`
`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
`
` read):
` -- the time of the effective filing
` date of the original foreign
` application from which the '454 patent
` issued.
` That's October 31st, 2005.
` And (as read):
` In assessing the level of skill of
` a person of ordinary skill in the art,
` I have considered the type of problems
` encountered in the art, the prior
` solutions to those problems found in
` the prior art references, the rapidity
` at which innovations are made, the
` sophistication of the technology, the
` level of education of active workers in
` the field, and my own experience
` working with those of skill in the art
` at the time of the invention.
` Q Okay. And, again -- we talked about this
` yesterday, but just to make sure this transcript is
` clean, when I ask you to read something, you are welcome
` to read it out loud if you prefer.
` But unless I expressly ask you to read it out
` loud, I'm not asking you to read it out loud. So you
`
`Page 13
`
` can choose to read it to yourself if you prefer.
` A I'm preferring to read it out loud only because
` under -- there is a little bit of, you know -- let's say
` a anxiety-provoking atmosphere, and it's very difficult
` for me to concentrate properly by reading to myself.
` Q That's fine. Like I said, if you prefer to
` read it out loud, I have no problem with that. I just
` don't want you to think I'm telling you or asking you to
` do that.
` A Okay.
` Q So can you describe for me what process you
` used to determine the level of ordinary skill in the art
` of the '454 patent?
` A I believe we say that, at least in the next
` paragraph, where I substantially agree with
` Dr. Subramanian and his position from his doc
` declaration, that (as read):
` A person of ordinary skill in the
` relevant art at the time of the
` invention would be a person with a
` B.S. -- that's only a bachelor's
` degree -- in electrical engineering and
` approximately two years of industrial
` [verbatim] experience in the field of
` semiconductor memory design.
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`4
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`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
`
`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 I just want to clarify.
` I mean, did you do your own analysis here, or
` did you just accept what Dr. Subramanian said?
` A I accepted that as a standard under the counsel
` of the counsel.
` Q So you didn't perform your own determination on
` what the level of ordinary skill in the art would be?
` A I was just following the instructions of --
` because I'm not a lawyer and I have no understanding of
` a legal meaning of "a person of ordinary skill." I
` mean, I could only -- we can only guess based on
` inappropriate standards.
` So of course I'm depending on people with a
` legal expertise to know what is the legal definition of
` a person of ordinary skill.
` Q So your level of ordinary skill in the art, you
` just accepted that counsel told you that was the proper
` level of ordinary skill in the art?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Can you ask the question again?
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Yeah. I'm just trying to clarify what you
` just -- what you just told me.
` So you were told the level of ordinary skill in
` the art from counsel, and you applied the level that you
`
`Page 15
`
` were provided --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection --
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q -- by counsel?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Sorry. Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I didn't ask. I only -- I was
` instructed that I should apply the level of skill in the
` art that they felt was appropriate for this case, and
` this is the level of skill that I considered for myself.
` Because even the term "POSITA" -- you know,
` these are all terms that come up in legal aspects;
` they're not scientific terms. My background is, I would
` say, entirely scientific, and these are not terms --
` even the word "ordinary skill in the art" is not at all
` a scientific term. They have no other meaning to me
` other than what I am instructed that they mean by the
` counsel who hired me to -- indirectly through the
` client, of course -- who hired me to ask me to form an
` opinion based on what they told me to do.
` And I hope, with all modesty, I did my job
` properly.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q So you were instructed on the level of ordinary
` skill to apply in this case, namely a electrical
` engineering degree and two to five years -- or two years
`
`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
`
`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
`
` of experience?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Objection.
` Calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: I only said I agree substantially
` with Subramanian. And I had seen the Subramanian
` document; he came up with a statement; and I said,
` "Okay, I agree." There's not much more to say about
` that.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Again -- and I'm not trying to be tricky here,
` sir. I'm just trying to figure out, there's -- you
` know, there are certain things that you accept as
` something you're being told to apply, the law, for
` example. And there are some things that you determine
` on your own.
` And I'm just trying to figure out the level of
` ordinary skill in the art that you've agreed with here,
` a bachelor's in electrical engineering and approximately
` two years of experience, is that something that you made
` an independent determination of, or is that something
` that you were told to apply in this case?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Asked and
` answered. Calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: I think I answered what you said.
` I didn't -- I don't have a -- this is not a term I
`
`Page 17
`
` learned -- there's no textbook that I have ever read --
` this is not a scientific terminology.
` I would have no idea what it means, "a person
` of ordinary skill in the art," if I was not instructed
` what that word -- what that phrase means.
` It means nothing to me outside of what I'm told
` that it means, and I was asked to apply a standard like
` this.
` Can it -- is it possible to completely apply,
` you know, any perfect standard? I mean, we're talking
` about a hypothetical person. Are we talking about one
` hypothetical person? Are we talking about a
` hypothetical team?
` I don't know anything other than what I can do
` based on the instructions that I had.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Okay. The person of ordinary skill in the art
` that you used for your analysis, did you assume that
` that person knew all the prior art?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think if you were to take
` someone with a bachelor of science who has no more than
` really two years of practical, let's say, true
` engineering courses and only two or three years of
` industrial experience, it would be really hard to assume
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`5
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`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
`
`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 this person knows what --
` And what do you mean when you say "all
` the prior" -- what do you mean by "all the prior art"?
` Can he read all of the science literature in the museum
` and whatever? In the -- the Library of Congress? What
` do you mean by "all the prior art"? I don't understand
` what you mean.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q I mean all the prior art.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: So what do you mean by "all
` the" --
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Let me rephrase.
` Again, the question is, in applying the person
` of ordinary skill to your analysis, did you assume that
` the person of ordinary skill knew all of the prior art?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Calls for a
` legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know what you mean by
` "all the prior art." Did they have these pages in front
` of them? I don't understand what you mean by "all the
` prior art."
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q You don't understand what the term "all of the
`
`Page 19
`
` prior art" means?
` A I have no --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Asked and
` answered. Calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
` I do not understand what you mean by "all the
` prior art." I do not use that term.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q So you do not have an understanding at all of
` what "all the prior art" means?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Calls for a
` legal conclusion. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Can you please clarify what you
` mean by "all the prior art"?
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q I've asked you if you have any understanding
` about what "all the prior art" could mean.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Asked and
` answered. Calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: I --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: I'll just say "same
` objections," if that's okay with you.
` MR. HOFFMAN: That's fine.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: You can answer the question.
` THE WITNESS: I'm trying to think. I'm trying
`
`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
`
`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
`
` to think how to answer the question.
` If you're asking me to evaluate what even the
` term means, "all the prior art," I think that's
` something that I can't answer sitting here today,
` because it's something that would require me to -- well,
` at least look into it, think about it, and have some
` time outside of this. Because I was not asked to make
` an opinion on what is -- what does it mean to know "all
` the prior art." "All" is a very inclusive word.
` Do you mean -- it could mean anything to any
` people, and I can't make a complete -- I can't make a
` decision now, because, you know, does "all" mean --
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Okay. So you -- sitting here today, you're
` unable to tell me -- you don't have any understanding of
` what the term "all the prior art" means?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection -- I'm sorry. Same
` objections.
` THE WITNESS: I didn't say I have no
` understanding. I said I cannot form an opinion.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Sir, I didn't ask you to form an opinion. I
` asked you -- the question was -- and please listen to
` the question; it makes things go faster -- do you have
` an understanding, "yes" or "no," of what "all the prior
`
`Page 21
`
` art" means?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: Sitting --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Let me, please.
` Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: Sitting here today, I have
` potentially some vague ideas of what it could possibly
` mean, but I'm not going to commit myself and I was not
` asked to commit myself and I was not asked to consider
` anything more than I put into my declaration.
` And you are asking me to make a conclusive
` opinion, which I am not prepared to do, because I don't
` really have enough information about what the term means
` in the way you're asking it.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q What is your understanding of what "all the
` prior art" means?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: I answered that already.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q You just said you had an understanding.
` What is your understanding?
` A I said I may --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: I said I may have some vague
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`6
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`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
`
`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
`
` understandings. I -- but I can't --
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q So what are your vague understandings of what
` "all the prior art" means?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: Well, vaguely, it can mean any
` one of many, many things. I can give you an example,
` one of the things that come into my mind as what it
` might possibly mean. It might possibly mean that this
` brilliant bachelor's student --
` THE REPORTER: Bachelor --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: As in a degree.
` THE WITNESS: -- has a degree -- he got his
` bachelor's degree from -- name one. The top school in
` the world --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Ariel.
` THE WITNESS: Ariel University. -- and he
` spent all day and all night in the library making sure
` he knew every possible book in the scientific
` literature, and he learned Chaucer, and he learned
` basket weaving, and he learned everything in the science
` library, and even -- and he learned all of calculus and
` everything, he would know everything possibly in the
` world.
` And then he came out with a degree in
`
`Page 23
`
` electrical engineering, got a job working at Kingston,
` and now he is a person of ordinary skill?
` Come on. I don't know -- I don't know a person
` like that.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Let me define it for you, then, since you --
` one -- would you understand this? If I define "all
` prior art" to be all prior publications and work related
` to the field of the patent?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Calls for a
` legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not so sure that -- the
` scenario you're setting up is much different than what
` I'm putting up, because no one would know what "all the
` literature" means. I can't even imagine how you would
` say what is "all the literature." Every trade magazine?
` Every --
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Sir, I understand that. I'm not asking you to
` agree with the definition. I'm asking if you understand
` the definition.
` A Even as a way of understanding it, it's really
` hard to understand. That word "all" is a very, very big
` word.
` Q So then, since you can't even have discussion
`
`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
`
`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
`
` about this -- again, I just want to confirm -- it's fair
` to say that in applying your definition of a person of
` ordinary skill in the art, you did not assume that
` person knows all of the prior art; correct?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Asked and
` answered. Calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: Well, as we said, I still don't
` have a definition of "all the prior art"; so it's really
` hard to understand your question.
` So I think I've said this. We can keep saying
` it over; I'll be happy to say it -- I'm not leaving till
` Tuesday at this point. So...
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Sir, I just want to know what -- your basis for
` your opinion. I have a right to ask your bases. You
` can't -- I mean, you have to tell me one thing or the
` other. You tell me -- you won't -- I tried to define
` "all." I asked you to define "all." You say you can't
` do that. All right? You have to tell me what your
` basis is for your opinion.
` The question is -- and if you -- if you
` seriously can't answer it, just tell me that. But my
` question to you is, when you applied the person of
` ordinary skill in the art to your analysis, did you or
` did you not assume that that person had knowledge of all
`
`Page 25
`
` of the prior art?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Calls for a
` legal conclusion. Asked and answered at least 25 times
` now.
` THE WITNESS: I'll be happy to answer it again
` the same way I did in my conclusion. I'm putting myself
` in the mind as the expert, as a professor, who knows
` many people who have fit the category of someone with
` two years of industrial experience after his bachelor's,
` as yes, that I knew someone with a master's degree, that
` means maybe one or two more years after the bachelor's
` degree.
` I understand what, for the most part, they're
` expected to know, because I've tested these people.
` I've been with them for many, many years. I know them
` in all levels of my interaction with them: As a student
` myself, as a Professor, I've advised them, and I've
` tried to put myself in the mindset, as I was instructed.
` And I really don't understand what the question
` is beyond that, other than to say "all the prior art," I
` do not really, really -- it sounds like you're -- it's a
` very difficult thing to answer in a simple way that
` you're asking for. And I'm very sorry, but I don't
` think I can answer it another way.
` ///
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`7
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
`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. HOFFMAN:
` Q So just to be clear, you're unable to answer my
` question?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form.
` Mischaracterizes the witness's testimony. Asked and
` answered 26 times. Legal conclusion.
` Please answer.
` THE WITNESS: The way the question is being
` answer -- asked is making an assumption that when I made
` my opinions, I had some extra instruction in mind that
` might have been implied or might not be implied.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q So let me ask you that.
` Were you ever informed as part of your analysis
` that when you are applying the level of ordinary skill
` in the art, you should assume that that person of
` ordinary skill in the art had knowledge of all of the
` prior art?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Legal
` conclusion. Asked and answered -- I'm losing count.
` THE WITNESS: If you took the word "all" out of
` your statement, I may be able to talk with you.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q So you're refusing to answer my question?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection --
`
`Page 27
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: -- all objections.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q You either were provided this instruction or
` not, sir. It's a yes-no question.
` Were you told as part of your analysis, when
` applying a person of ordinary skill in the art, you
` should assume that person has knowledge of all of the
` prior art? "Yes" or "no"?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Legal
` conclusion. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Well, if you read even the last
` part, where I say (as read):
` I'm familiar with people having
` this level of skill, including around
` 2005. For more than two decades, I've
` been teach be undergraduate and
` graduate-level courses. I've
` supervised many doctoral theses in my
` career as a professor in electrical and
` electronic engineering. I've also
` supervised students in materials and
` mechanical engineering, and I'm quite
` familiar with combining remote
` disciplines --
`
`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
`
`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
`
` I know that wasn't part of your questions, but
` it's in my statement -- (as read):
` -- for achieving originality in
` patents.
` Beyond that, I can -- there's nothing more to
` say.
` MR. HOFFMAN: Objection. Nonresponsive.
` Q Sir, I asked you what you were instructed.
` Were you or were you not --
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q -- instructed --
` Were you or were you not instructed when
` applying the level of ordinary skill in the art that a
` person of ordinary skill should be assumed to have
` knowledge of all the prior art?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Objection. Form. Asked and
` answered. Calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: So you want to know if among --
` while I was working on the decision and working on this
` document, if I was ever instructed that as part of my
` instructions, and you're asking if it was -- if there
` was that limitation of my instructions?
` I can't recall that I was specifically
` instructed and -- that I should consider -- other than
`
`Page 29
`
` what I've already said, that I was used to consider.
` And that's been my consideration, and I don't have any
` recollection of further instructions than that.
` I might have had instructions in time
` throughout our discussions. So it -- anything may be
` possible of what I was instructed that I either forgot
` or can't recall as I'm sitting here today, but I think
` these four paragraphs pretty much explain the limit of
` what I was instructed to do and how I formed my opinion.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Let's move on.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: For the record, I believe the
` witness is referring to paragraphs 24 to 27.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Let's move on to paragraph 49, please.
` In paragraph 49 you say that the '454 patent
` describes its core objectives, and then that paragraph
` continues after the little quotation and also identifies
` three objectives.
` Do you see that, sir?
` A Yes.
` Q I want to get your understanding of what the
` relationship is between the objectives of a patent and
` its patent -- and its claims.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: I don't think there's a
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`8
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`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
`
`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
`
` question pending.
` BY MR. HOFFMAN:
` Q Could you please describe for me, sir, your
` unders