Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`
` DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
` Case No. 14-130-GMS
`
`
`
` --------------------------
` )
` ADIDAS AG and )
` ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., )
` Plaintiffs )
` )
` vs. )
` )
` UNDER ARMOUR, INC., and )
` MAPMYFITNESS, INC., )
` Defendants )
` )
` --------------------------
`
`
`
`
`
` VOLUME I
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`
` Wednesday, October 21, 2015
`
` BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
`
` 9:04 A.M.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reported By: Sandra A. Deschaine, CSR, RPR, CLR, CRA
`
`Job No. 15097
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.001
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` OCTOBER 21, 2015
` 9:04 A.M.
` Deposition of WILLIAM R. MICHALSON,
` held at the offices Weil, Gotshal & Manges
` LLP, 100 Federal Street, Boston,
` Massachusetts, pursuant to Notice before
` Sandra A. Deschaine, a Shorthand Reporter,
` Registered Professional Reporter, Certified
` LiveNote Reporter, Real-Time Systems
` Administrator, and Notary Public of the State
` of Massachusetts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 N D E X
`
` ---------------------------------------------
` WITNESSES: PAGE
` ---------------------------------------------
`
` William R. Michalson
`
` By Mr. Desai 7
`
` ---------------------------------------------
` EXHIBITS: DESCRIPTION PAGE
` ---------------------------------------------
` MICHALSON EXHIBITS VOLUME I
` Exhibit 1 U.S. Patent No. 7,292,867 35
` Exhbiit 2 Rebuttal Export Report of
` William Michalson, Ph.D. 69
`
` Exhibit 3 Exhibit 1, Curriculum of
` William R. Michalson 70
` Exhibit 4 Exhibit 2, List of
` Materials Considered 70
`
` Exhibit 5 U.S. Patent No. 7,805,149 80
`
` Exhibit 6 U.S. Patent No. 7,957,752 80
`
` Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent No. 7,957,752 80
`
` Exhibit 8 U.S. Patent No. 8,244.226 80
`
` Exhibit 9 Find A Hike 87
`
` Exhibit 10 Expert Report of Dr.
` Shawn Burke 102
` Exhibit 11 Benefon ESC!
` Owner's Manual 114
`
` (Exhibits continued)
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
` APPEARANCES:
` ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
` KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
` Jonathan Orlinger, Esquire
` Mitchell Stockwell, Esquire
` 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
` Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528
` T. 404.745.2494 F. 404.815.6555
` jolinger@kilpatricktownsend.com
` mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
` Anish Desai, Esquire
` W. Sutton Ansley, Esquire
` 1300 Eye Street N.W., Suite 900
` Washington, DC 20005-3314
` T. 202.682.7000
` anish.desai@weil.com
` sutton.ansley@weil.com
`
` Also Present: Shawn Budd
`
`
`
`
`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 N D E X (continued)
`
` ---------------------------------------------
` EXHIBITS: DESCRIPTION PAGE
` ---------------------------------------------
`
` Exhibit 12 Creating Location Services
` for the Wireless Web. 114
`
` Exhibit 13 Mobile Phone Telemantics
` Protocol Specification 126
` Exhibit 14 Benefon Corp., Version 1.0 128
` Exhibit 15 Exhibit 3, NavTalk GSM
` Owner's Manual 141
`
` Exhibit 16 International Publication
` W003/007014 A1 147
` Exhibit 17 Telemedicine and e-Health 163
` Exhibit 18 Hand-drawn diagram 201
` Exhibit 19 U.S. Patent No. 7,454,002 230
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`UA-1017.002
`
`

`
`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
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
` record. This is the videographer speaking,
` Shawn Budd, with Transperfect Legal
` Solutions. Today's date is October 21st,
` 2015, and the time is 9:04 a.m.
` We are here in Boston,
` Massachusetts, to take the video
` deposition of William Michalson in the
` matter of adidas AG and adidas America,
` Inc., versus Under Armour and
` MapMyFitness, Inc.
` Would counsel please introduce
` themselves?
` MR. DESAI: Anish Desai and
` Sutton, and we're for Under Armour.
` MR. OLINGER: Jonathan Olinger and
` Mitch Stockwell here for Plaintiff
` adidas.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And would the
` court reporter please swear in the
` witness?
` WILLIAM R. MICHALSON, Deponent,
` having first been satisfactorily identified
` by the production of his Massachusetts
` driver's license and duly sworn by the Notary
`
`Page 7
`
` Public, was examined and testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. DESAI:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Michalson.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. When were you retained by the
` Plaintiff adidas to provide opinions in this
` litigation?
` A. I don't recall specifically. I'd
` have to go back and look at the engagement
` letter.
` Q. Was it this year, the year before?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. How many hours have you worked on
` this litigation to date?
` A. Well, I'm a little bit back on my
` invoices. I don't really know how many hours
` I've put in since my last invoice. I haven't
` recorded them yet.
` Q. You have no idea how many hours
` approximately you've worked on this case?
` A. I'm really not sure. I don't -- I
` haven't entered that recently so I haven't
` looked at that.
`
`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. Is it more than ten hours?
` A. Certainly.
` Q. Is it more than a hundred hours?
` A. Probably.
` Q. More than 200 hours?
` A. If I were to guess, I would guess
` it's going to be between -- somewhere between
` a hundred and 200 hours.
` Q. Okay. Well, at one of your
` breaks, I think I'd like you to find out for
` sure.
` A. I won't be able to do that, I
` don't think. I'll try. I'll see what I can
` do.
` Q. You don't keep track of your
` hours?
` A. I do. I just don't have those
` records with me.
` Q. Are you able to access those
` records?
` A. I don't think so, but I will see
` what I can do. I don't think I can access
` them all.
` Q. How many times have you testified,
` as an expert witness, in a patent case?
`
`Page 9
`
` A. Many. Dozens.
` Q. Roughly speaking, how many times
` have you provided an opinion that a patent
` that was issued by the U.S. Patent Office was
` invalid?
` A. Probably dozens.
` Q. There are two sets of patents in
` this case, the Werner patents and the Ellis
` patents; is that right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay.
` And the named inventors of the
` Werner patents are John Werner and Scott
` Doyle; correct?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, what
` were the names?
` MR. DESAI: John Werner and Scott
` Doyle.
` BY MR. DESAI:
` Q. Have you ever spoken to either of
` these gentlemen before?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you had any email
` communications with them?
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.003
`
`

`
`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
`
` A. No.
` Q. The named inventors of the Ellis
` patents are Michael Ellis and Caron Schwartz;
` is that correct?
` A. That sounds correct.
` Q. Okay.
` Have you ever spoken or
` communicated with either of them before?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay.
` Dr. Michalson, who was responsible
` for creating the global system -- Global
` Positioning System, GPS?
` A. That's a very big question.
` Q. Can you answer it?
` A. It was conceived and initially
` implemented by the U.S. Air Force under the
` direction of, at the time, Kernel Brad
` Parkinson.
` Q. And when did that take place,
` approximately? What decade?
` A. '70s.
` Q. Since the time -- so you said it
` was originally conceived and implemented by
` the U.S. Air Force. Have other parties been
`
`Page 11
`
` involved in the creation of the system since
` then?
` A. What do you mean by "the creation
` of the system"?
` Q. Well, I'm referring to the
` satellites and the GPS satellites that are
` orbiting the earth.
` A. Well, the satellites are created
` by a contractor for the Air Force.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I know there have been -- I mean,
` there are several contractors that would be
` involved in that.
` Q. Who is ultimately in control of
` the satellites?
` A. Right now there's a Joint Program
` Office, and the control of the satellites is
` shared by the Department of Transportation
` and the Department of Defense. I believe the
` actual flight control center is manned by Air
` Force personnel.
` Q. When was the collection of GPS
` satellites made available for public use?
` A. Again, that's a difficult question
` in some ways.
`
`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
`
` Do you mean when could some -- a
` civilian receive a GPS signal.
` Q. Yeah, that's what I mean.
` A. Probably early '80s you could
` perceive some of the block one satellite
` signals.
` Q. Okay.
` Has the availability of the
` satellites to the public changed over time?
` A. There have been a lot of changes
` to the GPS system over time. It was first
` declared operational in the '90s.
` Q. What does that mean, that it was
` declared operational in the '90s?
` A. That meant that the Air Force had
` enough confidence in the system that they
` could rely on the specifications of that
` system.
` Q. When, in the '90s, did that
` happen?
` A. I believe IOC, which was the
` initial operational capability was
` announced -- I would have to check the date.
` I want to say '95.
` Q. Now, just so lay people aren't
`
`Page 13
`
` confused, the system was working before 1995,
` but it was just declared to be fully
` operational after that time? I'm just --
` A. Well, there was a period of time
` when they didn't have a complete
` constellation, and they also did not have
` enough recorded data to be able to rely on --
` reliably meet the specifications. There were
` periods when satellites might be taken off
` arbitrarily. So if you are using GPS for any
` particular application, its performance
` wasn't guaranteed before it was declared
` operational. Once it was declared
` operational, that meant that it had a certain
` minimum operational capability.
` Q. Okay.
` Did you have any role in the
` design and development of the GPS system?
` A. The GPS satellites themselves, no.
` Q. Okay.
` Did you -- it sounds like you had
` some other role.
` A. I did a fair amount of work with
` the F- -- sponsored by the FAA in evaluating
` what they call receiver autonomous integrity
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.004
`
`

`
`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
`
` monitoring algorithms. There was a period of
` time where the FAA wanted to be able to
` approve GPS for use in civilian aircraft
` navigation; and in order to do that, they had
` to be able to verify the integrity and
` reliability and verify that that met the
` standards of the FAA. So some of the work
` that I was involved with early on was
` involving the valuation and test of
` algorithms for performing that receiver
` autonomous integrity monitoring.
` So I worked with the RTCM --
` excuse me -- the RTCA working groups that
` were putting together the specifications that
` ultimately would be used by the FAA to draft
` their regulations.
` Q. So you mentioned GPS receivers,
` and is it fair to say that the, you know, two
` basic components of the GPS system are the
` receivers that are located on the ground or
` on the surface of the earth and the
` satellites orbiting the earth?
` A. No, not really. There's a third
` part that would be the control system.
` Q. Okay.
`
`Page 15
`
` So then is it fair to say that the
` GPS system is composed of the satellites, the
` receivers on the ground and a control
` system?
` A. Yeah, the ground control, yes.
` Q. Okay.
` And you had some involvement in
` designing and evaluating GPS receivers;
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay.
` But you had no involvement in
` designing or developing the control center or
` the GPS satellites; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay.
` Have you heard of the term
` "selective availability"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What does that mean to you?
` A. What selective availability was,
` was a mechanism for reducing the achievable
` accuracy of the GPS receiver. There was a
` period of time that the military was
` concerned that the GPS system could be used
`
`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
`
` against us, and therefore they implemented
` selective availability to reduce the accuracy
` of a civilian receiver.
` Q. Okay.
` So selective availability was a
` way for the U.S. Government to intentionally
` limit the accuracy of GPS receivers available
` to the public?
` A. At that time, yes.
` Q. And when did that -- when did
` selective availability, you know, get
` switched off or turned off?
` A. I believe it was May 1st, 2000.
` Yeah, I think it was 2000.
` Q. So before selective availability
` was switched off, so before May 2000, what
` was the accuracy of a civilian GPS receiver?
` A. That depends upon whether
` selective availability was on or off or
` whether or not you were using differential
` corrections. Very often selective
` availability was off, in which case your
` receiver would be three to five meter
` accuracy, typically.
` With selective availability on, it
`
`Page 17
`
` would be -- it would be around a hundred
` meter extremes, but the average accuracy
` would be very high. So if you averaged over
` several minutes, you'd be able to get a very
` accurate position even in the presence of
` selective availability; or if you had a
` differential correction, you'd be able to
` get, you know, one to three meter
` positioning.
` Q. So I guess are you saying that
` selective availability didn't really work the
` way it was supposed to?
` A. No, that's not what I'm saying.
` Q. Okay.
` So was the U.S. Government
` actually able to prevent civilians from
` having GPS receivers that could provide three
` to five meter accuracy before switching off
` selective availability?
` A. Well, the way you phrased that, I
` think the answer is no.
` Q. Okay.
` Why did the government switch off
` selective availability; do you know?
` A. There are a lot of reasons. I
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.005
`
`

`
`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
`
` think one of the prime reasons was that it
` was seen as a -- that the presence of
` selective -- the presence of selective
` availability caused a number of problems, but
` I think that one of the major things was
` economic development. It was seen as
` hampering the potential commercial growth of
` the GPS.
` Q. So would you say that the
` switching off of selective availability
` promoted commercial growth in the GPS devices
` and systems?
` MR. OLINGER: Objection, vague.
` A. I think it was one of the
` contributors. There were a number of methods
` that were available that would allow you to
` circumvent selective availability even before
` it was turned off, including some work in
` being able to receive the encrypted signals,
` even if you didn't have a keyed receiver. So
` you could still get pretty good accuracy even
` with selective availability on, depending on
` how you configured your receiver.
` Q. When I asked if it was one of
` the contri- -- or if it was -- promoted
`
`Page 19
`
` commercial growth of GPS devices, and you
` said it was one of the contributors, are
` there -- what were the other contributors to
` the growth of commercial GPS devices in the,
` you know, following the year 2000?
` MR. OLINGER: Objection, vague.
` A. Well, certainly the development of
` the electronics and improvements in receiver
` design itself, improved processing power,
` improves processing speed, being able to move
` to CMOS technology, that would be C-M-O-S,
` capitals, the availability of map
` information. I mean, there were a lot of
` things going on at the time.
` Q. Do the patents in this case have
` anything to do with any of those improvements
` you just described?
` MR. OLINGER: Objection, vague.
` A. Well, the patents in suit are
` directed towards applications of GPS, and
` combinations of GPS, and some of these other
` technologies that I mentioned this morning.
` So I believe they made a contribution in that
` area, sure.
` Q. 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
`
` Why don't we take it one at a time
` then.
` Do the patents -- the patents in
` this case have anything to do with improving
` GPS receivers?
` A. In terms of, you know, making
` portable devices that would operate in this
` area, they certainly are promoting that
` technology.
` Q. What improvements do the patents
` in this case provide with respect to GPS
` receivers?
` A. Well, they provide a motivation to
` use some of the emerging technologies for
` designing GPS receivers.
` Q. I'd like an answer to my actual
` question, which is, what improvements do the
` patents in this case provide with respect to
` GPS receivers? Can you name one improvement?
` A. Well, the patents don't
` specifically talk about the design of the GPS
` receiver. The patents are directed towards
` an application.
` Q. So then the answer to my question
` is that the patents in this case don't
`
`Page 21
`
` provide any improvements to GPS receivers;
` correct?
` A. Well, if we're talking about the
` GPS receiver as just that piece that receives
` the satellite signal and derives location
` data, they don't do anything specifically to
` improve that process.
` Q. Okay.
` The other improvements you talked
` about were improvements in processing power
` and processing speed; correct? That was in
` your answer.
` Do the patents in this case
` provide any improvements with respect to
` processing power and processing speed?
` MR. OLINGER: Objection, vague.
` A. Those improvements that I outlined
` would be related to architectural -- computer
` architecture changes that were going on at
` the time, and the patents are not addressing
` computer architecture. They're addressing an
` application or an architecture of a device
` that's using the technology of the day.
` Q. Okay.
` So the simple answer to my
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.006
`
`

`
`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
`
` question is that the patents in this case
` don't provide any improvements with respect
` to processing power and processing speed;
` correct?
` MR. OLINGER: Objection, misstates
` prior testimony.
` A. The patents in this case are not
` directed to building a better computer.
` Q. You hesitate to say that the
` patents in this case don't provide
` improvements with respect to processing power
` and processing speed. Why?
` A. I didn't realize I'm hesitating.
` I think I'm thinking about what's in the
` patents in the context of your question.
` Q. Okay.
` I mean, I don't think it's a
` complicated question, but, you know.
` Would you testify to a jury of lay
` people that the patents in this case provide
` improvements with respect to processing power
` and processing speed? Yes or no?
` MR. OLINGER: Objection, vague.
` A. Well, you've asked a very general
` question, and if I interpret that as being
`
`Page 23
`
` directed to, are these patents specifying a
` new computer architecture to improve the
` processing speed, no, they're not.
` Q. Okay.
` How does a GPS receiver determine
` its position?
` A. That's a fairly complicated
` process.
` Q. Okay. I'll rephrase.
` How would you explain to a jury of
` lay people how a GPS receiver determines its
` position?
` A. Certainly I would explain it with
` the aid of some graphics, because I think
` some graphics would certainly help here.
` Q. Okay.
` A. But very simply, what ends up
` happening is the receiver searches for and
` acquires four or more satellite signals. The
` receiver synchronizes itself to those
` signals. Once it has synchronized itself to
` those signals, then it will start reading
` what they call a navigation message.
` What the navigation message
` contains is the ephemeris information. So it
`
`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
`
` gets that ephemeris information from the
` satellites. It gets time of weak
` information. It gets X-Count information,
` and it uses all of that information to
` estimate the pseudo -- what we call the
` pseudorange, which is the range between the
` satellite and the receiver, actually, the
` phase center of the receiver antenna, and we
` call it a pseudorange because it's corrupted
` by a number of errors that make it not
` exactly the true slant range.
` Given an estimate of time and
` given the ephemeris information, it can then
` estimate that slant range, and then it
` basically solves an equation of -- in four or
` more -- well, four unknowns, and it will use
` four or more equations to solve for those
` four unknowns. The unknowns being X, Y, Z
` position and time offset.
` Q. X, Y, Z position, is that another
` way of saying latitude, longitude, altitude?
` A. The receiver natively produces its
` results in what we call an earth center,
` earth-fixed coordinate system, that then
` would get translated to a particular map
`
`Page 25
`
` datum. In this country we use WGS84 as the
` map datum for most of our mapping. So that
` X, Y, Z position would get translated into
` the WGS84 latitude, longitude, or whatever
` map datum you want it to be converted to.
` Q. Okay.
` Now, that process you just
` described, about how a GPS receiver
` determines its position, was that something
` that that process -- was that developed by
` the inventors of the Ellis patents or the
` Werner patents?
` A. No. That predates the Ellis,
` Werner patents.
` Q. Okay.
` And you described in that process
` the receiver solving equations and then
` potentially translating into a, I think you
` called it a map datum.
` Is there some kind of processor or
` microcontroller that's associated with the
` receiver that does that?
` A. Again, you ask a very simple
` question that has a very complicated answer.
` Can you read that question again
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.007
`
`

`
`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
`
` for me?
` Q. I can try it again.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I guess I'm trying to understand
` what functional element of a GPS receiver
` performs the solving of the equations and the
` translation of data.
` A. I need to break that down just a
` little bit more. So let me explain the basic
` architecture of a GPS receiver.
` Q. That would be helpful.
` A. Okay. You generally have two main
` areas of operation of the GPS receiver. One
` area is associated with the actual analog
` receipt of the signals and the down
` conversion of those signals, and the sampling
` of those signals to be able to get a sample
` of the analog wave form. A second phase of
` processing is interpreting that wave form
` data, and then a third phase of that
` processing is actually using that interpreted
` data to create latitude-longitude to convert
` to a map datum or what have you.
` Now, a GPS receiver -- where you
` draw the boundaries on the GPS receiver is an
`
`Page 27
`
` architectural decision. Early on, a lot of
` systems, you know, particularly portable
` systems, there were a lot of proposals to
` say, well, the -- doing the correlation and
` doing the heavy -- the heavy math, if you
` will, requires a lot of computational power
` that is not easily put on processors that are
` on portable devices.
` So one school of thought was you
` sample the data. You send that data to some
` off-board processor, that off-board processor
` figures out what the signals actually means,
` maybe applies some corrections to those
` signals, does the calculation of the
` latitude-longitude and sends it back.
` Another school of thought in the
` design of GPS receivers was to say, Well, we
` will do all of those operations locally on
` the same piece of hardware. So if you look
` through the literature of the time, you'll
` see both variance of that theme.
` Q. Okay.
` To paraphrase, the creation of the
` latitude-longitude -- strike that.
` In your answer, I believe 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
`
`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
`
` described two options for creating the
` latitude and longitude. One is using an
` off-board processor, and one is using the
` same piece of hardware that receives the
` signals from the satellites; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay.
` For the second option, using the
` same piece of hardware, can you be more
` specific about what kind of hardware that
` is?
` A. Well, and again, this changes with
` time, but there would be an analog front end.
` The technology that that uses has changed
` with time, but in all cases you need some
` analog front end. You would then need some
` kind of a digital signal processing, whether
` that be a fixed set of correlators or whether
` that be a signal processing chip. You know,
` a general purpose signal processor doesn't
` really matter as long as it has the right
` computational capability.
` And then the third piece is
` usually -- that's a relatively low data rate
` by that time, so that's usually some kind of
`
`Page 29
`
` a microcontroller or microprocessor that's a
` more general-purpose processor.
` Q. Okay.
` So for the second option, you
` would need the GPS receiver requires some
` type of processing unit or microprocessor;
` correct?
` A. Yeah, typically two, you know.
` Typically -- early receivers would have a
` hardware correlator and then that would
` communicate to a microcontroller.
` Q. Are you aware of any GPS receiver
` that predates the patents in this case that
` would have been able to create latitude and
` longitude without either using an off-board
` processor or using an on-board processing
` unit of some kind?
` A. Can you say that again?
` Q. Sure.
` Are you aware of any GPS receiver
` that predates the patents in this case that
` would have been able to create latitude and
` longitude without either using an off-board
` processor or using an on-board processor of
` some kind?
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com
`
`UA-1017.008
`
`

`
`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
`
` A. I can't think of anything offhand.
` Q. In your answers to some of my
` questions, you referred a few times to what
` you called the analog front end. Is that the
` portion of the GPS receiver that receives
` signals from the GPS satellites?
` A. That's the portion that receives
` those signals first.
` Q. All right.
` And a little while ago I believe
` we agreed t