1
`
`Exhibit 2077
`Bradium Technologies LLC - patent owner
`Microsoft Corporation - petitioner
`IPR2016-00449
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`owDROW®WYNY
`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg2of117 Pg !ID12200
`
`NAOLA C. VAUGHN, RPR, CRR, MO CCR No. 1052.
`
`VISTEON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,)
`
`and VISTEON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`Case No.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL,
`
`INC.,
`
`2:10-CV-10578-PDB-MAR
`
`Defendant.
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM RYAN MICHALSON,
`
`taken on behalf of Plaintiffs, at the
`
`law offices OF Erise IP, 6201 College
`
`Boulevard, Suite 300, Overland Park, Kansas,
`
`beginning at 8:37 a.m. and ending at
`
`4:10 p.m., on November 9, 2012, before me,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1 - Expert Report of William Michalson
`Exhibit 2 - Exhibits to Michalson
`Exhibit 3 - 11/5/12 letter to Jitendra Malik
`from Jason Mudd identifying 102/103
`prior art invalidity positions
`Exhibit 4 - Special Master's Claims Construction
`Report to the Honorable Paul Borman
`Exhibit 5 - Garmin's Opening Markman Brief
`Exhibit 6 - Email string re: Claim Construction
`Briefs
`
`GARMV-02-00016505 - 16511
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`For Plaintiffs:
`
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`
`161 South Tyron Street.
`Suite 4600
`
`28280-4000
`Charlotte, North Carolina
`(704) 444-1000 - phone,
`(704}444-1695 - fax
`rick. mcdermottfalston.com
`
`jason. fridayéalston.com
`jitty.malikéalston.com
`BY:
`JASON A. FRIDAY
`and
`BY: RICK McDERMOTT
`and
`JITENDRA “JITTY" MALIK
`
`BY:
`
`WwOnMHOFesWwBDOR
`NMNMNMMRRPRFReReRPPRteWomweOopWowminewhEoS
`
`Overland Park, Kansas
`(913}777-5600 - phone,
`eric, bureshterisel?.com
`
`66211
`(913)777-5601 - fax
`
`paul hart@eriseIP.com
`BY:
`ERIC A. BURESH
`and
`PAUL R. HART
`
`BY:
`
`Also Present: David Ayers, Garmin
`Kathleen Fitterling
`Jim Ross, videographer
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`MOMNMMMNRRRRemRBRReReReEtWomewhSPwmamIeheNwHEoO
`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg 3 of 117
`
`Pg ID 12201
`
`For Defendant:
`EXBIBITS (Continued)
`NUMBER=:DESCRIPTION
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Boulevard
`Suite 300
`
`INDEX
`WITNESS: WILLIAM RYAN MICHALSON
`
`Examination by Mr. Malik
`
`NUMBER
`
`EXHIBITS
`DESCRIPTION
`
`PAGE
`
`7
`7
`7
`
`Exhibit 7 - Plaintiff's Final Infringement
`Contentions
`Exhibit 8 - Research in Vehicle Information
`
`Systems at General Motors
`GARMV-02-0024415 - 24419
`
`Exhibit 9 - Order to Modify The Fourth
`Anended Joint Rule 26(f) Report
`Exhibit 10 - AutoRoute Plus Reference Manual
`GARMV-02-00005061 - 5160
`
`Exhibit 11 - US Patent 5,220,507 (Rirson)
`Exhibit 12 - US Patent 5,323,321 (Smith)
`Exhibit 13 - US Patent 5,243,528 (Lefebvre)
`Exhibit 14 - Integrating Business Listings
`with Digital Maps for Use in
`Vehicles
`
`wowwnDminmeWwBmPY
`aeeeeWBWRSoiDmmineweoS
`eoSs)OoUTemteRFOR
`RN?RRONReRRmeeeRpWeWeOoteoeRHmoe&heoS
`
`3
`
`

`

`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg4of117 Pg ID 12202
`
`Page 6
`{Exhibits 1 and 2 marked.)
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
`
`wo4.omOnmeoFMNeR
`
`poepepenmr&
`
`MR. MALIK: Good morning. This is
`Jitendra Malik of Alston & Byrd representing
`Plaintiff, Visteon, With me is Jason Friday and
`Rick McDermott, also of Alston Bird. And also
`Dr. Anatole Lokshin.
`MR. BURESH: Eric Buresh of Erise iP
`on behalf of Garmin. With me is Kathleen
`
`Fitterling, also with Erise IP, And joining us is
`David Ayers,
`in-house counsel at Garmin.
`WILLIAM RYAN MICHALSON,
`a witness, being first duly sworn, testified as
`follows:
`
`BY MR. MALIK:
`
`EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`weaONiombkBDOR
`
`Page 8
`Just it will make the conversation a
`purposes.
`little easier.
`
`Okay. And let me also hand you what
`is previously marked as Fosmoen Exhibit 10, which
`is the 375 patent. Have you seen the 375 patent
`before?
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. Let me hand you Peterman
`Q.
`Exhibit 4, previously marked, which is the 408
`patent.
`
`Have you seen the 408 patent before?
`Yes.
`
`A.
`
`Let me also hand you Fosmcen
`Q.
`Exhibit 8, the 892 patent.
`Have you seen the 892 patent before?
`Yes, I have.
`A.
`Let me also hand you Peterman
`Q.
`Exhibit 3, which is the 060 patent.
`Have you seen Peterman Exhibit 3
`
`before?
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. Michalson Exhibit 1 opines on
`Q.
`four patents, Are they the four patents that I
`just handed you?
`A.
`Yes.
`
`Page 9
`
`Okay. And you understand that
`Q.
`Michalson Exhibit 1 was supposed to be a complete
`statement of your opinions?
`A.
`‘That's correct.
`
`Good morning, Dr. Michalson.
`0.
`Good morning.
`Ak.
`Okay. Can you please state your
`Q.
`For the record would you please state
`a.
`educational background starting from college?
`your full name and address.
`
`A.=Yes. I got my bachelor’s degree from
`A.
`William Ryan Michalson, and I Live on
`Syracuse University --
`Linden Street in Douglas, Massachusetts.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Q.
`Okay. Let me hand you what I have
`marked as Michalson Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.
`I got
`A.
`-- in, I believe it was, 1991.
`my master -- and that bachelor's degree was in
`electrical engineering.
`I got a master's degree in electrical
`engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute
`in Worcester, Massachusetts.
`I think that was
`'g5. And then a PhD in electrical engineering
`also from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1989.
`Q.
`Okay.
`In your report you talk about
`your work with the Raytheon Company from 1981
`through 1991 on page 6.
`A.
`That's correct.
`
`wemosmWehtBADOR
`heROMORObReRetReORERPbeReoefetbefeWoeMeOWOeAmUmWwmHoO
`woo4]OHOnostoBD
`momNMNRRebreotPetReReoeWeroewamnoewhe
`
`BMRSmme
`
`1 in the deposition of
`beginning of the tape No.
`William Michalson in the matter of Visteon v.
`Garmin. Case Number is 2:10-CV-1058-PDB-MAR.
`Today's date is November the 9th, 2012.
`The time
`is 8:37 a.m.
`.
`I'm the
`My name is Jim Ross.
`videographer. The court reporter is Naola Vaughn.
`We're with Huseby Court Reporting.
`Counsel, will you please introduce
`yourselves, after which the court reporter will
`swear the witness.
`
`whNNM&MeHReRPPReeeeeObOMSSeteweommmwwme© .
`
`Dr. Michalson, do you recognize
`Michalson Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 27
`
`‘Exhibit 1 is my expert report and
`A.
`Exhibit 2 are exhibits to that report.
`Q.
`And if you turn to the last page of
`Exhibit 1, can you please confirm that that is
`your signature?
`A,
`Yes, it is.
`(Exhibit 3 marked.)
`BY MR, MALIK: Okay. And let me also
`Q.
`go ahead and hand you Michalson Exhibit 3.
`Have you seen Michaison Exhibit 3
`
`before?
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`It's mostly for reference
`
`While with Raytheon -- and it said
`Q.
`that on page 7 that you held several engineering
`positions at Raytheon Company.
`Can you describe to me what those
`
`4
`
`

`

`building systems to integrate their sound system
`with vehicle navigation system.
`So for a couple
`of years I got financing fram Bose to develop some
`prototypes of a system that is very similar to
`what we see today, We had the Navitech map
`database. We would get GPS-based positions. We'd
`put the vehicle on the map. We'd, you know, do
`the turn-by-turn directions, and, you know, we
`were developing systems that were focused exactly
`on that sort of application.
`Q.
`At the time you weren't employed by
`Bose, were you?
`I was
`A.
`I was not employed by Bose.
`employed by Worcester Polytechnic Institute, but
`we had some graduate and undergraduate research
`that was working on those areas.
`Q.
`Bnd they financed those areas?
`A.
`‘They financed some of my work in that
`area, yes.
`
`that point in time I had a lot of financing also
`
`Page 12
`
`subsequent to Raytheon.
`With the Bose system at that point in
`time, that was very early ‘90s, the writing was on
`the wall that vehicle navigation systems would
`start getting incorporated into automobiles.
`Bose had tremendous interest in
`
`Page 13
`Okay. Was -- and you said the Bose
`Q.
`system was never commercialized, correct?
`A.
`I don't know what they ended up doing
`with it.
`I know that we worked with them for a
`
`couple of years. We had some prototype
`demonstrations, and Bose then took the results of
`our work, and I don't know where it might have
`ended up.
`It may have ended up in some other OEM
`equipment, or it may have ended up biasing other
`system requirements that they passed on to others.
`Q.
`With respect to your work in Bose
`during that two-year period -- and this was 1991,
`*92?
`
`Probably starting around late ‘92 on
`A.
`up to probably about
`'94,
`'95.
`Q.
`What percentage of your time was
`dedicated to working on the Bose project?
`A.
`Boy, difficult to answer.
`I would say
`probably the Bose project was probably about I0 or
`15 percent of my time.
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`I had other related projects through
`that time period that, you know, would have been
`consuming same of my time.
`I had a iot of -- at
`
`woesmWomeWBob
`RMMRROeeeeeeoeoeopeobnmeweMRPSSewwmesOooeweAOke
`wownmoe&BhRe
`LaemareMeeoOtpeonnmweeeoS
`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg5of117 Pg1D12203
`
`wweDUmeFFbebe
`NMMNNMReReEeBeoeeHReUtWwNYPewOwmokwweeGS
`wenatmWe&NDRE
`NMNMRhRORORFbRRRPPeRoEomWMeSwoAmewhSe
`
`Paze 10
`engineering positions were and the kind of work
`that you were involved with?
`A
`Sure. Sure.
`J started working with
`the computer and displays laboratory, That
`computer displays laboratory was part of equipment
`division, and we did a let of work for, really,
`all of the departments in -- within the domain of
`equipment division.
`So I did work with communication
`
`I did work with navigation and tracking
`systems.
`systems, things like redesigns of Patriot missile
`system guidance computer, Trident missile system
`quidance computer, air traffic control systems,
`primarily for military applications, but also some
`of the computer and display systems for the
`inflight air traffic control, the major -- the
`hubs that interconnect major hubs.
`Computer design for same space-based
`missile defense systems for tracking and
`predicting points of impact for incoming ballistic
`missiles, and a variety of commmnication systems,
`Milstar Satellite System, which was a tri-service
`communication system. Track 170 triple scatter
`radio. Did some work with that system.
`‘That's a
`terrestrial-based system that's used largely by
`
`Page 11
`
`the Army.
`Did you ever do any work with
`0.
`developing any consumer GPS devices or were they
`all military applications?
`A.
`‘When we're dealing with the consumer
`GPS, I did a lot of work with consumer GPS
`systems. Not anything that was productized at the
`time, but I had built a differential GPS system
`for the Department of Forestry. Built a GPS-based
`collision avoidance system for Providence and
`Worcester Railroad.
`
`Did some in-vehicle navigation system
`work for Bose Corporation.
`So definitely a number of commercial
`applications.
`Q.
`But anything directed to ordinary
`consumer kind of GPS device that I would buy at
`Bast Buy?
`A
`
`The Bose work wold have been directed
`
`at an in-vehicle navigation system.
`0.
`Okay. With regard to the Bose work,
`can you just expand on that a little bit? What
`were you asked to do with Bose, and was this with
`Raytheon?
`A.
`
`That was not with Raytheon, That was
`
`5
`
`

`

`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg6of117 PgID12204
`
`wooaHmWe&bhrR
`RMNMNMNMNReeRRReReRRRPOmeWwMeoSwDOmOeweNEoS
`wowonHmUWSeWwhe
`eePOoOWONAOewBEoS
`
`Page 14
`from the Federal Aviation Administration for -- at
`
`that point, GPS was not yet qualified for use in
`what we called sole means navigation systems. And
`there was a process of trying to determine what
`the right kind of testing to do on GPS
`navigation -- GPS§-based navigation systems for
`commercial aircraft -- what the regulations should
`be.
`
`So we were in -- we, WPI, and my lab
`in particular, had a number of contracts with FAA
`in which we were involved with that standards
`
`process. We were involved with testing and
`evaluating algorithms and things of that nature.
`a.
`Have yon ever worked for a company
`that develops consumer PNDs like Garmin, Magellon,
`TomTom?
`A.
`
`I've been involved with some -~ with a
`
`startup that was a -- it was not a commercially
`successful startup, but, you know, we were -- we
`were developing a PND-~like product, and I had
`prototyped that PND-like product.
`0.
`ALL of the discussion that we've had
`so far has mostly been about your development
`projects from an engineering perspective.
`Have you ever worked directly with GPS
`
`Page 15
`
`consumers in a marketing role?
`A,
`In a marketing role, no.
`Q.
`Okay.
`On page 9 of your report, you
`provide your definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`A.
`‘That's correct.
`
`Q.
`A,
`
`Do you meet that definition?
`Yes.
`
`Okay. Have you had a chance to review
`Q.
`the qualifications of Dr. Anatole Lokshin?
`A.
`It’s been a while since I reviewed his
`But I have reviewed his CV.
`
`Cv.
`
`As you sit here today, is there any —-
`Q.
`do you have any reason to doubt that Dr. Lokshin
`would not be a person of ordinary skill in the
`art?
`
`Under Consulting Experiences, Law
`Related, 1.4.1, let me know when you're there.
`A,
`Yeah,
`
`wenaonotinmetwBmee
`rmwehwwmNMRORReReRPeSReReeSoeoeaae
`wooOsnOHUFomtehmFe
`MMHRPRPPeePePoUoOnAnO®weeoS
`
`
`
`Q.
`Okay. Or consulted with?
`A.-His CV suggests that he should be.
`RA.
`Yes. Consulted with.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Look at the exhibits to your
`report, Exhibit 2 -- I believe it's probably
`buried under here. Let's turn to page 3 of 31,
`Exhibit A.
`
`In your representation of Garmin, were
`you always the validity expert or have you ever
`served as their infringement expert?
`A.
`‘Depending on the case, I have worked
`with Garmin on both — on the validity side and
`the infringement side.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's start with in the cases
`where you were a consultant for Garmin on the --
`when Garmin was a defendant.
`
`I'll accept seven.
`
`Page 16
`expert in a number of cases over the past few
`years.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`I noticed that Garmin
`Okay.
`Q.
`International happens to be -- well, happens to be
`named in a number of these cases.
`
`In those cases did you offer an
`opinion on validity or infringement or both?
`A.
`It depends on the particular case.
`Sometimes one or the other or both.
`0.
`Okay.
`In the instance when Garmin was
`a defendant, did you offer -- ever offer an
`opinion in any expert report that the patents were
`valid?
`
`No.
`
`Okay.
`
`In the instance where Garmin
`
`Page 17
`
`was a defendant and you were an infringement
`report, did you ever offer an opinion that the
`patents were infringed?
`A.
`No.
`
`In the instance where you are a
`Okay.
`consultant for Garmin and Garmin was a plaintiff,
`did you ever offer an opinion that the patents
`were invalid? In other words, Garmin's patents
`were invalid?
`A.
`‘The case in which Garmin was a -- was
`
`the plaintiff was a declaratory judgment case.
`it was not a Garmin patent that was at issue.
`Q.
`Okay. Okay. And that's the only time
`that you've been a -- you've represented Garmin as
`a plaintiff?
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`$0
`
`Now, by my count, I see that you
`Q.
`represent -- well, you consulted for Garmin eight
`times.
`It’s one,
`two, three, four -- there may be
`more because sometimesthe ITC cases don't state
`Garmin, but...
`A.
`I count seven total.
`
`0,
`
`I see that you've testified as an
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`6
`
`

`

`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg 7 of 117
`
`Pg ID 12205
`
`Let's turn to Exhibit B on Michalson
`Q.
`Exhibit 2. What is the purpose of Exhibit 3 in
`your opinion?
`MR. BURESH:
`
`Objection, vague.
`Okay. Why did you
`
`BY MR. MALIK:
`a.
`include Exhibit 8?
`
`I think in the last case I was asked
`recently.
`that question, it was somewhere around $400,000.
`Q.
`Okay. What is your current salary?
`A.
`My current salary comes from both my
`consulting company and the university. Last year
`it was, I think, just a little bit shy of
`$600,000.
`How much does the university pay you?
`Q.
`It varies depending on what sponsored
`A.
`research I have, but currently it's around
`$125,000.
`Q.
`consulting?
`A.
`
`In rendering the opinion that is
`
`woosDBWmBDOe
`NNMOMNMweRRRReRReeePppeWomGRGoipmeamAewmwGe
`wedDOwewhoe
`LeeeeeWkWheOoweOwmHom&BeGS
`
`Page 18
`Over the years, how much money have
`you made consulting for Garmin?
`A.
`I haven't -- I haven't calculated it
`
`And the rest comes from your
`
`Correct.
`
`And of your consulting, how much of
`Q.
`that portion is related to your law -- law-related
`consulting?
`I would say probably about 70 or 80 is
`A.
`law-related consulting.
`Q.
`Okay.
`In the cases where you —-
`obviously there's other cases on 3 of 31 through 7
`of 31.
`
`Page 19
`I'm not going to ask any specifics,
`but obviously you represent other folks other than
`Garmin, correct?
`A,
`Correct.
`
`In those cases, did you represent
`Q.
`those other folks as -- when those parties were
`defendants or plaintiffs or both?
`'
`A
`A Little bit of both.
`
`‘In the cases where you
`Okay.
`0.
`represented those other folks,
`those other
`companies as a consultant and the company was a
`defendant, did you ever opine that the patents
`were valid?
`
`‘By the time they got to the point
`A.
`wheze -- you know, that we were litigating
`patents, the patents that were being litigated, I
`did not believe were valid.
`
`In the cases where those other folks
`Q.
`were plaintiffs and you were a validity expert,
`did you ever offer an opinion that the patents
`were invalid?
`
`I haven't provided an -- I've never
`A.
`provided an opinion on a patent that I -- well,
`how do I say this?
`Tf I think a patent is valid, I've
`
`woosOFUFmeWwBRRS
`MMNMNMRMRRRRRemeoeReLYOakWNSteweaminkeweBeeOo
`womenDwIne&HNRe
`NNWNMNMNRRRPRPBPPPBePeeEeMobWwMPOwmAmHmewe&
`
`.
`.
`.
`oo
`never said it's invalid and vice versa.
`
`Page 20
`
`Do you currently have a
`Okay.
`a.
`retainer with Garmin?
`A,
`I'm retained for this case and for the
`other cases that are mentioned here.
`
`0.
`Garmin?
`A.
`
`De you have a standing retainer with
`
`No.
`
`Exhibit B is a list of hopefully all
`A.
`of the materials that I reviewed in connection
`
`with this report.
`Q.
`Okay. Can you please confirm for me
`after reviewing Exhibit B that Exhibit B makes no
`reference to the Nuvi 3750?
`A.
`I don’t see a reference here to the
`
`3750.
`
`Could you please confirm for me that
`Q.
`Exhibit B, in fact, makes no reference to any
`Garmin product that is accused in this litigation?
`
`Page 21
`
`That appears to be correct.
`Okay.
`Thank you.
`‘Why don't we go back to Michalson
`Exhibit 1. And let me direct your attention to
`page 10. At the -- on page 10 of the Section D,
`Legal Standards, at the very end it says, last
`sentence, "Second,
`the construed claims are then
`compared to the prior art to determine whether the
`prior art anticipates or renders obvious the
`construed claims,”
`
`A.
`
`Bo you see that?
`No. Not yet.
`oh.
`
`Oh, okay.
`Yeah,
`Yes.
`
`What did you mean by that statement?
`.
`What I mean by that is if there is a
`A.
`claim construction, which there is, that you need
`to do an analysis relative to that claim
`construction.
`
`Okay. And is that -- and in
`Q.
`performing your analysis, that's how you -- well,
`strike that.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Page 24
`of just general -- obviousness in general would be
`that, if you're going to try to develop a product,
`you're going to have some kind of specification
`for that product that you -+ that you want to
`witimately develop.
`And, you know, those things that are
`obvious are going to be those things that informed
`by your general knowledge of the problem domain
`and the art that's in that domain, kind of that
`universe of things that forms your toolbox for
`solving that problem; that, you know, if I'm -- if
`I need to build a computer system,
`then it's
`obvious that I would need a display and a monitor.
`You know, a display, some kind of memory storage,
`some kind of keyboard entry, things of that
`nature.
`
`is that consistent
`
`wasmMwetbhwFe
`hOBRMRDOBSBRRebetORPeoeReoRmm&wNwFEOStowmKH)mHOeheOe
`wmAoewme
`MmmMNRRReReReeeRRooUOFwSPSipeIHRhewweOo
`
`I quess what I'm trying to understand
`Q.
`is in your report you talk about how certain of
`the asserted patents are obvious.
`A.
`Correct.
`
`What I'm trying to understandis are
`Q.
`you articulating an obvious rationale or an
`obvious to try rationale?
`A.
`I think we'd need to look at
`
`individual examples. And I would try to help you
`
`Page 25
`know where my head was coming from at that -- on
`those examples.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's look at page 14, your
`understanding of written description enablement
`and best mode.
`It's Section 4 on page 14.
`A.
`Yes.
`
`Just right off the bat, I reviewed
`Q.
`your report, and I couldn't see any invalidity
`position based on best mode.
`Is that correct?
`
`with your understanding?
`A.
`I would want to look through it.
`can't recali one right at the moment.
`Q.
`Okay. With respect to written
`description and enablement, do you understand that
`written description and enablement are two
`separate inquiries?
`A.
`Yes.
`
`I
`
`Q. What's your understanding of the
`difference between the two?
`
`A. Well, written description is more of a
`situation where does the -- does the patent
`demonstrate to one of skill in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession of the idea being
`patented, did they disclose it in such a way that
`
`Page 23
`
`it would not be anticipated.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's turn to your
`understanding of obviousness, which is described
`on pages 11, 12 and -- through 14, I believe.
`Do you understand that there's --
`wait. Have you ever heard the term "obviousness"
`and obviousness -- “obvious to try"?
`A.
`Yes.
`
`Bo you have any widerstanding of the
`Q.
`difference between the two?
`
`Well, obvious to try would be
`A.
`something that one of skill in the art, based on
`their background, would reasonably -- would be --
`if for somebody -- for somebody of skill in the
`art, that it would be a -- the kind of thing that
`that person might have a reasonable expectation
`might work, and, therefore, it would be reasonable
`to try that combination.
`Q.
`And do you have any understanding how
`that is different from obviousness?
`
`I think that at least -- well, let me
`A,
`see if I cover that in more detail in my -- in my
`report here.
`a.
`A.
`
`Please. Take your time.
`Yeah, I guess the -- my interpretation
`
`2:10-cv-10578-PDB-DRG Doc#170-7 Filed 12/21/12 Pg 8of1i17
`
`Pg ID 12206
`
`Page 22
`represented in Michalson Exhibit 1, you compared
`the prior art to the construed claims?
`A,
`I --
`
`Q.
`construed?
`A.
`
`In the event the claims were
`
`Yeah.
`
`In the event -- for those claim
`
`terms that we had constructions by the court for,
`I applied those constructions in interpreting the
`claim language.
`Q.
`Okay. And also for the purpose of
`determining whether the prior art anticipates or
`renders obvious the construed claims?
`A.
`‘That's correct.
`
`I know you provide your
`Okay.
`Q.
`understanding of anticipation under D.1. There it
`says,
`"A claim is anticipated for either prior art
`if each and every
`limitation of the claim is
`
`disclosed in a Lingle item of prior art."
`
`What do you mean by that?
`That for anticipation, all -- every
`A.
`element has to be present in a single piece of art
`or in a single system.
`Q.
`If an element is missing, is the claim
`anticipated?
`A.
`
`Tf an element is missing, it would —
`
`wonmMOe&hboF
`MRMNONORRRRRRtORORRebYobWeOMEoewmine&NH
`woo4)ONLmdeNDoF
`hmMhMRRRPRPRPeRoPohPeowPatnokeeS
`
`8
`
`