Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`February 22, 2018
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________________
` FEDEX CORPORATION,
` Petitioner
` v.
` INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
` Patent owner
` ________________________________
` CASE IPR 2017-00729
` Patent No. 8,494,581
` ________________________________
`
` EXAMINATION of JACOB SHARONY
` _______________________________
` TAKEN ON
` THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2018
`
` REPORTED BY:
`JESSIE WAACK, RDR, CRR, CCRR, CCR, NYACR, NYRCR
`JOB NO.: 42931
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________________
` FEDEX CORPORATION,
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
` Patent owner
` ________________________________
` CASE IPR 2017-00729
` Patent No. 8,494,581
` ________________________________
`
` EXAMINATION of JACOB SHARONY,
` taken before JESSICA R. WAACK, Certified
` Realtime Reporter, Registered Diplomate
` Reporter, California Certified Realtime
` Reporter, Certified Court Reporter in New
` Jersey, New York Association Certified
` Reporter, New York Realtime Court Reporter
` and Notary Public of the State of New
` York, at Desmarais, LLP, 230 Park Avenue,
` New York, New York, on Thursday,
` February 22, 2018, commencing at 9:04 a.m.
` and concluding at 3:18 p.m.
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
` & DUNNER, LLP
` BY: ALEXANDER M. BOYER, ESQ.
` BY: DANIEL C. TUCKER, ESQ.
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
` PHONE: 571-203-2700
` EMAIL: Alexander.boyer@finnegan.com
` EMAIL: Daniel.tucker@finnegan.com.
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` DESMARAIS, LLP
` BY: KEVIN K. MCNISH, ESQ.
` BY: KYLE PETRIE, ESQ.
` 230 Park Avenue
` New York, New York 10169
` PHONE: 212-351-3401
` EMAIL: Kmcnish@dllp.com
` EMAIL: Kpetrie@dllp.com
` A L S O P R E S E N T
` TIM SEELEY, chief counsel Intellectual
` Ventures
` --o0o--
`
`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
`
`February 22, 2018
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`4
`
` INDEX TO EXAMINATION
` WITNESS: JACOB SHARONY
` EXAMINATION PAGE
` BY MR. BOYER 6
`
` -o0o-
` INFORMATION REQUESTED
` None
`
` WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
` None
`
` NOTE: No new exhibits were marked during
` the deposition.
`
`5
` INDEX TO PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
` WITNESS: JACOB SHARONY
` Thursday, February 22, 2018
` MARKED DESCRIPTION PAGE
` Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7
` No. 8,494,581 to Barbosa
` Exhibit 1002 U.S. Patent 7
` No. 6,971,063 to
` Rappaport
` Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent 185
` No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme
` Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 196
` No. 5,857,201 to Wright,
` Jr.
` Exhibit 2008 Second declaration of 8
` Jacob Sharony
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`February 22, 2018
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`8
`
`6
`
` February 22, 2018 9:04 a.m.
` J A C O B S H A R O N Y
` called as a witness herein,
` having been first duly sworn on
` oath, was examined and testified
` as follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Sharony.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Thank you for being here.
` Can you please state your full
` name for the record.
` A. Jacob Sharony.
` Q. And you understand you are under
` oath today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Great. Is there any reason why
` you can't give full and truthful testimony
` today?
` A. No.
` Q. What did you do to prepare for
` today's deposition?
` A. I read my declarations. I went
` over the patents and cited information in
`
`7
`
` the declarations.
` Q. Did you speak with anyone?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Who -- whom did you speak with?
` A. Counsel.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. I'm just going to get
` some formalities out of the way. I'm
` going to hand you some exhibits. The
` first exhibit I'll be handing you is
` marked Exhibit 1001 of this proceeding.
` It's U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 to Barbosa.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this reference?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And just for clarity, if I refer
` to this as the '581 patent, you'll
` understand that I'm referring to
` Exhibit 1001?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay. Next I'm handing you what
` is marked FedEx Exhibit 1002 in this
` proceeding which is U.S. Patent
` No. 6,971,063 to Rappaport.
`
`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
`
`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. Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And, again, for clarity, if I
` refer to this document as "Rappaport" or
` the "Rappaport reference," you'll
` understand that I'm referring to
` Exhibit 1002?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Great. Moving on. Third
` document I'm going to hand you is the
` second declaration of Jacob Sharony,
` Exhibit 2008 in this proceeding.
` A. Great.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this, for the record, is the
` second declaration that you submitted in
` this -- in this proceeding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this accompanied Patent
` Owners' response, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you draft this declaration?
` A. Yes, I do -- yes, I did.
`
`9
`
` Working together with counsel.
` Q. Okay. And, again, for clarity,
` if I refer to this as "your declaration,"
` you understand that I'm referring to
` Exhibit No. 2008, your second declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Great. I want to first turn to
` the Rappaport reference, Exhibit 1002 if
` we could.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is it true that Rappaport
` discloses a portable handheld computer?
` A. Rappaport mentions a handheld
` computer.
` Q. Do you believe that the
` Rappaport reference and the portable
` handheld computer reference by the
` Rappaport reference is limited to a
` Palm IIIc device?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: He certainly
` refers to the Palm IIIc device. He
` refers to it. Maybe you want to
` clarify your question.
` ///
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`10
`
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Sure, I'll clarify. I'll agree
` with you that Rappaport references a
` Palm IIIc device as an embodiment.
` My question to you is: Do you
` believe that the portable handheld
` computer of Rappaport is limited to the
` Palm IIIc device?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: So -- so the
` Rappaport patent '063 lists among
` several figures and refers to portable
` handheld computer.
` And in -- in Column 6, it
` mentions, "The Palm IIIc is -- is an
` exemplary embodiment. Runs only
` handheld C and the current embodiment
` uses part of IIIc."
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Okay. In that same area,
` Column 6 of the Rappaport reference,
` lines 31 through 33, after the sentence
` you just read, Rappaport continues by
` stating, "One skilled in the art will see
` that many other portable handheld
`
`11
`
` computers could be used as hardware
` platforms while staying within the spirit
` of the present invention."
` Do you see that?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So do you believe that the
` portable handheld computer could be
` something other than a Palm IIIc?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Rappaport said
` that in the patent.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. So it's a "Yes"?
` A. It says, "could be used as a
` hardware platform while staying within the
` spirit of the present invention."
` So -- so Rappaport basically
` gives this as an example, and he mentions
` that other -- around 2000, that other
` handheld could be used.
` Q. So he contemplates other devices
` other than the Palm IIIc device as falling
` within the meaning of portable handheld
` computer, correct?
` A. Yes. Because at this time,
`
`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
`
`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
`
`February 22, 2018
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`12
` there were several handheld computers.
` Q. Is the Rappaport reference
` limited only to those handheld devices
` that existed at the time of his invention?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Handheld computer
` is a computer with -- with display and
` possibly keyboard. So it has to be a
` computer; not just a handheld device.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. It's a computing device.
` Q. So is a portable handheld
` computer a handheld device?
` A. You just said "handheld." So if
` you said "handheld," it's handheld.
` Q. Okay. So it's, "yes, a portable
` handheld computer could be a handheld" --
` A. Yes --
` Q. -- "device"?
` A. -- yes.
` Q. Okay. The next sentence after
` what I just read to you in Column 6
` starting on lines 33, Rappaport also
` mentions additional examples that could be
`
`13
`
` "potential hardware platforms including
` cellular phones, other PDAs, other running
` Palm OS operating system from Palm
` computing, pocket PCs and in some cases
` larger pen tablet computers."
` Do you see that?
` A. I see that.
` Q. So Rappaport contemplates
` multiple devices falling within the
` meaning of portable handheld computer?
` Would you say that's accurate?
` A. He does, yes.
` Q. Would a modern day cell phone
` such as an iPhone fall within the meaning
` of the portable handheld computer?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` Objection to scope. Objection to
` relevance.
` THE WITNESS: I read the -- the
` patent, and I'm in year 2000, so.
` Year 2000, there was no such devices.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. So is it your opinion that a
` patent claim is limited only to the
` embodiments that are explicitly disclosed
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`February 22, 2018
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`16
`
`14
`
` in the disclosure?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` Objection to scope. Objection to
` relevance.
` THE WITNESS: I didn't say that.
` I said that Rappaport refers to
` handheld devices. It gives an example
` for one of the embodiments for the
` Palm IIIc. He mentions others. So
` handheld devices evolve over the --
` over time.
` But Rappaport mention, you know,
` several handheld devices with
` similarly operating systems is
` disclosed in Column -- Column 6.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. So those handheld devices you
` mentioned that evolve over time that may
` have come out after Rappaport's disclosure
` could potentially fall within the meaning
` of a portable handheld computer? Would
` you say that's correct?
` A. Possible.
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` Objection to scope. Objection to
`
`15
`
` relevance.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. What about devices, handheld
` devices that included integrated wireless
` capability?
` I'll rephrase.
` Could a handheld device with
` wireless capability be a portable handheld
` computer as envisioned by the Rappaport
` reference?
` A. Handheld device with integrated
` wireless? As long as it is a computing
` device, meaning we can think of devices
` that are not computers, and so it has to
` be a portable handheld computing device.
` Q. So you would agree that a
` portable handheld computer could include
` an integrated wireless transmitter?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, it could.
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: It could. Not
` necessarily, right.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. So I would like to turn to your
`
`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
`
`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
`
` declaration if we could. It's
` Exhibit 2008 of this proceeding, and
` specifically page 22. If you could turn
` to that page. It's under the section
` labeled "10, Opinions About Rappaport"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So specifically paragraph 52,
` you list four embodiments of Rappaport; is
` that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Also in figure -- excuse me,
` paragraph 52, you say the first embodiment
` -- or, "One embodiment includes a portable
` handheld computer as depicted in Figure 1
` which includes a display, user interface
` buttons and a serial port for
` communications"; is that correct?
` A. Figure 1, yes. Yes.
` Q. You go on to say that there's a
` second embodiment in Rappaport, which is
` depicted in Figure 3, "includes a portable
` computer on a cradle and a server computer
` where the cradle is connected via wire or
` serial port to a server computer for
` exchanging data."
`
`17
`
` Do you see that?
` A. I see that.
` Q. You go on to list a third
` embodiment which is depicted -- you say is
` depicted in Figure 9, "includes a portable
` handheld computer operating remotely and
` communicating with a server computer
` through an interface box."
` Do you also see that?
` A. Yes, Figure 9.
` Q. And then you say, "And the
` fourth embodiment" -- sorry. "And the
` fourth embodiment is depicted in Figure 10
` which includes a portable handheld
` computer connected via wire with a
` measurement tool."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you -- is it your opinion
` that Rappaport is limited to only these
` four embodiments?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Rappaport
` mentioned these embodiments, so these
` are the embodiments that he mentions.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`February 22, 2018
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`20
`
`18
`
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. I'll grant you that he is --
` these are embodiments that he mentions.
` My question is: Is it your opinion that
` Rappaport only lists four embodiments as
` you described them here?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Rappaport says on
` Column 5 that these are the "preferred
` embodiments of the invention."
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Which column?
` A. 5. After brief description of
` the drawing, he clearly says that these
` are the "preferred embodiments."
` Q. If you move over to Column 6,
` Rappaport also mentions cellular phones,
` correct, as an embodiment? Specifically
` line 35 of Column 6.
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: He mentions that
` part. At that time, especially in the
` year 2000, I mean, there was no --
` any -- I just don't see how a cellular
` phone can do what Rappaport is
`
`19
`
` contemplating in this invention.
` I did myself what is disclosed
` here. I -- I basically design
` network. I went through close to a
` million square feet, and I -- I still
` don't see how any -- how can I do it
` with a cellular phone.
` And he mentions cellular phone
` in 2000, so he mentions, but it's not
` clear to me how this can be done with
` a cell phone. With a very small
` display, just -- I'm saying from a
` practical point of view, I did -- I
` did lots of site survey. You need a
` large display.
` Cell phone in 2000 didn't have
` large display. And also today,
` it's -- it's fairly limited.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Displays today, you said, are
` limited?
` A. They are relatively small.
` Q. What about an iPad? Is that a
` limited display?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` Objection to scope. Objection to
` relevance.
` THE WITNESS: It depends so much
` on the area that you want to serve.
` If it's just one room, maybe you can
` get by. But if it's basically a very
` large, you know, multistory building,
` you -- you need a larger display,
` larger -- you know, more capable
` device.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Can you turn to Column 10 in the
` Rappaport reference?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So line 4, Rappaport discloses a
` method of drawing and storing a floor or a
` floor map using a technique called "double
` buffering."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. And Rappaport goes on to
` describe double buffering as "using a
` small screen to view a portion of a floor
` map keeping other portions off the
` screen"; would you agree with that?
`
`21
`
` A. I see that.
` Q. So would -- go ahead.
` So using this technique of
` double buffering, would screen size affect
` a technician's ability to view a floor map
` in Rappaport's system?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` Objection. Relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, so what you
` are talking about, he refers to
` Figure 5, and he chose how basically
` you zoom select a portion of the
` display, and you see it there.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Right. But you said as a
` practical matter, using a device with a
` small screen would limit the ability of a
` person using this system to work on large
` floor maps.
` Is that generally what you said?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And, yet, Rappaport discloses a
` way in which you could view a large floor
` map on a small screen by viewing small
` portions of the floor map shown in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`22
`
` Figure 5, would you agree?
` A. It shows a selection of that --
` that when you do a site survey and you
` have to walk, you know, relatively in a
` steady pace and make lots of turns, it
` would be somewhat inconvenient each time
` to zoom in and zoom out.
` The whole process, I can
` describe the process when you do a site
` survey. Each time you turn, you have to
` click with a mouse exactly where you are.
` And even with a laptop, it's
` a -- it would be hard, you know, to zoom
` in and out, select. You would -- it would
` start to go out of pace.
` And it would be -- it would
` result in inaccurate results. Practically
` speaking about the wireless or RF site
` survey -- but if you want, you can
` basically zoom on a certain section of the
` floor.
` Q. And that's what Rappaport talks
` about here; is zooming in on a certain
` section of the floor?
` A. You could.
`
`23
`
` Q. So while it might be
` inconvenient not to view the entire floor
` map, but it's possible to use this double
` buffering method to view small portions of
` the floor map?
` A. When referring to "RF site
` survey," and this is -- what this
` invention talks about, it's -- in my
` opinion, it will -- to zoom in and out and
` each one -- each time select a different
` portion, and each time you make a turn you
` -- you have to click, it just -- not --
` not the ideal device to do that.
` Q. My question wasn't whether it
` was ideal.
` I want to know whether you could
` use a portable handheld computer with a
` small screen to view a smaller portion of
` an overall floor map to do a site survey
` as described here in Rappaport?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Rappaport mention
` that -- I can tell you that he
` mention -- I did probably over a
` million square feet. And -- and even
`
`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
`
`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
`
`February 22, 2018
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`24
` today technicians when -- or engineers
` when they do it, they take a laptop
` or -- a larger screen.
` It -- it just -- it would take
` more time for the technician to do it,
` because it would be each time -- you
` have the same time to walk at a steady
` pace.
` You have to click each time you
` make a turn or if -- if it's a large
` corridor, you have to basically
` provide where you are. And then each
` time you want to select and zoom, you
` would just miss some points.
` So, in my opinion, it's not a
` great way to do it, but I'm aware that
` he mention that.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. In your example where you were
` working in a floor space I think you said
` it was a million square feet?
` A. No. Accumulated. But we are
` talking about -- think about like the Ford
` Foundation. It's about 14, 12 to 14
` stores -- like 200 by 200 feet, so -- or
`
`25
` some big warehouse. So you are talking
` about multiple hundred thousand square
` feet.
` Q. So if you -- if a technician
` were to use a laptop as you had done in
` the past for that larger space, would you
` be able to view that larger space on a
` laptop?
` A. Much bigger. I'll give -- I'll
` give you another example. We did
` something in a huge warehouse in Texas.
` And so here let's say you walk down the
` corridor, so more or less you see open
` spaces. There it's a floor to ceiling
` metal shelves.
` You will get lost in no time if
` you don't start to get out and zoom on
` just the selected area.
` So it would be very helpful for
` the technician or engineer to see a full
` map so -- so he knows where -- where he
` is, because otherwise he will get lost
` between the shelves and then there is
` another aisle. And then mistakenly he
` would click, you know, on -- on other.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`26
`
` So to say it is impossible, it
` would just result in -- based on my
` practical experience, it would result in
` many errors.
` Q. But Rappaport doesn't place a
` limitation on its screen size, does it?
` It doesn't say what the screen size is
` when it's a portable handheld computer,
` correct?
` A. He mentioned the -- the possible
` handheld computer, and he provides several
` preferred embodiments. And we know the
` size of the Palm IIIc. So it's relatively
` small.
` Q. What about the size -- the
` screen size of a cell -- cellular phone?
` Do we know the size of that?
` MR. MCNISH: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Cellular phone
` have small display.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. What about Rappaport's
` embodiment of the portable handheld
` computer in which he says a larger pen
` tablet could be used? Would that screen
`
`27
`
` be larger than a Palm IIIc screen?
` A. Then it started to be more
` practical.
` Q. So some of Rappaport's
` embodiments have larger screens than
` others?
` A. He mentioned that, yeah. He
` mentioned the tablet computer, yeah.
` Q. So wouldn't the larger screens
` minimize this practical limitation that
` you are talking about?
` A. It would be more convenient to
` conduct a site survey, yeah, larger
` display. Just to avoid getting lost
` between, you know, multiple aisles. And
` each time have you to click, it's just not
` practical.
` Another thing, these operations
` takes a long time, you know. We would
` basically buy, like, multiple batteries
` and each time replace them.
` So it's -- it's fairly involved
` operation, and you don't want to make any
` mistakes, you know. Again, you have to
` click. Each time you turn, you have to
`
`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
`
`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
`
`February 22, 2018
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`28
` walk in a certain pace, because they use
` all kind of molding that basically
` extrapolates between the clicks or -- so.
` Q. So if I could just summarize
` what I think your opinions are. You don't
` believe that Rappaport is limited to the
` four embodiments that you list on pages 22
` and 23 of Exhibit 2008?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: He doesn't limit,
` but these are the preferred
` embodiments that he mentioned and are
` described, and they are in the
` figures.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. But, in your opinion, there are
` other embodiments disclosed in Rappaport
` that aren't captured by the figures that
` you describe here?
` A. He mentioned tablet computer.
` Q. Okay. And it's also your
` opinion that Rappaport discloses portable
` handheld computers with screens of
` different sizes, correct?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection. Form.
`
`29
`
` THE WITNESS: Look, I read the
` Rappaport patent, and he certainly --
` I don't know what went through his
` mind, but he certainly lists preferred
` embodiments and refer to them and
` mainly the Palm IIIc.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Rappaport also discloses other
` embodiments other than the preferred
` embodiment of the Palm IIIc, correct?
` A. Can you show me where?
` Q. We just went through it, but I
` can go through it again. Column 6, lines
` 27 through at least 40. He references
` "cell phones, other PDAs, pocket PCs,
` larger pen tablet computers."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. So I'll ask you again.
` Rappaport also discloses other embodiments
` other than the preferred embodiment of the
` Palm IIIc, correct?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: As long as it's
` portable handheld computer, it could
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`

`

`Sharony, Jacob
`
`CASE IPR 2017-00729
`
`February 22, 2018
`9 (Pages 30 to 33)
`32
`
`30
`
` be in any shape. So it chooses it.
` And then he says -- yes, he mentions
` "cellular phones, PDAs" -- yeah,
` "PDAs, Window CE, in some cases larger
` pen tablets, computers running in the
` operation."
` Yes, he mention cell phone,
` PDAs, and tablets.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. And some of those embodiments,
` particularly -- particularly the cell
` phone embodiment, would include or could
` include integrated wireless capability,
` correct?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, "cell phone"
` by definition is a wireless
` capability.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. So "Yes"?
` A. If he refers to cellular phone
` as we knew them in 2000, they are wireless
` capability.
` Q. So I'll ask you again. Just
` looking for a yes or no.
`
`31
`
` Some of those embodiments that
` are listed in Rappaport, particularly the
` cell phone embodiment, could that include
` integrated wireless capability, in your
` opinion?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: It's possible, but
` not necessarily. In fact, he
` basically -- in Figure 9, he basically
` connect an interface -- interface box,
` which provide wireless capability.
` So back then, especially the
` Palm IIIc the integrated wireless
` capability. So he connects interface
` box 104 in Figure 9 to provide the
` wireless capability.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. You're looking at Figure 9 you
` said?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. And Item 104?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Would a cell phone portable
` handheld computer need to attach Item 104
` to provide it with wireless capability?
`
`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
`
`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
`
` MR. MCNISH: Objection. Form.
` Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: So Figure 9
` basically has to communicate with a
` remote server. He doesn't have the
` wireless capability. That's why they
` provide the interface box.
` If you have a device, like a
` cell phone that is capable to
` communicate data, so you don't have to
` attach to it.
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Right. And you understand that
` an invention may be shown in figures in a
` patent or patent application, but those
` figures don't necessarily limit the scope
` of claims in that patent or patent
` application; would you agree with that?
` A. These are preferred embodiment,
` so.
` Q. So the figures wouldn't
` necessarily limit the disclosure of a
` patent; is that correct?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` Relevance.
`
`33
`
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. I'll ask again.
` So the figures of a patent don't
` necessarily limit the disclosure of a
` patent; is that correct?
` MR. MCNISH: Objection to form.
` Objection to relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Limit in what way?
` I mean, we cannot depart from, you
` know, what is disclosed in the
` specification and put something that
` is not, you know --
` BY MR. BOYER:
` Q. Right. So I'm talking about the
` scope of a patent, and I'm asking you
` about the figures that may be provided
` that show one or two embodiments in the
` pat