UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`FACEBOOK INC., INSTAGRAM LLC,
`and WHATSAPP INC.,
` Petitioners,
`
`v. U.S. Patent No: 9,349,120 B2
` Issue Date: May 24, 2016
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
` Patent Owner.
`_________________________________/
`
` DEPOSITION OF SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, Ph.D.
` FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2019
` REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA
`
` Job #:173220
` DEBORAH MAYER, CSR 9654, RPR CRR CRP CLR
` TSG REPORTING INC. - NEW YORK, NEW YORK
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR PETITIONERS FACEBOOK INC., INSTAGRAM LLC, and
`WHATSAPP INC.:
`
` COOLEY
` BY: ANDREW MACE, ESQ.
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER BLACKBERRY LIMITED:
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
` BY: SEAN GLOTH, ESQ.
` 1300 I Street Northwest
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`///
`
`Page 5
`
`(Friday, 12-6-2019, 9:03 a.m. - 12:14 p.m.)
`(Witness sworn.)
` SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, Ph.D.,
` Having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` * * * * *
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. GLOTH:
` Q. So Dr. Chatterjee, you've been deposed before,
`right?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. How many times?
` A. I think probably like 50, 55 times.
` Q. 55; and you've been deposed in IPRs concerning
`Facebook and Blackberry before, right?
` A. Yes, one.
` Q. Just one?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. We'll keep the ground rules short since you've
`done this 55 times. You understand that you're under
`oath as if you were testifying in front of the Board,
`right?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there any reason you can't provide truthful
`and accurate testimony today?
` A. Not that I can think of.
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Page 2
` BE IT REMEMBERED, pursuant to the laws
`governing the taking and use of depositions, that on
`Friday, December 6, 2019, 9:03 a.m. - 12:14 p.m., at
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor, Redwood Shores CA,
`before me, Deborah Mayer, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
`for the State of California, there personally appeared:
`
`6
`
`789
`
`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
`
` SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, Ph.D.,
`
`called as a witness by the Patent Owner, who, being by
`me first duly sworn/affirmed, was thereupon examined and
`testified as hereinafter set forth.
`
`///
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
`Witness: Page
`SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, Ph.D.
` EXAMINATION BY MR. GLOTH 5
`
` S T I P U L A T I O N
` Page Line
`Dr. Chatterjee will review and sign the 83 13
`transcript. Thanks.
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (No new exhibits were introduced.)
`
`///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`
`6789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`Page 6
` Q. And the court reporter is taking down the
`transcript, so we can't interrupt each other.
` A. Sure.
` Q. And you have to answer verbally; no head nods
`and all that.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So I'll try to give you a break
`regularly, like about every hour. If you need a break,
`let me know, we'll take one, but I ask that you answer
`pending questions before the break; is that fair?
` A. Sure.
` Q. All right. If I ask you a question you don't
`understand, just ask me for clarification; I'll try to
`clean it up.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And Andrew might make some objections today,
`but unless he directs you specifically not to answer on
`the basis of privilege, you're supposed to answer the
`question. Right?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Let's take a look at Petitioner's Exhibit 1002.
`This is a copy of your Expert Declaration in this case,
`isn't it?
` A. It looks like it.
` Q. If you go to the end, page 131, do you see your
`
`Page 8
`
` A. I did.
` Q. The entire thing?
` A. Well, there was feedback, like typos and things
`like that. There was feedback, so I'm not sure what you
`mean by the "entire thing."
` Q. Did you type every word of this Declaration?
` A. I'm not sure if I typed every word, but every
`word -- all of the words and opinions therein are my
`opinions.
` Q. How long did it take you to draft this
`Declaration, roughly?
` A. You're referring only to the drafting, not the
`analyses or --
` Q. No, both, analyses and drafting.
` A. And I would include in there reviewing the art
`and the '120 Patent as well.
` Q. Sure.
` A. So I would probably say maybe in the 70 to 100
`ballpark hours; I haven't really noted that down, but I
`would estimate that to be about accurate.
` Q. Okay. And you've done other expert
`declarations before this one, haven't you?
` A. You mean in my career?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes.
`
`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
`
`Page 7
`
`signature on that page?
` A. Oh, 131 of the report?
` Q. Yes.
` A. The page, not the Bates stamp?
` Q. That's correct.
` A. Yes.
` Q. When I talk about the page numbers, I'm just
`going to talk about the report page not the Bates stamp.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So I'll represent to you this is what we
`downloaded from the PTO Website.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So this is what you guys uploaded. All right.
` And on the front, the caption says "IPR" -- the
`caption talks about U.S. Patent 9,349,120; do you see
`that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. So you understand that you're here to
`testify in connection with that Patent, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Sometimes I might refer to this as
`"your report" but I mean your Declaration, so I'll use
`those interchangeably; is that okay?
` A. I may as well, so --
` Q. So who drafted your Declaration?
`
`Page 9
`
` Q. About how many?
` A. You're talking about IPR declarations or any
`kind of declarations?
` Q. Let's talk about any type of declaration.
` A. I couldn't tell you, but probably a reasonably
`large number.
` Q. More than 20?
` A. I would -- I think virtually guarantee more
`than 20.
` Q. More than 60?
` A. Maybe in the 50 to 60 ballpark. Again, this is
`like an approximate guess. I haven't really done any
`analysis on these kind of numbers, but that's probably
`approximately correct.
` Q. Okay, and how many of those, roughly, were IPR
`declarations?
` A. Maybe 70%. Again, this is an approximate --
` Q. Sure.
` A. -- guess that I'm kind of doing on the fly, but
`probably 60 to 70%.
` Q. So is 70 to 100 hours, approximately, the
`normal time you would spend drafting an IPR declaration?
` A. I don't think that there is anything that's
`really normal time. Some cases and some patents are
`simpler, longer, shorter; some patents are like a
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`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 10
`hundred -- like the actual patent is like 100 columns
`long or more. Some of the references can be
`significantly long or short. So I don't think it's
`really typical, but maybe that's like an average
`timeframe.
` Q. Would you say that you put significant effort
`into this Declaration?
` A. I'm not sure what you mean by significant; but
`I think I put in the time that's necessary for me to
`analyze the issues and then to consider them, and to
`thoughtfully put them pen to paper.
` Q. Okay. In your Declaration, do you render an
`opinion as to whether the challenged claims are obvious?
` A. Do I render an opinion?
` Q. Um hum.
` A. Well, I set forth a number of grounds. And if
`I remember correctly and I've not memorized everything,
`I think you pointed to me, like my signature is on page
`131, so it's a pretty long Declaration; I've not
`memorized everything. But there are, if I remember
`correctly, six grounds. And all of them, if I remember
`correctly, are obviousness grounds.
` Q. So is it your opinion that the claims are
`rendered obvious in light of the prior art you cite in
`the Declaration?
`
`Page 12
` that you mention about the third column
` with the claims and the second column with
` the prior art references.
` Q. Right, and now I'm asking a new question which
`is --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- do the middle column heading references
`represent the combinations that correspond to the
`challenged claims in the right-hand column?
` A. Well, I think, to be clear, my analysis as set
`forth in my Declaration, I state that Dallas, in and of
`itself, discloses and renders obvious the challenged
`claims. But in the references cited, I've added
`references such as Brown and Kent in Brown 1, but my
`analysis is pretty clear that Dallas in and of itself
`renders it obvious.
` Q. So is it your opinion that this Expert
`Declaration discloses a ground based on anticipation
`using Dallas?
` A. No, I don't think I said that.
` Q. Okay, let's turn to page 7 of your Declaration,
`and I mean the Declaration page 7. So on page 7, you
`begin a discussion titled "Statement of Legal
`Principles," right?
` A. That is the heading for Section 3 of my
`
`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 11
` A. I think maybe I'm missing something, but yes,
`there are multiple grounds, and there are different
`combinations in those grounds. But yes, the conclusion
`is that, based on my review and analysis of the prior
`art, that the claims, the challenged claims, are
`obvious.
` Q. Is there any paragraph in your Declaration that
`states that Claim 1 is rendered obvious by the prior art
`cited in your Declaration?
` A. Well, again, I haven't memorized everything,
`but I would assume so.
` Q. You can look.
`(Perusing documents.)
` A. For example, paragraph 31, the second sentence.
` Q. Okay, so it's fair to say that it's your
`opinion that the claims in the third column of that
`table are rendered obvious by the combinations of prior
`art cited in the middle column that table references;
`right?
` A. Well, I was actually responding or answering
`your question about any sentence that states this. So
`the sentence right above the table, it states:
` "In my opinion the claims of the '120
` Patent are rendered obvious based on the
` following prior art," and then the table
`
`Page 13
`
`Declaration, yes.
` Q. Okay, and you have a section under it
`describing the legal concept of claim construction,
`right?
` A. Well, I'm not sure it's the legal concept of
`claim construction, but it's a summary of the legal
`principles related to claim construction that are
`relevant to my analysis herein. So I think -- yeah,
`that's -- that's what it is.
` Q. What do you mean by "the legal principles
`related to claim construction"?
` A. I think you stated that this section covers the
`legal concept of claim construction, and I'm not -- and
`so all I'm stating is I'm not sure what the legal
`concepts of claim construction are and whether you mean
`like the history of it, or any other reason.
` I'm just stating that I've summarized here the
`information with regards to claim construction that is
`relevant to my Declaration and my analyses in my
`Declaration. So it's not going to cover like if there
`is a history of it, or how it came about, or things like
`that. But simply what -- with what legal principles
`within claim construction are applicable to my analyses
`in my Declaration.
` Q. So does it cover the legal standard for
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`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 14
`
`claim construction?
` A. As applicable to an IPR, yes.
` Q. It doesn't look like your Declaration has a
`similar section discussing the legal standard for
`obviousness, does it?
` A. No. I think this section, Section 3, only has
`this one subsection which is Subsection A.
` Q. Okay, do you have an understanding of what
`obviousness means?
` A. That to one of ordinary skill, something
`would -- like either one reference on its own, or a
`combination of references, would render the claimed
`invention, as a whole, obvious.
` Q. Okay, so I just want to understand the
`obviousness grounds in your Declaration. So at some
`point you were hired by petitioners for this job, right?
` A. Yeah, I'm not sure the word "hired" has any
`connotation, but yes, I was retained by counsel.
` Q. When you were retained by counsel, did you
`review the '120 Patent?
` A. Are you asking prior to being retained or after
`being retained?
` Q. I just want to know when you reviewed the '120
`Patent; did you do it after you were retained?
` A. I may have reviewed it briefly prior, but I
`
`Page 16
` Q. Is that a complete list of the materials you
`considered?
` A. I think if you look at the sentence right
`before that table, it states:
` "I have cited to the following documents
` in my analysis below."
` And so this is basically stating these are the
`documents that I've cited to, and it's summarizing what
`each of the exhibit numbers are because they're cited by
`exhibit numbers in the actual Declaration. And so it's
`just summarizing the documents that I've cited to.
` Q. So after you were retained for this matter, did
`you come to a complete understanding of what the claimed
`invention is in the '120 Patent?
` A. I'm not sure what you mean by did I come to a
`complete understanding of the claimed invention. I
`reviewed the Patent and I understood the Patent; I
`understood the claims. I'm not sure what you mean by a
`"complete understanding."
` Q. Did you understand the claimed invention?
` A. I did.
` Q. So you'd agree with me that you don't include
`any grounds in your Declaration wherein one reference
`anticipates any of the claims of the '120 Patent; right?
` A. I think you asked me this earlier, and yes, I
`
`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 15
`couldn't tell you off the top of my head if I did or
`not.
` Q. So before petitioners retained you, you
`reviewed this Patent?
` A. Before, for example the engagement agreement
`was entered into; but what I mean is like in conjunction
`with being retained. So I reviewed it to make sure that
`it's in my area of expertise. If somebody gives me like
`a cement-mixing patent, I probably would decline that
`because I don't have much knowledge on how cement is
`mixed.
` Q. Okay, so in connection with discussions about
`taking on this matter, you reviewed the '120 Patent?
` A. Yes, reviewed it, let's say briefly; and then
`after being retained, then I reviewed it in-depth.
` Q. Did you review the prosecution history of
`the '120 Patent?
` A. Again, this is something like six months ago or
`more. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. So I
`can't tell you. But typically, as part of my analysis
`of patents, I do review the file history.
` Q. Okay, could you turn to your Declaration at
`paragraph 11 please. If you look at this table on the
`right, there's an exhibit list; do you see that?
` A. I do.
`
`Page 17
`think all of the grounds are one of the obviousness
`grounds.
` Q. And it's correct, isn't it, that all of your
`grounds rely on a combination of references, right, to
`show obviousness?
` A. So I think I explained this earlier to you as
`well, that if you read the analysis, I am stating that
`the challenged claims would be rendered obvious based on
`Dallas. But the actual grounds are combination
`obviousness grounds, yes.
` Q. Let's look at your Declaration on page 16.
` A. 1-6?
` Q. 1-6, yeah. So in paragraph 32 you say:
` "I am informed by counsel that each of
` the references cited in the grounds above
` qualifies as prior art."
` Do you see that?
` A. So the last sentence in 32?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. Okay, so your counsel informed you that these
`references were prior art?
` A. Right. And also based on my looking at the
`dates as well, but yes.
` Q. So did your counsel give you these references?
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`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 18
` A. As far as I can remember, yes, I was provided
`the references by counsel.
` Q. Okay. And then you analyzed the references
`with the claims in mind to see if there was an
`obviousness ground?
` A. No, I didn't look at the art with the claims in
`mind to see if there's an obviousness ground. I
`reviewed the art, and it just struck me that the claimed
`invention would be rendered obvious based on -- like
`I've mentioned a couple of times now -- based on Dallas
`alone, or more specifically as the grounds state, in
`combination with the references that are cited in the
`table in paragraph 31.
` Q. Let's look at paragraph 58 of your Declaration;
`do you see that paragraph?
` A. I do.
` Q. So here, you say you cite LeBlanc for a narrow
`purpose, right?
` A. I do. That's the first part of that first
`sentence.
` Q. Okay, and that purpose is to combine with
`Dallas to provide a broader range of possible
`notifications?
` A. Of new incoming messages, yes.
` Q. So it's fair to say that when you reviewed
`
`Page 20
`
`essentially.
` Q. Does that accurately capture your point?
` A. Well, like I just stated, I think you
`essentially read that second or third sentence in
`paragraph 58 nearly verbatim. So yes, I believe it
`captures what I'm trying to get at there.
` Q. Okay, so when you were doing this analysis, you
`were using LeBlanc to head off a potential claim
`construction argument, right?
` A. I'm not sure if it's a claim construction
`argument. It's simply that what I was doing is that --
`I think the sentence you just read, that Dallas is
`disclosing visual notifications, and those visual
`notifications which are talked about repeatedly in my
`Declaration are the red flags, the sparkles and texts
`color, I think it's like a blue color that's talked
`about in Dallas.
` All I'm trying to say is that visual
`notifications are disclosed in the '120 Patent, and I
`believe that what Dallas is disclosing meets the
`notifications as claimed and disclosed in the '120
`Patent. But if for some reason it doesn't, I said that
`it can, and it can be combined with LeBlanc.
` So it's not really about claim construction,
`heading off any claim construction issues, anything like
`
`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 19
`Dallas, you thought it might not cover a broader range
`of notifications, right?
` A. I think it's fair to say that, as I've stated a
`couple of times now, that Dallas alone discloses the
`claimed notification from the challenged claims. And I
`think I explained this pretty clearly in my Declaration
`that because this is the petition, or my Declaration
`going with the petition, I just stated that Dallas in
`and of itself discloses the claimed notification for the
`challenged claims.
` But I'm just stating that if the Patent Owner
`or the Board or -- I guess those would be the only
`people involved -- if they are looking at a different
`interpretation of notification somehow, then the Eudora
`reference as disclosed in the LeBlanc reference would be
`and could be combined together with Dallas for a broader
`range of notifications.
` Q. And you say in this paragraph:
` In the event it is argued that the
` visual notifications of Dallas do not
` sufficiently disclose message received
` notification, that LeBlanc discloses the
` notification; right?
` A. I think you read most of the words in that
`sentence but you left out a couple of them. But yes,
`
`Page 21
`
`that, it's simply stating that there are visual
`notifications that are disclosed in Dallas, and if for
`some reason those don't meet the claim notification,
`then LeBlanc discloses a whole bunch of different types
`of notifications that -- and the teaching from LeBlanc
`could be and would be combined by one of ordinary skill,
`and there would be several motivations to do so.
` Q. Right, but here you say:
` "In the event it is argued that"; do you
` see that?
` A. Right. And that's pretty much what I just
`stated, that if somebody states that the visual
`notifications of the red flags, sparkles, and blue text
`color or the text color in Dallas do not somehow meet
`the notifications as claimed, then I'm combining it with
`LeBlanc.
` Q. Okay, and if somebody states that Dallas
`doesn't disclose a certain breadth of notifications,
`that would be a claim construction argument, wouldn't
`it?
` A. Yeah, I guess that is potentially a claim
`construction for the claimed notification term.
` Q. Okay, and here you're saying that you're
`responding to that argument with LeBlanc; right?
` A. I'm not responding to an argument, I'm just
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`Page 22
`stating that in the event it is argued. So I'm just
`stating that I believe that the disclosure in Dallas is
`crystal-clear, and that the visual notifications in
`Dallas meet the claimed notification from the challenged
`claims. I'm just stating that if somehow for some
`reason it is argued, if somebody states that it doesn't
`for some reason, I'm saying that LeBlanc and its
`teachings of these different types of notifications are
`pretty much identical to the disclosures in the '120
`Patent.
` MR. GLOTH: Let's take a look at the '120
`Patent. Here you go.
` THE WITNESS: Is this for me or Andrew? I'll
`get some more coffee really fast.
` MR. GLOTH: Sure.
`BY MR. GLOTH:
` Q. Could you look at Claim 13, please. It's on
`the back. So you would agree with me that this Claim is
`about a method for silencing notifications; is that
`fair?
` A. I think the first five words of that Claim
`state a method for silencing notifications.
` Q. Okay. Now if you go to column 9 starting at
`line 6, do you see that paragraph? It starts "such
`notifications."
`
`Page 24
`one example that they give here of a notification,
`right?
` A. Of an auditory user alert, yes.
` Q. Well, it says "such notifications could
`include," doesn't it?
` A. Yes, I agree it's saying such notifications
`could include, for example, auditory user alerts, and it
`provides a ring tone as an example of an auditory user
`alert.
` Q. Okay, so a ringing sound, as you put it, would
`be an example the Patent gives of a notification?
` A. Of an auditory user alert-type of notification.
` Q. This isn't really a gotcha, but a ringing sound
`is the first example in this sentence that the '120
`Patent gives as a notification?
` A. Yes, there are multiple examples. It gives
`examples of auditory user alerts, visual alerts,
`pop-ups, and/or physical alerts. And the first one
`listed is the auditory user alert. And the example is a
`ring tone, yes.
` Q. Okay, so if a ringing sound is used as a
`notification, you would agree with me that the point of
`that ringing sound would be to draw a user's attention,
`for example, to a new message?
` A. Are you talking about within the context of
`
`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
`
`Page 23
` A. Okay, I see. Do you want me to read the entire
`paragraph?
` Q. No, just that sentence is fine.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So you would agree that one of the classic
`examples of the notification listed in the '120 Patent
`is that telephones ring; right?
` A. Where do you see the telephone ring?
` Q. Such notifications could include, for example,
`"auditory alerts such as ring tones."
` A. Right, it's saying auditory user alerts such
`as, meaning as an example, a ring tone. But I'm not
`reading that to mean like a telephone call, ringing, or
`perhaps I misunderstood your question.
` Q. What are you reading it to mean?
` A. No, it's not what I'm reading. I'm just saying
`I thought you were asking about like a telephone call
`and a ring, like the ringing of a telephone when a call
`is received.
` Q. And how do you interpret a ring tone here?
` A. A ring tone does not, as written here, does not
`mean that a telephone call is happening. It's just a
`ring tone, like a tone, like an auditory tone, a ringing
`sound, but not that an actual call is coming in.
` Q. Okay. And so a "ringing sound" is the example,
`
`Page 25
`this sentence and within the context of the '120 Patent?
` Q. Yes.
` A. It just states that "Such notifications could
`include auditory user alerts such as ring tones."
`That's the extent of what it states.
` Q. Right. Well, you've read the whole '120
`specification, right?
` A. Many, many times.
` Q. Okay, so it's fair to say, we just established
`that a ringing sound is a type of notification according
`to the '120 Patent, right?
` A. It's one example of an auditory user alert as
`provided by the '120 Patent, yes.
` Q. Which is a notification; an auditory user alert
`is a notification, right?
` A. This sentence states:
` "Such notifications could include
` auditory user alerts," yes.
` Q. Do you have an issue with me saying that a
`ringing sound is a notification for some reason?
` A. I think I'm just not understanding. From this
`sentence, it's saying "Such notifications could include,
`for example, auditory user alerts such as ring tones."
`I'm not sure; you're using the word "ringing sound" --
` Q. Sorry, you actually used "ringing sound" to
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`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 26
`
`describe this, right?
` A. I think I described that the ringing sound
`would be like an example of a ring tone, like a
`telephone ringing sound, but not necessarily that an
`incoming call is happening.
` Q. Right, right. So all I'm asking then is that
`if we use a "ringing sound" as a notification within the
`context of the '120 Patent, you would agree with me that
`the point of that ringing sound would be to draw a
`user's attention to something, for example, a new
`message?
` A. I think you asked me to focus on just that
`sentence, and it doesn't really say all of that in that
`sentence.
` Q. I'm asking you your opinion, having an
`understanding of the '120 Patent. If we have a system
`where we're using a ringing sound as a notification, you
`would agree with me that the point of having that
`ringing sound notification would be to draw a user's
`attention to something such as a new message?
` A. Well, I think the problem I'm having here is
`that the term "notification" has been construed by the
`Court. And I think you're asking me to read what's
`stated in that sentence in column 9, and it doesn't
`really state that. And also on top of that, I haven't
`
`Page 28
` Q. What is the purpose of that ringing sound in
`that context?
` A. So it's a very limited context you're providing
`me, but it would be to notify somebody that something
`happened.
` Q. Okay. So would you agree that a fair
`characterization of that would be to draw someone's
`attention to the new message?
` A. Well, like I mentioned, again, within the
`limited context that you're providing me of this
`hypothetical system, that yes, it would -- if it's some
`kind of -- if it's -- like I explained, it would be a
`notification of something that happened, and so a
`notification would be notifying you of something
`happening.
` Q. And you wouldn't have to be looking -- let's
`say for example the ringing sound was used on a
`messaging application on a phone, can you follow that,
`like iMessage?
` A. I'm not sure I understand by you wouldn't have
`to be looking --
` Q. Let's back up.
` Do you have a phone?
` A. I do, yes.
` Q. A cellphone?
`
`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 27
`really stated something like that in my report either,
`as far as I remember, in my Declaration. So I think I'm
`having a hard time understanding your question.
` Q. Okay, let me try again.
` Is a ringing tone or a ringing sound, as we've
`discussed, a notification that's supposed to get your
`attention?
` A. So I understand your question to be in a vacuum
`outside of the '120 Patent and the Court's construction?
` Q. No, no, within the context of the '120 Patent.
` A. And the Court's construction of notification,
`or --
` Q. Your understanding of notification.
` A. Can you ask it again? You're asking whether a
`ringing, like a ring tone, like a ringing sound, would
`be a notification of a message?
` Q. It's okay, let me try it this way.
` Why would you use a ringing sound in a system
`like the ones described in the '120 Patent messaging
`system?
` A. You can use a ringing sound for a lot of
`reasons.
` Q. Okay, say the ringing sound is associated with
`receipt of a new message.
` A. Okay.
`
`Page 29
`
` A. I do, yes.
` Q. Do you have a messaging application on your
`cellphone?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. So let's say that you could set a
`ringing sound as a notification that you received a new
`message on your cellphone; this is a hypothetical.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Are you with me?
` A. It's a very limited context, but I think so.
` Q. Well, do you need additional context?
` A. Well, I mean like what is it that you're
`setting, how are you setting it? I think that's what
`I'm not -- that's what I mean by "very limited context."
` Q. In your phone's messaging application, can you
`turn on an auditory tone that alerts you to receipt of
`new messages?
` A. I don't know if I've ever tried to turn
`something on or off.
` Q. When you get a new message on your phone --
` A. Um hum.
` Q. -- is an auditory tone associated with that new
`message?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. Okay. So are you familiar, for example, in an
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`iPhone, iPhone's messaging application?
` A. I'm aware of it, yes.
` Q. And you're aware that there's a setting on your
`iPhone you can turn on such that when you receive a new
`message you hear a tone?
` A. I don't think I've used iPhone messaging for
`like actually sending and receiving messages like on a
`day-to-day or a personal mechanism. So I don't think
`I've ever played with any such setting.
` Q. Okay, I'm not -- just to be clear, I'm not
`really asking about turning on and off a setting, I'm
`just trying to set up a hypothetical wherein you have a
`messaging application on a phone, and when you get a new
`message you hear a ringing tone; are you aware that
`that's possible with today's phones? Irrespective of
`settings, are you aware that it's possible, using an
`iPhone, to have an auditory tone associated with receipt
`of a new message?
` A. Yes, I would agree with you that phones do
`allow some kind of an auditory sound. It may not be a
`ringing tone, but some kind of a sound, yes.
` Q. Okay. And since it's an audible tone, you
`wouldn