UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`------------------------------x
`SONY INTERACTIVE :
`ENTERTAINMENT LLC, : Case No. IPR2020-00726
` Petitioner : Patent No. 8,112,670
` vs :
`BOT M8, LLC, :
` Patent Owner :
`------------------------------x
`
` Videotaped Deposition of
` ANDREW WOLFE, Ph.D.
` Conducted Virtually
` Thursday, January 14, 2021
` 11:03 a.m. EST
`
`Job No.: 345138
`Pages: 1 - 84
`Reported by: Lisa V. Feissner, RDR, CRR, CLR
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 1
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`
`1 (1 to 4)
`
`1
`
`3
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` JEFFREY H. PRICE ESQUIRE
`
` KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`
` 1177 Avenue of the Americas
`
` New York, NY 10036
`
` 212.715.7502
`
` jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
` and
`
` JEROME MA ESQUIRE
`
`0
`
` KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`------------------------------x
`
`SONY INTERACTIVE :
`
`ENTERTAINMENT LLC, : Case No. IPR2020-00726
`
` Petitioner : Patent No. 8,112,670
`
` vs :
`
`BOT M8, LLC, :
`
` Patent Owner :
`
`0
`
`------------------------------x
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`11
`
`
`
`11
`
` 990 Marsh Road
`
`12
`
` Videotaped Deposition of
`
`12
`
` Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`13
`
` 650.752.1730
`
`14
`
` jma@kramerlevin.com
`
` L S O P R E S E N T:
`
` A
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
` THOMAS K. FEISSNER, CLVS, Videographer
`
`18
`
` JON POTLER, A/V Technician
`
`19
`
` JIM LEONG, ESQUIRE, Sony Interactive
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
` ANDREW WOLFE, Ph.D.
`
`14
`
` Conducted Virtually
`
`15
`
` Thursday, January 14, 2021
`
`16
`
` 11:03 a.m. EST
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Job No.: 345138
`
`21
`
`Pages: 1 - 84
`
`22
`
`Reported by: Lisa V. Feissner, RDR, CRR, CLR
`
`2
`
`4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF ANDREW WOLFE, Ph.D. PAGE
`
` By Mr. Price 6
`
`
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (Attached to transcript)
`
`DEPOSITION EXHIBIT PAGE
`
`(None marked.)
`
`
`
`
`
`0
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`11
`
` P R E V I O U S L Y
`
`12
`
` M A R K E D E X H I B I T S
`
`13
`
` (Attached to transcript)
`
`14
`
`EXHIBITS PAGE
`
`15
`
`1001 United States Patent No. 8,112,670 30
`
`16
`
`1003 Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. 12
`
`17
`
`1005 Sugiyama patent (Japanese) 46
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
` ERIC A. BURESH, ESQUIRE
`
` ERISE IP, P.A.
`
` 7015 College Boulevard
`
` Suite 700
`
` Overland Park, KS 66211
`
` 913.777.5610
`
` eric.buresh@eriseIP.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 2
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`5
`
`2 (5 to 8)
`
`7
`
` Q By "this IPR matter," you're referring to
`IPR2020-00726?
` A Correct.
` Q And is it your understanding this
`proceeding is about U.S. Patent No. 8,112,670?
` A Yes.
` Q Have you ever been deposed before?
` A Yes.
` Q Roughly how many times?
` A Well over a hundred.
` Q Okay. And have you ever been deposed in
`an IPR proceeding before?
` A Yes.
` Q And how many times?
` A A couple dozen or more.
` Q So you're familiar with the mechanics
`here. I'm going to be asking you questions, and I'm
`going to need you to answer to the best of your
`ability and truthfully and to make sure that your
`answers are given verbally, correct?
` A Understood.
` Q Is there any reason that you cannot give
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the remote video
`deposition of Dr. Andrew Wolfe taken in the matter
`of Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC versus BOT M8
`LLC before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case
`Number IPR2020-00726.
` Today's date is Thursday, January 14th,
`2021. The time on the video monitor is 11:03 a.m.
`My name is Thomas K. Feissner, CLVS, and I am the
`videographer. The court reporter is Lisa V.
`Feissner, RDR, CRR. We are here today on behalf of
`Planet Depos, Rockville, Maryland.
` All parties to this deposition are
`appearing remotely and have agreed to the witness
`being sworn in remotely. Due to the nature of
`remote reporting, please pause briefly before
`speaking to ensure all parties are heard completely.
` Counsel will now introduce themselves,
`beginning with counsel for the petitioner.
` MR. BURESH: Eric Buresh of Erise IP on
`behalf of petitioner.
`
`1234567891
`
`6
` VIDEOGRAPHER: And counsel for the patent
`owner.
` MR. PRICE: This is Jeffrey Price on
`behalf of BOT M8 LLC, of Kramer Levin.
` COURT REPORTER: And Mr. Ma?
` MR. MA: Jerome Ma on behalf of Kramer
`Levin for patent owner.
` VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will now
`swear in the deponent.
` ANDREW WOLFE, PH.D.,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. PRICE:
` Q Good morning, Dr. Wolfe. How are you
`today?
` A I'm fine.
` Q Great. Do you understand why you're
`sitting in front of a computer today?
` A My understanding is, I'm going to answer
`some questions about my declaration in this IPR
`matter.
`
`truthful testimony today?
` A No.
` Q Can you just -- before we dive into the
`real meat of the case here, would you mind just
`telling me a little bit about your background,
`starting with your educational background.
` A Sure. I mean, I've already given you
`extensive information about my background in the
`declaration and in my CV, so certainly, I don't want
`to suggest that any part of that's not important by
`0
`not mentioning it in a single answer.
`11
` But I have a bachelor's degree in
`12
`electrical engineering and computer science that I
`13
`got in 1985; a master's degree and a Ph.D. in
`14
`engineering -- computer engineering; finally, I
`15
`finished my Ph.D. work in '91, got my degree in '92.
`16
` In '91, I became an assistant professor at
`17
`Princeton University. '97, I moved to Silicon
`18
`Valley to work in semiconductor and consumer
`19
`electronics industries. Since then I've done some
`20
`consulting.
`21
` And then, again, if you look at my CV,
`22
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`8
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 3
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`9
`
`3 (9 to 12)
`
`11
`
`for a number of years, I think about eight years
`right now.
` And then about eight years as well, I
`started teaching part-time at Santa Clara
`University, and now I'm about 85 percent time there.
` Q Very good. And what do you teach over at
`Santa Clara?
` A I teach a couple of imbedded systems
`classes at the undergraduate level. I teach a
`graduate realtime systems class. I teach the
`mechatronics class, which is sensors and actuators
`and microprocessors. I teach a community-based
`engineering class where we go out and do engineering
`projects for non-profit organizations.
` And I'm not currently teaching a computer
`architecture class, but I've taught both graduate
`and undergraduate computer architecture classes, and
`I expect to do that again next year.
` Q How have you managed teaching in the time
`of COVID?
` A Just like this, sitting in this very chair
`in front of this very machine.
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`there's been another -- many other jobs and
`corporate affiliations.
` Q What kind of work did you do in the
`semiconductor industry?
` A Various things. I was chief technology
`officer at a company called S3, made graphics chips,
`sound chips, communication chips, video chips,
`motherboard core logic to interface with
`microprocessors.
` I also ran three engineering teams for a
`while. And then I took on a business development
`role as well, senior VP of business development. I
`worked on strategic partnerships, mergers and
`acquisitions.
` And as part of that, I developed a
`consumer electronics business. There, I was general
`manager of a portion of that business for a while,
`ran engineering and marketing and generally advised
`the CEO and the board on strategy.
` Q All right. And did you go to another
`company after S3?
` A Not really. S3 renamed itself SONICblue.
`10
`
`12
`
` Q Very good. Okay. I'd like you to turn to
`At one point, I divested the majority of the
`your declaration, which has been marked Exhibit 1003
`semiconductor business, so we sent that brand along
`in this case. Let me know when you have it.
`with that business, and we renamed the company
` A Okay.
`SONICblue.
` (Previously marked Exhibit 1003 attached
` Q And did -- you stayed at SONICblue for a
`to the transcript.)
`period of time?
` A/V TECH: Counsel, would you like me to
` A I did, as CTO and senior VP of business
`share my screen with the exhibit, or everyone has
`development for a while. And then in late 2002, I
`hard copies?
`left and consulted back to the company for about
` MR. PRICE: I don't need it shown.
`0
`another six months.
`Dr. Wolfe, if it helps you.
`11
` Q And since then, have you worked at any
` THE WITNESS: It would not.
`12
`other companies, or have you essentially been a
` MR. PRICE: Not necessary. Thanks.
`13
`consultant and -- or lecturing in that time since
`BY MR. PRICE:
`14
`2002?
` Q Is that your signature on the very last
`15
` A I have been consulting. Some of that
`page of the declaration?
`16
`technical consulting; some of that business
` A Yes.
`17
`development consulting; some of that
` Q And is it correct that you executed the
`18
`litigation-related consulting or IP
`declaration on March 27th, 2020?
`19
`portfolio-related consulting.
` A That's correct.
`20
` I've also been on technical advisory board
` Q Was it your understanding that as of that
`21
`for technology companies. And I have been a
`date, you were to include all of your opinions that
`22
`director of a public consumer electronics company
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 4
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`13
`
`4 (13 to 16)
`
`15
`expressed my opinions as to the scope of the claim
`and the reasons why the prior art renders the claims
`obvious.
` But at the very detailed level with
`respect to individual statements, I may not have
`addressed them because they weren't relevant at the
`time of my declaration.
` Q So in your answer just now, you mentioned
`that you expressed your opinions as to the scope of
`the claim.
` Can you tell me what you mean by that?
` A Yes. I explained that I didn't believe
`that any of the terms in the claim needed explicit
`construction; that from my perspective as a person
`of ordinary skill in the art, the plain meaning of
`the claim terms was sufficient; and in some cases, I
`explained what the plain meaning would be to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, and then
`offered extrinsic evidence that corroborated that.
` Q Can you show me where in your declaration
`you explain that you did not believe that any of the
`terms in the claim needed explicit construction?
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`you had pertaining to this case?
` A It was my understanding that I was to
`provide all the opinions that were relevant to this
`particular IPR petition.
` Q And does your declaration include all of
`your current opinions that are relevant to this
`case?
` A Not completely. It includes all the
`opinions that were relevant to the petition, but
`since then, I've read some responses from the patent
`owner, and I am of the opinion that they're
`incorrect.
` Q Okay. We can get to that.
` So just to be clear, you've read -- you've
`read patent owner's preliminary response?
` A Yes.
` Q Have you read petitioner's reply to the
`patent owner preliminary response?
` A Yes.
` Q And have you read patent owner's surreply
`to petitioner's reply?
` A Yes.
`
`16
` A I don't think I have an explicit statement
` Q And have you read the institution
`of that. I think I simply did not suggest any
`decision?
`explicit instructions were needed in order to render
` A Yes.
`my opinions and applied the plain meaning.
` Q And so have you developed any new opinions
` Q Are you familiar with the term "claim
`about the case that are not included in your
`construction"?
`declaration, after reviewing those materials?
` A I am, from the perspective of an engineer,
` A A limited number, yes. I disagree with
`not from the perspective of an attorney.
`some of the assertions made in the patent owner's
`preliminary response, and I agree with some of the
` Q Did your counsel explain to you what the
`conclusions that are in the institution decision.
`role of claim construction is in an IPR proceeding?
`0
` MR. BURESH: Objection and instruct the
` Q Are there any conclusions in the
`11
`witness not to answer to the extent that that calls
`institution decision that you do not agree with?
`12
` A There are legal matters in there that I
`for privileged information.
`13
` A I don't think counsel wants me to get into
`have no opinion on because they're not within my
`14
`what counsel did or did not explain to me.
`skill set. But other than that, there was nothing
`15
`that I disagreed with.
` Q So can you turn to page 9 of your
`16
`declaration, paragraph 18.
` Q Is it your opinion that your declaration,
`17
` A Yes.
`as it currently stands, is sufficient to express
`18
` Q Do you see where you say that, counsel has
`your disagreement with the positions the patent
`19
`informed me that in proceedings before the USPTO,
`owner has taken?
`20
` A I haven't really done that analysis. I
`claim terms, and then it goes on from there?
`21
` A I do.
`think in a very general sense, yes, that I've
`22
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`14
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 5
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`17
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q Is it your position and the position of
`counsel that your explanation of the legal
`framework, as it was described to you by counsel, is
`protected by some sort of privilege?
` MR. BURESH: The specific communications
`are obviously protected by privilege. He can state
`his understanding, as he has indicated in his report
`he has an understanding, but the communications are
`clearly protected.
` A So my understanding is that nothing that
`I've put in my report is protected by privilege.
` Q So -- okay. And just to go back, I wasn't
`asking explicitly what counsel told you, but just
`whether counsel explained to you what the role of
`claim construction is in an IPR proceeding.
` A I don't recall. I'm very familiar with
`the role of claim construction in an IPR proceeding
`from the perspective of an expert witness.
` Q And what is your understanding of the role
`of claim construction in an IPR proceeding?
` A It's to determine the scope of the claim,
`that it's a matter of law, but it may be based on
`18
`
`5 (17 to 20)
`
`19
`
`in context. I read the specification of the '670
`patent.
` And then I determined in my own mind what
`I believed a person of ordinary skill in the art --
`the way that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand the claim terms in light of the
`specification.
` Q And is any of that analysis in your
`declaration?
` A Some of it is. Again, I did not believe
`that any term needed special construction. These
`were all very basic and simple terms.
` I did explain that I was doing the
`analysis at the presumed time of the invention,
`which was August of 2004.
` And I explained for certain key terms,
`including "boot" and "motherboard" and "fault
`inspection," how a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand the plain meaning of those
`terms at the time.
` Q And that's -- you're referring to the
`background of the technology section beginning on
`20
`
`factual issues, such as the understanding of a
`page 14? Is that where you're talking about where
`person of ordinary skill in the art or the ordinary
`you discussed the certain key terms?
`usage of a term in the art, and that one must
` A That's the primary place. And then as I
`determine the scope of the claim before one can
`used those terms, I refer back again to those plain
`determine anticipation or obviousness.
`meanings.
` Q And did you determine the scope of the
` Q In this background of the technology
`claim before you opined on anticipation or
`section where you discuss these key terms, did you
`obviousness?
`discuss them in the context of the specification?
` A Obviously, not as a legal ruling. But as
` A I don't refer to the specification, but I
`I said, I approached these particular claims with
`discussed the plain meaning of the terms at the time
`0
`the assumption that the claim terms had their plain
`that the specification was written. And in this
`11
`and ordinary meaning and that the claims were as
`particular case, that's consistent with what's in
`12
`written.
`the specification.
`13
` If another claim construction were
` Q Okay. So I see that you've referenced in
`14
`ordered, that still may fit within the scope of my
`this section several dictionary definitions, but not
`15
`opinions, but I would have to consider it at that
`the specification or the actual claim language or
`16
`time.
`the file history; is that correct?
`17
` Q How did you go about determining what
` A That's correct. And the reason for that
`18
`the -- let me make sure -- the plain and ordinary
`is because in the case of these particular claims, I
`19
`meaning of the claim terms were in this case?
`don't think that the common plain meaning at the
`20
` A I read the claims in context. I read the
`time is changed by the specification.
`21
`claims, considering each of the terms in the claims
` I think one can read the claims in light
`22
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 6
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`21
`of the specification, and it does not modify any of
`these particular terms from what their common use
`ordinary meaning would have been at the time.
` And I don't think -- and I address how
`they fit into the context of the remaining claim
`language in a later portion of the report where I
`look at the claim phrases as a whole.
` Q And is it correct that you don't discuss
`the file history of the '670 patent or the related
`988 patent in discussing the background of the art
`and the meaning of these terms?
` A Only to acknowledge that it's relevant. I
`didn't see anything in the file history that would
`have altered my understanding of the plain and
`ordinary meaning of these terms or caused me to
`believe that the plain and ordinary meaning was not
`the prior construction for these terms.
` Q But to be clear, did you review the file
`history of the '670 or the '988 patents in preparing
`your declaration?
` A I did review the '670 file history. I
`don't recall if I had reviewed the '988 history at
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`6 (21 to 24)
`
`23
`
`terms to the '670 patent required explicit
`construction, correct?
` A I did not find any that required explicit
`construction. Again, it's a legal determination,
`but that was my opinion, as a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
` Q Have you -- you have reviewed the claim
`construction positions put forward by patent owner
`and by petitioner in the reply and surreply,
`correct?
` A I read patent owner's positions. My
`recollection was that the petitioner agreed that the
`plain meaning was sufficient.
` Q Did you have reason to disagree with the
`claim construction positions put forward by patent
`owner?
` A Yes.
` Q Would your opinions change if the board
`adopted patent owner's claim constructions?
` A I haven't really done that analysis. I
`think it's likely that because these are obviousness
`analyses, that I would reach the same ultimate
`
`24
`conclusion. But I haven't done an analysis under
`that time.
`patent owner's proposed constructions. I didn't
` Q Do you think there's any ambiguity as to
`read them until this week.
`the scope of the claims of the '670 patent?
` Q We'll return to claim construction in just
` A Not in my mind. They're broad, but not
`a bit.
`ambiguous.
` Do you have any corrections to your
` Q Do you understand what's meant by the term
`declaration that you would like to make at this
`"extrinsic evidence"?
`time?
` A Again, I don't have a legal education on
` A I'm not aware of any at the moment.
`that, but I have a general understanding from my
` Q Did you write your declaration?
`0
`interactions with attorneys.
` A Did I write my declaration? All the
`11
` Q And what is your general understanding of
`opinions in it are mine. I don't think I wrote
`12
`the meaning of "extrinsic evidence"?
`every word in the declaration. I worked with
`13
` A When it comes to understanding claim
`counsel to prepare it.
`14
`scope, it would be anything that is not part of the
` Q How many hours would you say you spent
`15
`patent or incorporated documents or the prosecution
`preparing the declaration?
`16
`history of the patent, or sometimes, I think, maybe
` A I don't remember. It was almost a year
`17
`the litigation history of the patent.
`ago.
`18
` Q So would dictionary definitions fall under
` Q Would you say it was ten hours or less?
`19
`your understanding of "extrinsic evidence"?
` A I don't think so, but I don't recall. It
`20
` A For purposes of claim construction, that
`was enough that I remember being unhappy that it
`21
`would be my understanding.
`took a long time to pay me.
`22
` Q And you didn't -- you found that no claim
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 7
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q Understood. Did you review each of the
`documents listed on pages 1 through 3 of your
`declaration in preparing the declaration?
` A Yes, with the exception of the fact that
`in cases where there was both an original language
`and a translation, I only reviewed the English
`translation.
` Q I understand. And so this list of
`documents on page 3 refers to Exhibit 1025. That's
`the file history of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988.
` Do you see that?
` A I do.
` Q So you did review that, correct?
` A I did.
` Q And your review of that file history did
`not influence your understanding of the scope of the
`claims at all; is that correct?
` A I considered it, but it didn't change it
`from the understanding that I've expressed in the
`declaration.
` Q Did you review any of these documents in
`preparation for your testimony today?
`
`7 (25 to 28)
`
`27
`
` The declaration is the only other thing I
`reviewed.
` Q Were you aware of the '670 patent before
`you were engaged to work on this case?
` A No.
` Q Were you aware of either BOT M8 or Erise
`corporation prior to being engaged in this case?
` A I don't believe so. Certainly not under
`those names.
` Q Were you aware of Universal Entertainment
`Corporation prior to being engaged in this case?
` A I don't know. I don't know. There are a
`lot of companies named Universal, and I'm not sure I
`can sort them all out.
` Q Were you aware of either the Sugiyama
`reference, which is Exhibit 1005, or the Morrow
`reference, which is Exhibit 1007, before being
`engaged in this case?
` A I don't recall. I think I may have run
`across Morrow before.
` Q In what context?
` (Cross-talk.)
`
`26
` A I reviewed 1005 through 1008, and to the
`extent that there were any quotes from any of these
`documents in my declaration, I reviewed those as
`well.
` Q Okay. But you did not review any of the
`other documents here in preparation for your
`declaration -- for your deposition?
` A Correct.
` Q Did you review any documents not on this
`list in preparation for your deposition today?
` A Yes.
` Q And what documents were those?
` A The patent owner's preliminary response,
`the petitioner's reply, the patent owner's surreply,
`and the institutional decision.
` Q Were there any documents, other than those
`four papers that you just mentioned to me and the
`papers -- the documents listed on pages -- I guess
`it's 4 to 6 of your declaration, in preparation for
`your testimony today?
` A I think it's pages 1 to 3 of the
`declaration.
`
`28
` A I think I may have run across them before.
` Q In what context might you have run across
`Morrow before being engaged in this case?
` A Other litigation involving gaming
`machines.
` Q And what litigation is that?
` A I've been involved in a couple, including
`some litigations related to William Hill
`Corporation, and there have been others over the
`years. I don't recall them all off the top of my
`0
`head.
`11
` Q And it's your recollection that the Morrow
`12
`reference came up during the William Hill
`13
`litigation?
`14
` A My recollection is that one or more Morrow
`15
`references have come up, but I can't recall, off the
`16
`top of my head, whether it was this one.
`17
` Q There's another Morrow reference at issue
`18
`in this case, right, Exhibit 1008?
`19
` A Yeah. I don't have the exhibit numbers on
`20
`mine. I think of them as Morrow and Morrow 771.
`21
`But there are two. There's a '952 application and a
`22
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 8
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`29
`
`8 (29 to 32)
`
`31
`
` A Multiple times.
` Q Can you turn to claim 1.
` A Okay.
` Q You see the term "first memory device" in
`claim 1 of the '670 patent?
` A Yes.
` Q Did you come to an understanding of the
`meaning of the term "first memory device" when
`preparing your declaration?
` A Yes.
` Q And what is that understanding?
` A With respect to claim 1?
` Q Yes.
` A It can be any memory device on which --
`that is provided on a motherboard that has the
`further functional limitation that it must store a
`fault inspection program as claimed.
` Q From the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art back in 2004, does the
`fact that the first memory device is stated to be on
`the motherboard give you any indication of what
`types of memory devices might be -- might fall
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`'771 application.
` Q And do you recall whether, in the previous
`litigations involving one or more Morrow reference,
`whether Morrow -- the Morrow reference was a prior
`art reference or some other -- did it have some
`other role in the litigation?
` A It would have been a prior art reference
`that I considered, but I don't recall whether or not
`it was one that I opined on.
` Q Do you recall whether you discovered the
`Sugiyama and Morrow reference or whether they were
`supplied to you by counsel?
` A I don't recall.
` Q Do you recall doing a search for prior art
`after being engaged in this case?
` A Yes.
` Q And you don't recall whether or not
`Sugiyama and Morrow came up in your own search for
`prior art or whether they were supplied to you by
`counsel?
` A Correct. I don't recall.
` Q Are you aware that Sugiyama was part of
`
`1234567891
`
`30
`
`the file history for the '670 and '988 patents?
` A To the extent that it was mentioned in the
`IDS, I am.
` Q And did you -- were you aware of that
`prior to developing your opinion about the
`patentability of the '670 patent in view of
`Sugiyama?
` A Yes.
` Q Are you aware that there was a European
`search report that was submitted that included a
`rejection in view of the Sugiyama reference in
`English prior to your use of Sugiyama in this case?
` A I don't recall.
` Q I'm going to ask you to turn to the '670
`patent, which has been marked Exhibit 1001 in this
`case.
` A Okay.
` (Previously marked Exhibit 1001 attached
`to the transcript.)
`BY MR. PRICE:
` Q Did you read all of Exhibit 1001 in
`preparation for preparing your declaration?
`
`within the scope of the claims?
` A Some, but it's still quite broad.
` Q Are there any types of memory devices that
`you can think of that would not be capable of being
`provided on a motherboard in the 2004 time frame?
` A Yes, but they would not be the kind that
`anybody would ordinarily use in 2004. They would
`have been archaic by that time.
` Tape -- magnetic tape probably could not
`have been on a motherboard, although it's a close
`0
`call because you certainly could have mounted a
`11
`magnetic tape drive onto a motherboard with a
`12
`magnetic tape installed in it.
`13
` Q Could you have --
`14
` (Reporter interruption.)
`15
` A We didn't hear the whole question.
`16
` Q Could you have provided a hard disk on a
`17
`motherboard in the 2004 time frame?
`18
` A Absolutely.
`19
` Q And what would that look like with a hard
`20
`disk on the motherboard?
`21
` A It could have looked various different
`22
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`32
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC - Ex. 2045, p. 9
`
`

`

`Transcript of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 14, 2021
`33
`ways. Remember, by 2004, iPod was out. There were
`lots of tiny little hard drives that were commonly
`soldered directly onto a circuit board.
` By then, I had provided products that had
`what we called microdrives, one-inch hard drives.
`Two-and-a-half-inch hard drives could be directly
`provided onto a motherboard. It wasn't the most
`common way to do it, but it was certainly within the
`skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
` It's not really relevant to any of my
`opinions because I don't think anything that I
`identified used a hard drive as the first memory
`device, but I do believe that that could have been
`provided on a motherboard in 2004 without going in
`any way beyond what was commonly known in the
`industry.
` Q What about a flash memory -- a USB flash
`memory drive, would a person of ordinary skill in
`the art understand that to be capable of being
`provided on a motherboard?
` A Depends what you mean by "USB flash memory
`drive."
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`9 (33 to 36)
`
`35
`
`art back in 2004, between the types of memory
`devices that would be provided on a motherboard
`versus the kind of memory devices that would be
`connected to a motherboard?
` A