Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 168

Letter from Matthew D. Powers regarding Elan's August 20, 2010 letter ( 165 ) re: claim constrction proceedings in the parallel ITC Investigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Powers, Matthew) (Filed on 9/8/2010) Modified on 9/15/2010 (tsh, COURT STAFF).

Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 168 Att. 4

EXHIBIT D

Dockets.Justia.com

Page 1 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 PAGES 1 - 206 JOB NO. 32753 REPORTED BY: Kathy Savich, RPR, CLR TSG Reporting 877-702-9580 ROBERT DEZMELYK UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. INVESTIGATION NO. 337-TA-714 IN THE MATTER OF: CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH MULTI-TOUCH ENABLED TOUCHPADS AND TOUCHSCREENS / VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT DEZMELYK WASHINGTON, D.C. Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Page 174

Page 175

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

ROBERT DEZMELYK claims totally differently. Maybe your -the structure you're looking for is -- is a different -- I am not sure why I -- you know -BY MS. MEHTA: Q. Le me ask it -A. -- what -- what the point is you're trying to get at. Q. Let me ask it a different way. Is there any disclosure that you're aware of in the '352 patent that provides a click function based on removal and reappearance where the algorithm defines time as a factor or input into deciding whether there has been a click function? A. Okay. The algorithm always has time and generates reports in a time basis. I think you're asking, in interpreting the claim, to mean is it like a time-based tap function, right, that is where you independently measure the time, and then you delay your reporting to say, oh, I didn't get a button down or I didn't get a button up based on some -- because that's -- that's
Page 176

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

ROBERT DEZMELYK what you're describing. Q. No. What I mean -- let me -- I think that's not what I am describing. What I am describing is, is there any algorithm that considers whether removal and replacement of the maxima happens at a predetermined time as a factor in deciding whether to provide a click function? MR. HU: Objection. The question is vague. THE WITNESS: No. But -- there is an important but -- of course, the practitioners would know how to do that. So there is probably enough disclosure -- and, again, I'm -- this is -- now, I am not -- now I'm talking about a claim I have not been asked to testify about but -- okay, so I haven't done any prep on it or anything for a long time, but the -there is prior disclosure -- there is sufficient knowledge in the prior art that the practitioners of this certainly know how to do time-based
Page 177

ROBERT DEZMELYK generation of events because that's part of the prior art. BY MS. MEHTA: Q. And you offered an opinion on that in your declaration two weeks ago, correct, on that term? A. Probably. Q. August 3rd, 2010, CX-25, last page. A. What I see here is completely consistent with what I have said today. Do you have a question about it? Q. No. I just asked whether you had offered an opinion on that term in your declaration two weeks ago. A. Right. But -- but it's on the means -- it's not the term. I would make -let's make it clear. It's on the -- this declaration from, I believe, the rebuttal declaration that you were talking about the same declaration from -- you're saying from -- which one? The one from the 3rd or from two weeks ago? This is -- two weeks ago is not quite -- yeah, it's almost two weeks ago,

ROBERT DEZMELYK right? Yeah. Two weeks, 3rd. The one on the 3rd is in rebuttal of Dr. Balakrishnan's -Balakrishnan's, pardon me -- statements on that. So my opinion in there is primarily concentrated on what's wrong with his argument. Q. But you reviewed the patent and the materials carefully in rendering your opinions in that declaration, correct? A. Right. But I want to make it clear, my -- my opinion is not on a particular -- it's on the claim as a whole -Q. Understood. A. -- not on some word in the claim. Q. I understand that. I am simply asking whether, in preparing your declaration in the case, you endeavored to review the patent and the other appropriate materials and give your best opinion as to the meaning of the claims. A. Of course. And I -- and I -- I wrote this, so, clearly, at that point in

45 (Pages 174 to 177) TSG Reporting 877-702-9580