Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. GOOGLE, INC.

Filing 69

DECLARATION re 68 Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness by GOOGLE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Manning, Susan)

EXHIBIT B

In The Matter Of:
Skyhook Wireless v.
Google

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Jones Reporting Company
Two Oliver Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02109

Original File 1014Kotz.txt

Min-U-Script® with Word Index

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 1

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
2
3 SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC.
*
*
4
vs.
* Civil Action No.
* 10-cv-11571-RWZ
5 GOOGLE INC.
*
6
7
VIDEOTAPED
8
D E P O S I T I O N
9
of
10
DAVID KOTZ, Ph.D. - VOLUME II
11
Taken on behalf of the Defendant on
Friday, October 14, 2011, at the
12
Holiday Inn Express,
White River Junction, Vermont.
13
APPEARANCES:
14
SAMUEL K. LU, ESQ., of the firm Irell & Manella, 1800
15 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles,
California, 90067-4276, appeared and represented the
16 Plaintiff.
17 SUSAN BAKER MANNING, ESQ., of the firm Bingham
McCutchen, 2020 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C.,
18 20006-1806, appeared and represented the Defendant.
19 VIDEOGRAPHER: Eric Fernald
20 COURT REPORTER: Lisa M. Hallstrom, RPR, CRR, CCP
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3
(08:32:26-08:33:22)

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

(Commencing at approximately 8:32 a.m.)
VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. Today is
October 14th, 2011. The time on the monitor is
8:32. We're here at the Holiday Inn Express
Hotel, White River Junction, Vermont, for a
continued deposition of David Kotz in the
matter of Skyhook Wireless versus Google Inc.
United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Number 10-CV-11571-RWZ.
The videographer is Eric Fernald. The
court reporter is Lisa Hallstrom.
Would counsel please introduce themselves
and state whom you represent today.
MS. MANNING: Good morning. Susan Baker
Manning of the firm Bingham McCutchen. I
represent Google Inc. in this action.
MR. LU: Samuel Lu of Irell and Manella.
I represent Skyhook Wireless, Inc.
EXAMINATION
BY MS. MANNING:
Q Good morning, Dr. Kotz.
A Good morning.
Q Do you understand that you are still under oath
after our break from the first session of your
deposition?

Page 2

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

INDEX
PAGE
Examination by Ms. Manning .....................

3

Examination by Mr. Lu ..........................

59

Signature Page .................................

61

Certificate ....................................

62

EXHIBITS
PAGE LINE

1015

U.S. Paten Number 7474897

Min-U-Script®

Page 4
(08:33:23-08:34:42)

31

20

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 Yes, I do.
Q And have you done anything more to prepare for
your deposition since we broke on Wednesday?
A No.
Q You have with you this morning, I notice, the
same green notebook, looks like the same green
notebook you had on Wednesday. Can I just ask what's

in it?
A Let's see. So there's a copy of my declaration
and there's a copy of the four patents and there's my

vita.
Q I wanted to ask you about arterial bias. Do you
know one way or another whether arterial bias was a
problem that was known prior to the invention of the
patents in suit?
A Certainly I had never heard that term before. In
fact, I hadn't heard it before reading these patents.

Q Okay.
A I'm not aware of any -- I can't recall any papers
or trade literature I had seen that referred to that
concept.
Q Okay. So you can't remember anything. Do you -do you know one way or another whether it was a known
concept in the art prior to the inventions of the
patents in suit?

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(1) Pages 1 - 4

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 5
(08:34:43-08:36:49)

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
(08:38:38-08:40:22)

A No.
MR. LU: Objection. Asked and answered.
A No, I don't know.
Q Are you aware of any other sources of information
besides the patents themselves and the prosecution
histories that we can look to to inform our
understanding of the term arterial bias?
MR. LU: Objection to the extent asked and
answered.
A No, I don't know of any other literature or
information.
Q Okay. With reference to Claim 1 of the 988
patent, you've got it there in your notebook and we
have also marked the 988 -- 988 patent as Exhibit
1007, could Claim 1 of the 988 patent cover a database
with calculated position information based on access
point readings that were gathered through war driving?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
Foundation. Calls for speculation.
A I -- you know, on a quick rereading of the claim
I would say not likely because war driving wouldn't

1 as driving all the streets and in an effort to observe
2 as many access points as possible from as many sides
3 as possible.
4 Q And can you not cover all of the streets through
5 a war driving method?
6
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
7
Foundation. Calls for speculation.
8 A Like I said before, it's possible, but it's not
9 likely.
10 Q And the likelihood depends on, among other
11 factors, at least the number of scanning vehicles
12 you -- you employed in your war driving project,
13 right?
14
MR. LU: Same objections.
15 A Yes, it would correspond to that, and other
16 factors related to how well planned the scanning
17 drivers were.
18 Q Can you -- can you practice the claimed invention
19 of the 988 patent, Claim 1, without planning a route?
20
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
21
Calls for speculation.
lead to reference symmetry or a reduction in arterial 22 A I'm finding it difficult to think of any way you
bias of the calculated information.
23 could accomplish this without planning the route
Q Why wouldn't it lead to reference symmetry?
24 because, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to say things
MR. LU: Objection. Foundation. Vague
25 like so that the multiple readings have reference
Page 6

(08:36:50-08:38:35)

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

and ambiguous. Calls for speculation.
A I -- I think the -- most war driving data is
collected in an unstructured, unplanned way and so the

collection of access points that you've observed
wouldn't likely lead to reference symmetry.
Q By your use of the word likely I take it you
would allow this, war driving could lead to reference
symmetry in the data?
MR. LU: Same objections.
A It's possible but not probable.
Q Okay. Do you have a way of ballparking that
likelihood?
MR. LU: Same objections.
A Certainly not quantifying it, but I'll refer to
the common analogy of a monkey randomly typing on a

typewriter. Eventually he writes all of Shakespeare
so that there's always a chance that the data would be
collected in a sufficient way as to produce reference

symmetry, but it's unlikely.
Q So what are the factors that would -- that would
lead to reference symmetry in the claimed invention
that would -- would not allow you to achieve reference
symmetry through war driving?
A I think the invention describes a planned,
structured method of collecting the information, such

Min-U-Script®

Page 8
(08:40:25-08:42:06)

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

symmetry and so that the calculated position avoids

arterial bias.
Q So if I'm understanding you correctly, the taking
of multiple readings at locations around the access
point with the result that you achieve reference
symmetry and avoid arterial bias, the achievement of
those things depends on collecting the data in a
planned way?
MR. LU: Same objections.
BY MS. MANNING:
Q Is that a fair characterization of what you're
trying to tell me?
A Reasonably fair. Of course, one would need to
think about what it means to be planned. So planning
could be preplanned from the start where you've mapped

out your entire route before you start driving. One
could imagine alternatives where you did some driving
and then looked to see what you had missed and then

went -- made a plan to go back and accomplish the
missed parts. So planning could be an ongoing
process, but it seems unlikely that you would
accomplish these goals without some conscious effort
to structure your scanning.
Q Okay. I believe we looked on Wednesday at some
of the passages in the 988 patent that talk about

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(2) Pages 5 - 8

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 9

Page 11

(08:42:11-08:43:46)

(08:45:41-08:47:28)

1 planning a route. One of those that I know we looked
2 at was column 8, lines 28 and following.
3 A That sounds familiar.
4 Q Okay. And you agree with me that that discusses
5 the planning of a route?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is there any place in the patent that talks about
8 this, what you describe as sort of an ongoing plan or
9 an iterative plan as opposed to preplanning the route?
10
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
11 A Not that I recall.
12 Q Are there any reasons other than what we've been
13 discussing why in your view war driving could not lead
14 to reference symmetry?
15
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
16
Calls for speculation.
17 A So are you referring to reference symmetry -18 Q Yes.
19 A -- is that your question?
20 Q Yes, sir.
21 A Okay. I can't think of any other reasons at this
22 time.
23 Q Okay. And you gave us your view a few moments
24 ago that war driving could not lead to the avoidance
25 of arterial bias within the meaning of Claim 1 of the

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 Okay.
Q So can you -- could you describe for me, you
know, the distinction you are -- you are drawing
between war drivers who would be planning a route and
systematically scanning an area versus someone who is

practicing the claimed invention or is there no
distinction?
MR. LU: Objection. Compound. Vague.
A Well, I think the -- the term war drivers
generally means to me a collection of uncoordinated
volunteers who are not necessarily coordinating with
each other or necessarily themselves planning their
scanning efforts, but among this -- there may be a

subset of those, as you implied, that are planning
their routes or perhaps coordinating their efforts,
and in that case I think they would be doing something

similar to what's in this patent.
Q So back to my original question, which was Claim
1 of the 988 patent cover a database that has
calculated position information based on access point
readings that were gathered through war driving?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
Foundation. Calls for speculation. Asked and
answered.
A Well, my answer doesn't really change. It's the

Page 10

Page 12

(08:43:49-08:45:38)

(08:47:32-08:49:14)

1 988 patent -- patent. Why is that?
2
MR. LU: Same objections.
3 A Well, war driving would tend to concentrate on
4 the arteries -- concentrate the scanning effort on the
5 arteries and, thus, the data collected would be on the
6 artery side, as it were, of the buildings and so that
7 would tend to bias the calculated positions toward
8 those arteries.
9 Q One of the things we discussed during your first
10 session of your deposition was your view that at least
11 some war drivers made an effort to systematically
12 traverse areas in order to -- to have more complete
13 scan data. Do you recall that discussion?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And given your view that -- that that constitutes
16 war driving, why couldn't that kind of war driving
17 avoid arterial bias?
18
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
19
Foundation. Calls for speculation.
20 A I think in that case if the war drivers were
21 making plans to cover all of the streets, then in
22 effect they would be practicing this invention. I
23 know it's a question of terminology, right? What is
24 war driving and what is -- what is not.
25 Q You have anticipated my follow-up question.

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

Min-U-Script®

same question and it relates to how one defines war
driving.
Q Okay. So your definition of war driving is -isn't -- is necessarily an unplanned approach to
scanning data, is that fair to say?
A Generally, yes.
Q Okay. Anything else important to your -- your
own definition that you're using as we talk here today
to what constitutes war driving?
A Not that I'm conscious of.
Q Okay. And when we talked during the last session
of your deposition you drew a distinction between war
driving and the random model -- the random method of
data collection that's discussed in the patent. Could
Claim 1 of the 988 patent cover a database that has
calculated position information based on access point
readings that were gathered through the random method?
A No, and for largely the same reasons.
Q Okay. Any different reading -- reasons or
exactly the same as what we've been discussing?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
A So I was thinking of the same reasons, the fact
that the random model wouldn't lead to reference
symmetry or avoiding arterial bias.
Q And is that because it's -- does not employ

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(3) Pages 9 - 12

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 13

Page 15

(08:49:19-08:51:04)

(08:53:15-08:55:37)

1 planned routes?
2 A Yes. The random model doesn't employ any
3 planning as they describe it in here.
4 Q Any other reasons why the random model could not
5 lead to a database consistent with Claim 1 of the 988
6 patent?
7 A Well, as they presented it in the specification,
8 the random model places scanners on, for example,
9 taxis and delivery vans and so forth, and those
10 vehicles tend to concentrate their efforts on the
11 arteries and may not cover all of the streets, likely
12 wouldn't, and so they would end up with arterial bias
13 and so they wouldn't accomplish the goals of Claim 1.
14 Q Okay. The questions I've just been asking you
15 about war driving and the random model have been
16 directed to Claim 1 of the 988 -- 988 patent, and I'd
17 like to ask you about Claim 1 of the 694 patent. The
18 694 patent we have marked as Exhibit 1010. Do you
19 have it there, sir?
20 A Yes.
21 Q So could Claim 1 of the 694 patent cover a
22 database that has calculated position information
23 based on access point readings that were gathered
24 using war driving?
25
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

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

like to ask you a hypothetical question about that.
I'm a competitor. Like not to get sued by Skyhook.
I'd like to design around Claim 1 of the 694 patent
and, in particular, I'd like to not meet the avoids
arterial bias limitation in Claim 1 of the 694 patent.
How do I avoid meeting that limitation while
practicing the rest of the claim?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
Foundation. Calls for speculation.
A I think that would be difficult to do because you
still want to achieve the reference symmetry part of
the claim without achieving the arterial bias part of
the claim, if I understand your -- you correctly, and
a method that accomplishes the reference symmetry goal

would -- at least as far as I can imagine, would
probably also avoid arterial bias, but I may have not

thought of a method yet that somehow does that.
Q If I understood your testimony on Wednesday, it's
your view that reference symmetry in -- in the 694
patent is -- is about the general distribution of
access points within the targeted area, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Why couldn't you have reference symmetry
in the target area by having broad distribution of
calculated locations, all of which are exactly on the

Page 14
(08:51:06-08:53:04)

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

Foundation. Calls for speculation. Also
object to the extent it's been asked and
answered.
A No. It's -- it has the same problem. War
driving would have the same -- would result in the
same problems in this case as well.
Q Okay. So -- so your answer is no, and for the
same reasons we've discussed with respect to the 988
patent?
A Yes.
Q Any different reasons?
A No, not -- not at first glance.
Q If you -- if you want a minute to think about it,
I'm -- I'm happy to give you that minute.
A No.
Q Okay. Could Claim 1 of the 694 patent cover a
database that has calculated position information
based on access point readings that were gathered
through the random method?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
Calls for speculation. Foundation. Also
object to the extent it's been asked and
answered.
A No, and for the same reasons.
Q With respect to Claim 1 of the 694 patent, I'd

Min-U-Script®

Page 16
(08:55:42-08:57:17)

1 streets exactly on the locations of the scan vehicle
2 as it traversed the area?
3
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
4
Also object to the extent it's been asked and
5
answered.
6 A Well, so your earlier question was -- was about
7 whether I could think of a way that one might
8 accomplish that and this question is about assuming
9 that one did accomplish that having arterial bias and
10 yet achieving reference symmetry.
11 Q I'm asking why -- why -- why couldn't that
12 happen? Why isn't that a possibility? And if you
13 think it's not a possibility, I'd be interested in
14 hearing why.
15 A Yeah, right.
16
MR. LU: Same objections.
17 A I suppose it is a possibility. If you drove all
18 the streets and made no effort to calculate the
19 position of access points simply recording the
20 locations along the streets, you would -- you would
21 have a form of reference symmetry. I think you
22 would -- it would lead to poor accuracy.
23 Q Is arterial bias, at least in part, a function of
24 the quality of the algorithm used to calculate the
25 location of the access point?

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(4) Pages 13 - 16

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 17
(08:57:19-08:59:00)

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
(09:01:44-09:04:18)

MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
Foundation.
A Well, I -- it's -- I would say probably not. You
know, my interpretation of arterial bias as a term is
that it is a bias in the result of the calculation of
the access point location caused by one scanning the
arteries rather than enough points elsewhere. There,
of course, are any possible number of algorithms one
might use, but I don't think it would be a function of

the algorithm that results in arterial bias.
Q Would you agree with me that the overall accuracy
of the calculated location, how close it gets to the
actual location of the access point, that's -- that's
a function of the quality of the algorithm used, yes?
A That's -MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
A That -- that is part of it.
Q Okay. And if you have a poor algorithm, one
result of that could be that your access points are
calculated quite close to the location of the scanning
vehicle as opposed to closer to the actual point of
the access point?
MR. LU: Same objection. Foundation.
A Right. So, I mean, it's -- it's a function of
the collection process as well as the algorithm.

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

and 694 patent, do you have to determine what
constitutes an artery as opposed to any other street?
A Well, you know, I -- I had that impression to
some extent when I was reading the -- their definition
or their examples of arterial bias and, you know, my

impression was that they -- they were defining
arterial bias in the context of the -- in the random
model where the data collection -- the points that you
collect occur from tracking randomly driving vehicles
which tend to spend more time on arteries and that in

a way -- in a way that defines arteries. I guess to
come back to your question, in order to determine
whether there's arterial bias does one need to
determine -- you know, know where the arteries are?
Q Right.
A I think you would.
Q And does the patent give us any -- any
information that would help us draw the line between
what constitutes an artery and what doesn't constitute
an artery?
A I vaguely remember something about the, you know,

heavily trafficked routes or something to that effect.
I don't remember exactly. So, for example, column 8,

line 8 of the 988 patent.
Q Yes. So starting at line 4 of column 8 the 988

Page 18

Page 20

(08:59:03-09:01:38)

(09:04:34-09:05:57)

1 Q Okay. And that -- and that if there is, the
2 accuracy of the calculated location information is a
3 function of both the scanning methodology and the
4 algorithm used?
5 A Correct.
6 Q The -- the question I asked about designing
7 around Claim 1 of the 694 patent by avoiding the
8 arterial bias question, I'll ask you the same question
9 in the context of the 988 patent. I'm a competitor
10 and I want to design around Claim 1 of the 988. In
11 particular, I want to not meet the avoid arterial bias
12 limitation and I want to practice the rest of the
13 claim. Can I do that?
14
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
15
Also object to the extent it calls for
16
speculation, and asked and answered.
17 A Yeah, I think the fundamentals are the same as
18 the 6 -- as in the 694 patent so, you know, as I said
19 there, I -- I -- I find it difficult to think of a way
20 that one could achieve the reference symmetry without
21 also avoiding arterial bias. Then in the follow-up
22 question we imagined a situation where that might
23 happen, but then you would end up with poor accuracy.
24 Q Okay. In order to determine whether a given data
25 set has arterial bias within the meaning of the 988

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

Min-U-Script®

patent says, as a result, over time the random driving
covers more and more ground by the cumulative coverage

shows a bias to the main roads, comma, or arteries at
the expense of the smaller and surrounding roads.
A Right. So that's -- that's one definition of
artery.
Q The next sentence after -- after what I read in
Figure 3, arteries 304 and 305 are heavily traversed
by the scanning vehicles resulting in a heavy amount
of scanning data for those streets.
A But the next sentence, at streets 306 and 307 are
rarely, if ever, covered because there is no frequent
destination of those streets and the arteries are more

optimal travel roads.
Q Okay. So that, in your view, gives us at least
some information to start with?
A Some.
Q Okay. So, again, my question goes -- goes back
to, where do we -- how do we actually draw the line
between what constitutes an artery and what
constitutes a road that is not an artery?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
A I'm not sure that you can draw the -- a hard line
in this case, and I'm not sure one needs to in this
patent or -- because the idea is to come -- you know,

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(5) Pages 17 - 20

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 21
(09:06:05-09:08:46)

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
(09:11:09-09:13:20)

is to -- the invention describes a way of covering
the -- all of the streets to avoid in general this -this form of bias that would happen if you didn't
cover all the streets.
Q Is avoid a synonym for eliminate in your mind?
A Did you say is avoid a synonym for eliminate?
Q Yes.
A No. I think I actually addressed that point.
Q Is reduce a synonym for avoid?
A Well, in this context I think that's what avoid
means. I think I said as much.
Q What's your basis for the contention that to
avoid arterial bias is to reduce arterial bias?
A Well, I have some points in my declaration. So,
for example, I mean, drawing on the specification

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
itself in my paragraph 122, they use the word reduced 16
in the specification, and for also example Figures 3 17
and 4 my paragraphs 123 and 124 show an example where 18
the arterial bias is reduced but not necessarily
19
eliminated.
20
Q Which one of those shows an example where it's 21
reduced but not necessarily eliminated?
22
A Well, Figure 4 is showing -- is showing that the 23
calculated locations are closer to the correct
24
location than in Figure 3. Figure 3, as captioned, is 25

arteries and streets in Figure 4.
Q If -- if -- you're right that it doesn't say
that, but let's assume that that's true for the moment
and that in that situation, given the assumption that
the arteries identified in Figure 3 should be deemed
to be arteries in Figure 4, in that case does Figure 4
show arterial bias?
A No, I guess it doesn't.
Q In -- well, strike that.
By how much does arterial bias have to be reduced
in order to be avoided within the meaning of the 988
and 694 patents?
A I'm not sure one can quantify or -- I'm not sure
one can quantify the degree to which it is reduced or

needs to be reduced. I think that it's an imprecise
term. The patent may not need that level of precision

in the context of this claim. The goal is to collect
the data and construct a database in a way that the
calculated positions will reduce arterial bias and
perform the invention, then you will -- it will result
in reduced arterial bias.
Q And so I understand your last answer, when you
say perform the invention, what exactly do you mean by

that?
A I would mean collecting the scanning data using

Page 22
(09:08:52-09:11:05)

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 24
(09:13:25-09:16:03)

an example of arterial bias.
1 some kind of a planned route that covers all of the
Q And is it your view that Figure 4 shows
2 streets or substantially all the streets so that you
calculated locations for the access points with
3 can obtain a better sample of the access point and
reduced arterial bias but still some arterial bias?
4 locations.
A Yes.
5 Q As you mentioned a moment ago, you have
Q Okay. Can you tell me why you think that there
6 identified some factors in your declaration that
is some arterial bias shown in Figure 4?
7 relate to the degree by which arterial bias might be
A Well, the -- the degree to which you can reduce 8 avoided or reduced in your view of that term, and
arterial bias depends on a lot of factors, as I said
9 that's what we see at paragraph 125, right?
in the declaration, and including the ability -- the 10 A Right.
distribution of roads and the distribution of access 11 Q Could the capabilities of the scanning device -points and the strength of your antennas and so forth. 12 just to take one of the examples you give, could the
And on reflection it might be difficult to tell simply 13 capabilities of the scanning device be so limited that
by looking at Figure 4 that there is still some
14 even when you collect the scan data using a planned
arterial bias as opposed to simply inaccurate location 15 route that covers substantially all -- all streets in
calculations, but I was thinking that -- I was
16 the area, could the capabilities of the scanning
thinking that in general you would still have some 17 device be so bad that you would, in fact, have
bias toward the arteries. I have to admit I'm having 18 arterial bias?
difficulty reconciling why that is because there's so 19
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
many factors involved in the degree of arterial bias. 20
Foundation. Calls for speculation.
Q Do -- does Figure 4 show arteries?
21 A I think if you used the same scanning device for
A It doesn't label any arteries. The Figure 3 -22 all of your scanning and it had bad qualities you
assuming that Figure 4 is meant to be the same city as 23 didn't -- you weren't precise about, let's assume
Figure 3, Figure 3 labels the arteries and streets and

24 we're talking about a weaker antenna, then if you're

so I guess by implication the same roads would be 25 using that same device on the arteries as well as on

Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(6) Pages 21 - 24

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 25

Page 27

(09:16:05-09:17:56)

(09:19:29-09:20:49)

1 the back streets, for example, I'm not sure how that
2 would change the effects of arterial bias
3 significantly. Right.
4 Q Could the number of roads in the target area,
5 another factor you identify, or the distribution of
6 roads, another factor that you identify, could either
7 of those factors be so significant that arterial bias
8 couldn't be avoided?
9
MR. LU: Objection. Vague.
10 A Yes. I'm thinking of the smaller towns where I
11 live that have very sparse roads, and so if you can
12 only drive on one side in effect within the radio
13 range con -- of the antenna, if you can only drive on
14 one side of the buildings, then all of your
15 observations will be on one side, it would be
16 difficult to avoid bias toward those roads.
17 Q And in the sort of small town limited number of
18 road situation you've described, would that also have
19 an effect on reference symmetry?
20 A Yes.
21
MR. LU: Take a short break?
22
MS. MANNING: Let me ask one more
23
question.
24
MR. LU: Sure thing.
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 Arterial bias varies in the random method. I'm
not sure what you mean.
Q Well, the amount of arterial bias present in, for
example, the database that had been compiled through
scanning using the random method of traversing the
area, the amount of arterial bias for any given access
point can vary -MR. LU: Same objection.
BY MS. MANNING:
Q -- correct?
A Well, for any given access point. So now we're
talking about a different situation than the general
concept of arterial bias as a whole -- of your data
set as a whole, but certainly the random method is -is going to lead to unpredictable coverage of your
area and so some areas will have better coverage than

others in terms of the set of streets and the degree
to which you're getting observations around an access

point. So, yes, some access points will have more
bias than others.
MS. MANNING: Why don't we take a break.
MR. LU: Okay.
VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 9:20 and
we're going off the record.
(Recess taken)

Page 26
(09:17:58-09:19:27)

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 28
(09:31:38-09:32:55)

BY MS. MANNING:
Q Looking at the next paragraph, paragraph 126.
A Yes.
Q You give your view that Skyhook's claim
construction for avoids arterial bias is as precise as
the subject matter of the 988 and 694 patents permits.
Could you tell me what you mean by that?
A Well, we touched on this a few minutes ago when
you asked about the degree of reduction, and I was
saying something to the effect that it would be
difficult to quantify the degree of reduction of
arterial bias because it is sort of inherently an
imprecise term and the patent itself doesn't require

1
VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 9:31 and
2
we're on the record.
3
BY MS. MANNING:
4 Q Dr. Kotz, I had a question for you about
5 paragraph 132 of your declaration. You got it?
6 A Yes.
7 Q In paragraph 132 you said the Chinese postman
8 routing model may drive some streets more than once,
9 citation. In such cases driving an additional street
10 or two would actually reduce arterial bias, not
11 increase it. Could you explain that last sentence to
12 me? Why would driving an additional street or two
13 actually reduce arterial bias, not increase it in the
one to quantify it, simply to perform the scanning in 14 Chinese postman routing model?
a way that leads to less arterial bias than you had 15 A Yeah, I think I was thinking about if you were
before. So it doesn't -- it doesn't matter how much 16 driving additional streets that weren't arteries, such
or it would be difficult to quantify how much.
17 as in the figure, then you would have more data points
Q When you say less than you had before, what do 18 on nonarteries and tend to reduce the effects of
you mean by before?
19 arterial bias.
A Oh, I'm sorry. So less arterial bias with their 20 Q When -- when -- and when you said the figure, you
method than without their method such as were shown in 21 were referring to Figure 4 of the 988 patent?
their examples.
22 A Yes.
Q And arterial bias varies in, for example, the
23 Q So does the statement, again, depend upon the
random method, right? I think we established that. 24 distinction you've been drawing of arteries versus
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
25 other kinds of streets?

Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(7) Pages 25 - 28

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 29

Page 31

(09:32:57-09:34:17)

(09:35:32-09:37:32)

1 A Right. In this -- in this context it would.
2 Q Any other reason why driving the additional
3 street or two would reduce arterial bias?
4 A I don't think so. Of course, in 133 I would -- I
5 point out that an even better solution would be to
6 simply not count the data from driving streets twice
7 or otherwise compensate for it.
8 Q Okay. I did note that you have identified a
9 couple of techniques for reducing arterial bias other
10 than -- well, strike that.
11 The technique of discarding the data for streets
12 driven more than once, is that a way of reducing ar -13 strike that again.
14 The technique you note of discarding data for
15 streets driven more than once, would that be a way of
16 avoiding arterial bias within the meaning of the
17 claims?
18
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
19
Foundation.
20 A No, I don't think it's -- in some ways it's not
21 related to arterial bias. It's -- it's -- it's a bias
22 that results from driving a street more than once,
23 whether it's an artery or not.
24 Q And regardless of what kind of street it is, you
25 can avoid that problem by getting rid of the data?

1 scanner when redriving the street, are those ways of
2 approaching the problem that would have been known to
3 a person of ordinary skill in the art in late 2005?
4 A I just want to clarify. You say are those ways
5 of approaching which problem?
6 Q Fair point. Let me ask you a different question.
7 In paragraph 133 they say there are -- there are
8 any one of a number of techniques to reduce the
9 effects of arterial bias and then you give two
10 examples of ways to do that. Other than the two
11 examples that you've identified here, there are no
12 other ways that you can think of to do that, right?
13 A Right.
14 Q Okay. So my question is the -- the two examples
15 you do give, were those two examples known to persons
16 of ordinary skill in the art in late 2005, the time
17 the patents were filed?
18 A I don't know.
19 Q Dr. Kotz, I've handed you what we have marked as
20 Google Exhibit 1015. It is a copy of U.S. Patent
21 Number 7474897 and it is Bates numbered GSHFED_0000061
22 through 74. And have you reviewed this document
23 before, sir?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And you're aware that the predefined rules

Page 30

Page 32

(09:34:18-09:35:31)

(09:37:37-09:39:54)

1 A That would be one way to avoid it.
2 Q Okay. And that would be outside the claims of
3 the patent?
4 A Yeah, I don't think -- I don't recall the patent
5 talking about that issue specifically.
6 Q Okay. And another technique you note here would
7 be in paragraph 133 would be to simply turn off the
8 scanning when driving a street already driven. Would
9 that be a way of avoiding arterial bias within the
10 meaning of the claims?
11
MR. LU: Same objections.
12 A No, I don't think it's -- it's a different -13 it's an orthogonal concept, orthogonal bias problem.
14 Q Okay. Are there any other ways that you can
15 think of of reducing the effect of arterial bias?
16 A Well, in effect, you're asking me to invent new
17 technology on the spot.
18 Q I am -- I am not. I'm asking you if you -- if
19 you are aware of any. If you are, that's great, I'd
20 ask you to tell us that, and if you're not, you can
21 tell us that too.
22 A Not off the top of my head, no.
23 Q The -- the two that you've identified in
24 paragraph 133, those two techniques, discarding data
25 for streets driven more than once or turning off the

1 limitation in Step C of Claim 1 is at issue in this
2 case?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Sir, once again, I am a competitor and I'd like
5 to practice Claim 1 of 897 except I would like not to
6 infringe it, so I've identified a particular
7 limitation I want to avoid practicing. The particular
8 limitation I want to avoid practicing is in Step C. I
9 would like to, in particular, determine whether an
10 observed access point should be included or excluded
11 from a set of WiFi access points, but I don't want to
12 do it using predefined rules. How would I do that?
13
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
14
Incomplete hypothetical. Foundation.
15 A That would be difficult because even if you
16 decided to, for example, exclude or include an access
17 point based on a flip of a coin or other random
18 method, that itself is a rule -19 Q Right.
20 A -- and presumably predefined. So if there's a
21 way, I don't see it right now.
22 Q Okay. Is a -- is a rule within the meaning of
23 the 897 patent just any decision-making criteria?
24
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
25 A Well, I mean, I -- I defined it in my declaration

Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(8) Pages 29 - 32

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 33

Page 35

(09:40:08-09:41:14)

(09:42:45-09:44:12)

1 and so, for example, we used -- there's a citation
2 here to a dictionary and a determinant method for
3 obtaining a certain result, which sounds similar to
4 what you're talking about, but more precise than your
5 definition just now.
6 Q Okay. And you think this is an accurate
7 definition of the ordinary meaning of the rule that we
8 see here in paragraph 89?
9 A It's accurate to the extent that we're citing a
10 well-known dictionary. It also seems reasonable to
11 me.
12 Q Is that the meaning of rule within Claim 1 of
13 897?
14 A That seems -15
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
16
Incomplete hypothetical. Do you want to read
17
to him the whole claim limitation rather than
18
selective portions of it?
19
MS. MANNING: I don't actually. I'm
20
asking about the meaning of the rule.
21
MR. LU: All right.
22
BY MS. MANNING:
23 Q And -24
MR. LU: And just to be clear, all this
25
testimony has been about the meaning of rule?

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

meaning of the 897 patent?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
A Well, I mean, within the meaning of the patent
you have to look at the context of the use of the word
predefined rule and the context is using the recorded

location information as part of -- in the -- in the
context of the rule to determine whether you include

it or not. So to use every WiFi access point isn't
using -- to include every WiFi access point is not
using the recorded location information.
Q Why not?
A Because your rule, as you stated it if I heard it
correctly, was to use -- simply include every WiFi
access point, and that rule doesn't mention literally
or implicitly the recorded location information.
Q Well, it would in that my rule is use all of
the -- all of the observed access points.
A But your rule isn't determined at all by the
location information.
Q So does the -- does the criteria of -- of -- of
the predefined rule within the meaning of the claim
have to be about the calculated location information?
MR. LU: Objection.
BY MS. MANNING:
Q In other words, does -- does whatever decisional

Page 34

Page 36

(09:41:17-09:42:41)

(09:44:14-09:45:22)

1
THE WITNESS: That's my understanding.
2
MS. MANNING: That is my understanding as
3
well.
4
MR. LU: Okay. Fair enough.
5
BY MS. MANNING:
6 Q So as a predefined rule -- well, strike that.
7 What's a predefined rule?
8 A Well, I'm trying to remember if I actually opined
9 on that specifically. Yeah. So, for example, I had
10 said in paragraph 94 I understand predefined to refer
11 to something that is determined prior to a specified
12 occurrence.
13 Q So putting those together, a predefined rule
14 would be something that is determined prior to a
15 specified occurrence, that something being a
16 determinant method for obtaining a certain result,
17 right?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. And those are the definitions you gave at
20 paragraphs 94 and 89 of your declaration, Exhibit
21 1004, right?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Is a predefined rule that says I'm going to use
24 every observed WiFi access point to determine the
25 location of user device a predefined rule within the

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

Min-U-Script®

criteria I'm using have to turn on something about the
calculated location information?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
Compound.
A The rule has to in some part at least refer to
the recorded location information. You said
calculated, but I'm looking at the claim and it's the
recorded location information.
Q Yes.
A And my feeling is that if it didn't refer to that
information at all, such as your earlier example, then
it's not a predefined rule in this context.
Q When you say refer to, help me understand what
you mean by that. In what sense must it refer to the
recorded location information?
A So -- so the rule, as we discussed earlier, is a
determinant method for obtaining a result. In this
case the result you're -- you're trying to obtain is a
decision about whether to include or exclude the WiFi
access point, and so this determinant method needs to
refer to the recorded location information in making

its decision.
Q Why?
A Well, that's the way I read the claim. Using the
recorded location information in conjunction with

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(9) Pages 33 - 36

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 37
(09:45:25-09:47:01)

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 39
(09:48:21-09:49:58)

rules to determine whether to include or exclude.
Q You emphasize using in your answer just now.
A Yes.
Q All right. So to use something in conjunction
with the predefined rules means that the decisional
criteria relies on some -- something about the nature
of the calculated location information, is that right?
A It -- it relies on the recorded location
information in some way.
Q Why isn't the more natural reading of this just
you've got a rule, it's predefined, whatever that rule
is, you just apply that rule to the -- to the in or
out decision on the calculated -- on using the
calculated location information in -- in the set or
out of the set?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
A I really think you should restate that question
because I found it vague also.
Q Okay. Let me -- let me strike that last and I'll
ask it a slightly different way.
Why can't you have a predefined rule that will
allow you to determine whether to put an observed
access point in the set you're going to use for a
location or exclude it from that set? Why can't you
have such a rule that does not depend on any quality

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

Q Why doesn't in conjunction with simply mean that
the rule is applied to the various recorded location
information as opposed to being -- as opposed to
turning on some quality of the recorded location
information?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague.
A That's a different distinction than I heard you
make before. Sorry. Well, so quality of recorded
location information is very vague. I'm not sure what

you mean by that.
Q As I understand your testimony, it's that the
decisional criteria, the predefined rule, has to
relate in some way to some characteristic or quality
of the recorded location information, is that -- is
that right?
A It has to refer to the location information in
some way, and I could imagine thinking mathematically

that any function of that information could be used,

and if you had a function that defined a
characteristic of the location or a quality of the
location, whatever -- however you might choose to
define those functions because those words themselves

are loose, then that would fit, but I wouldn't
constrain it to quality or characteristic. Any use of
the recorded location information fits.

Page 38
(09:47:09-09:48:16)

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 40
(09:50:04-09:52:47)

of the calculated location information?
A So -MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
Foundation.
A So I'm going to correct you again. This is about
recorded location information.
Q Yes, I apologize for using the -A That's fine.
Q -- other term. I do mean -- I do mean them to be
synonymous.
A Well, they're not but -Q Well, that is -- that is an issue but -- but if
you can answer with reference to the recorded location
information.
A Right. So the -- if you had a rule that did not

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
use the recorded location information in some way in 16
making the decision, then I don't feel that it would 17
fall under the -- this -- this term of the claim.
18
Q Why not?
19
A Because to be simple about it, it's simply the
20
way I read it. You have -- the word in conjunction 21
with means that the -- the rules are used in
22
conjunction with this information, and if you have a 23
rule that isn't used in conjunction with that
24
information, then it's not covered by this language. 25

Min-U-Script®

Q What if my predefined rule was I'm going to use
every other recorded location information, every other
piece of recorded location information for each WiFi
access point -- withdrawn.
Let me try again. Why can't my rule be that I'm
going to use the recorded location information for
every other observed WiFi access point?
A Well, let's look at this carefully. So it says
using the recorded location information for each of
the observed WiFi access points. So as I read this
rule, it is talking about a particular access point,
and you're trying to decide whether it should be
included or excluded from the set of access points,
and so constraining our thought then to a particular

access point, you're going to use the recorded
location information for that access point in deciding
about that access point, and so then your question is
not quite phrased correctly because you talk about

every other access point.
Q Why can't my predefined rule be -- strike that.
Given your view that the rule must be applied to
each owned WiFi access point on an individualized
basis, which is what I just heard you testify, given
that view, why can't my predefined rule be I'm going
to use that access point --

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(10) Pages 37 - 40

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 41

Page 43

(09:52:50-09:53:38)

(09:55:41-09:57:10)

1 A Because you -2 Q -- and, therefore, you would use every access
3 point?
4 A Because then you didn't use the location
5 information.
6 Q Again, so the rule has to be something about the
7 ac -- has to turn on some -- something having to do
8 with the information itself -- recorded locations I
9 should say?
10 A Right.
11
MR. LU: Objection. Asked and answered.
12
BY MS. MANNING:
13 Q Why?
14
MR. LU: Objection. Asked and answered.
15
BY MS. MANNING:
16 Q Is that -- is that -- is that based on anything
17 other than the claim language? Is there something in
18 the specification that supports that or is that just
19 your straight reading of the claim language?
20 A Well, it is my straight reading of the claim
21 language, but I -- you know, I'd have to go back and
22 look, but I'd be surprised if the specification didn't
23 talk about -24
MR. LU: David, if you want to look at the
25
specification, you should.

1 A Right, which is why I eventually answered it.
2 Q Okay. The recorded location -3
MR. LU: David, are you still reviewing
4
the patent specification right now before she
5
moves on?
6
THE WITNESS: Well -7
BY MS. MANNING:
8 Q Are you done answering the question or are you
9 still considering your answer?
10 A I'm done.
11 Q The recorded location information, would that be
12 recorded as a latitude and longitude or do you know?
13
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
14
Goes beyond the scope of the witness's expert
15
declaration.
16 A I didn't -- I -- I wasn't asked to think about
17 that, to opine about recorded -- what location means.
18 I didn't say anything about that in my declaration. I
19 hadn't really thought about it.
20 Q Okay. So do you know one way or the other?
21 A I don't recall.
22 Q Assuming -- assume with me that the recorded
23 location information is recorded as a latitude and a
24 longitude. Could a predefined rule be to use only
25 those latitudes that end with an even number?

Page 42

Page 44

(09:53:38-09:55:40)

(09:57:17-09:58:29)

1
BY MS. MANNING:
2 Q Yeah. And Mr. Lu is right. If you want to look
3 at the specification, that's fine. My -- my question
4 was in giving your answer were you basing that on
5 anything other than the -- than your reading of the
6 claims? Were you -- did you have in your mind
7 something about the specification that informed your
8 views or not?
9
MR. LU: And, David, if you need to look
10
at the specification, you should.
11
MS. MANNING: Yes.
12 A Well, I mean, the straight answer is that I did
13 not have in my mind when I answered the question a
14 particular place in the specification, but I'd be
15 surprised if the specification wasn't using the
16 location information because that would be, you know,
17 an obvious part of such a method.
18
MR. LU: David, again, take your time to
19
review the patent specification. You don't
20
have to answer these questions on the fly.
21
BY MS. MANNING:
22 Q If you feel that you need to review it more to
23 answer my question, you're certainly welcome to do
24 that. My question was about what you had in mind as
25 opposed 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

Min-U-Script®

MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Which -which -- which -- which -- which digit are you
talking about in terms of a latitude and
longitude?
MS. MANNING: The final digit ends with.
MR. LU: Okay.
A Well -Q And I think I said use the -- use the -- I meant
use the recorded location information that has a
latitude that ends with an even number.
MR. LU: Objection. Foundation.
A So be pedantic for a moment. Latitude and
longitude are real numbers, but when they're measured,

one has a certain degree of precision and so there is
a last digit. And so let's assume for the moment that
location is measured by latitude and longitude up to a

certain precision and that there's a last digit and
one can easily determine whether it's even or not. So
a rule that made a -- made its decision based simply

on that would be using the recorded location
information in a rather silly way.
Q But it would? That would be a predefined rule
within the meaning of the claim?
A I think so.
Q Okay. What -- what's an algorithm?

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(11) Pages 41 - 44

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 45

Page 47

(09:58:59-10:00:39)

(10:02:54-10:05:00)

1 A Let's see. I don't remember if I defined it in
2 my declaration.
3 Q You're welcome to review your declaration. If
4 you did, I didn't note it.
5 A Yeah, I don't think I did, and I don't recall
6 that that was a term that was in contest, is it?
7 Q It is -- it is a term that you use in your
8 declaration, the word algorithm appears in there?
9 A Yes. Right. Right.
10 Q And I wanted to understand, you know, what it is
11 you meant by it.
12 A Okay. I just didn't want to accidentally on the
13 fly construe a term that was in contest so -- so I
14 guess an algorithm would be a -- and, again, this is
15 an on-the-fly definition, but it would be a
16 determinant method of accomplishing some task. I'm
17 sure I could, you know, define it better, but that's
18 quick.
19 Q That's quite similar to your definition in
20 paragraph 89 of a rule, a rule being simply a
21 determinant method for obtaining a certain result?
22 A Right, which is why I thought of it. Another
23 good definition -- reasonable definition of an
24 algorithm would be a series of steps to accomplish
25 some calculation or task.

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 Well, first of all, I would expect any student to
be able to simply write down that algorithm without
having to look at the 988 patent. Weighted centroid

is a fairly routine algorithm. Also the patent, of
course, provides a lot more in it than the weighted
centroid. I don't recall whether it provides a
specific algorithm or description of that algorithm.
On the other hand, I don't think it would need to.
Q Why not?
A Because, as I said, any graduate student worth
their salt would be able to do that in their sleep or
undergraduate for that matter.
Q What do you understand the term logic in the
claims of the 988 patent to refer to?
A Well, so let's see. I have quite a lot of
opinions related to that term. In the -- in the
context of these patents we're talking about computer

implementing logic, and so I take the word logic to
refer to computer hardware/software.
Q Is that an either/or, computer hardware or
software?
A Yes.
MR. LU: I'm sorry. That was vague and
ambiguous. Are you saying either A or B but
not both A or B or it can be A, it can be B, or

Page 46
(10:00:46-10:02:53)

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

Q One definition that I found was in mathematics
and computer science an algorithm is an effective
method expressed as a finite list of well-defined
instructions for calculating a function. Would that
seem like a reasonable definition for you?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
Also objection to the extent it calls for a
legal conclusion.
A Well, from a computer scientist's point of view
as opposed to a lawyer's point of view, it's a
reasonable definition.
Q To -- to give an analogy to someone who, unlike
yourself, is not a computer scientist, would it be
fair to analogize an algorithm to something like the
steps of a recipe, would that be a fair analogy?
A That's a common analogy, yes.
Q Okay. If you gave one of your graduate students
the assignment of -- of stating for you an algorithm
for determining a weighted centroid position for all
position information reported for an access point and
your student gave you the specification of the 988
patent, would you say that your student had in fact
given you that algorithm?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
Foundation.

Min-U-Script®

Page 48
(10:05:04-10:06:18)

1
it can be A and B?
2
MS. MANNING: Let me clarify that for you.
3
MR. LU: Just so you know, the reason why
4
I raise that is I spent quite a bit of time
5
litigating over that particular issue as to
6
what or -- what or meant.
7
THE WITNESS: In computer science that
8
would be an exclusive or.
9
MR. LU: That's correct.
10
BY MS. MANNING:
11 Q Do you mean it as an exclusive or, it's either
12 one or the other but not both?
13 A No, I would include both certainly, yes.
14 Q Okay. So -- so your view is that logic could be
15 computer hardware, it could be computer software, or
16 it could be both computer hardware and software
17 together?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And what's your view based on?
20 A Common use of the term in -- in -- at least in my
21 field.
22 Q With respect to the -- well, actually, why don't
23 you take the 988 patent. I'm going to ask you a
24 specific question about it. Could you look at column
25 12, there's a passage from line 29 to roughly line 38.

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(12) Pages 45 - 48

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 49

Page 51

(10:06:27-10:08:23)

(10:10:58-10:12:42)

1 Do you see that?
2 A Once the parsing process?
3 Q Yes.
4 A Once the parsing process.
5 Q There is a reference on line 34 -- I'm sorry, 33
6 and 34 of column 12 in the 988 patent, there's a
7 reference there to new access points being added to
8 the database?
9 A Right.
10 Q And would you agree with me that -- that that
11 tells you what to do, not how to -- how to actually
12 add them to the database?
13
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
14 A True.
15 Q And in Claim 1, the limitation refers to logic to
16 add records to the database for newly discovered WiFi
17 access points. Would you agree with me that the
18 records referenced there have to have both
19 identification information for the access point and
20 calculated location information for the access point,
21 that's -- that's the record that's actually being
22 added?
23
MR. LU: Could you read that question
24
back?
25
(Pending question read back)

1 yes. It has to do more than just generically save
2 information to the database?
3 A Correct.
4 Q It has to do some work with the actual data
5 before it's saved?
6 A Yes.
7 Q The sort of further limitation that you just
8 referenced where it starts said computer logic
9 including logic to recalculate position information,
10 goes on from there, at column 12, lines 33 and 34, do
11 you see there's a number 2 that says, and 2) existing
12 access points are repositioned based on any new data
13 recorded by the scanners?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you see that? That part of the specification
16 there, that tells a person of ordinary skill in the
17 art what they should do?
18 A Yes.
19 Q But not -- yes?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And would you agree with me that it doesn't tell
22 them how to do it?
23 A Not in that sentence, no.
24 Q Is there -- is there any place else in the -- in
25 the patent that you think tells a person of -- of

Page 50

Page 52

(10:08:40-10:10:55)

(10:12:46-10:15:30)

1 A So I'm -- oh, here we go. Well, it's not
2 immediately clear from the claim, but I think so.
3 Q The claim does refer to each record including
4 identification information for a corresponding WiFi
5 access point and calculated position information?
6 A Oh, you mean earlier in the claim?
7 Q Yes.
8 A Yeah, okay. I was just looking at that clause.
9 Sorry. Right. Okay. So I see that.
10 Q So given that -- that requirement further up in
11 the claim, would you agree with me that the logic to
12 add records to the database for newly discovered WiFi
13 access points has to be -- has to be adding records
14 that actually have the -- the identification
15 information and the calculated location information?
16 A I would think so, yeah.
17 Q So would you agree with me that that logic has to
18 do more than just generically save?
19
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
20 A Well, you know, the -- the claim term itself
21 says -- goes on to say that said computer logic,
22 including logic to recalculate position information,
23 etc. So it's not simply adding it, it's explicitly
24 doing some recalculation as well.
25 Q Okay. Okay. So I gather that's a -- that's a

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

Min-U-Script®

skill in the art specifically how to accomplish
recalculating position information for WiFi access
points previously stored in the database to utilize
position information for the newly discovered readings

of the previously stored WiFi access points?
MR. LU: David, you should certainly refer
to anything you need to refer to when answering
that question.
A Yeah. I'm studying the specification to see if I
can find it. Let's see if I have it somewhere else in
here.
So in that same paragraph, which is about the
reverse triangulation model for processing the new
data, it talks about the algorithm which factors in
the number of records and the associated signal
strengths and how it weights stronger signal readings
more than weaker signals with a quasi weighted average

model, and so the question was about how to
recalculate position information for access points
previously stored.
Q Yes.
A So my understanding would be that this -- these
sentences here and some of the sentences prior to that

paragraph are helping you understand those
calculations. That's using this reverse triangulation

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(13) Pages 49 - 52

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 53
(10:15:35-10:17:24)

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 55
(10:18:49-10:20:33)

algorithm it's going to factor in number of records,
signal strengths, it's going to be weighting those
readings according to the signal strengths, and so I
think there's -- you know -- and also the age of the
records. So they're using all this information to
calculate the location information or the estimated
location. I think you would do the recalculation in
the same way.
Q Okay. And just for the record, you were
referring to the paragraph at column 12, lines 29
through roughly 38?
A Yes. And the paragraph before that, lines 25
through 29 I guess.
Q Okay. It's your view that the -- the reverse
triangulation algorithm is the -- is the algorithm
that accomplishes that. Would you agree that the
specification doesn't tell you what that algorithm
actually is?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
A Well, let's see. I mean, it -- it doesn't -- it
doesn't spell out the algorithm in detail, but it does
provide -- I don't think it would need to. I mean, it
provides some of the mathematics that are part of the
reverse triangulation model and it provides the
factors that the algorithm uses, the number 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

A Well, it would be a GPS reading that has some
error relative to your actual location.
Q Is it -- is it -- is -- is the phrase error
prone -- prone GPS information, is that some
commentary on the typical quality of GPS information
or is it specific to I have a GPS -- I have this GPS
reading and it appears to be erroneous?
A I see. Let's see the context here. I think -GPS is -- information is typically erroneous, it's not
perfect, and GPS devices are known to occasionally
have large errors. I think in the context of this
claim they're talking about this clustering logic and
the purpose, as I recall from the specification, is
that the clustering logic is enabling you to decide
which readings are substantially erroneous and should

be excluded.
Q Okay. And clustering logic -MR. LU: We've reached seven hours so if
you can finish up.
MS. MANNING: Let me just tell you what
I'm hoping to do. I have, I think, a couple
more -- a couple more questions. If we could
take a quick break, make sure there's nothing
else of great significance and we can figure
out if we're done or if I need a couple of

Page 54

Page 56

(10:17:28-10:18:46)

(10:20:35-10:29:10)

1 records, the signal strengths, the age of the records,
2 etc., but my understanding is that one need not spell
3 out an algorithm in detail in order to teach it
4 sufficiently as long as one of ordinary skill in the
5 art can construct an algorithm that accomplishes
6 what's said in the claim.
7 Q Right. That's -- that's -- that's your
8 understanding of the legal requirement?
9 A Right. Right.
10 Q Right. So my -- my question's about whether
11 it -- whether the -- whether the patent actually
12 discloses the al -- regardless of your view about
13 whether it needs to or not.
14 A Okay. Okay.
15 Q The question was does it disclose the algorithm?
16 A Not in detail, but there's a lot of information
17 about the -- that is needed to understand their
18 embodiment of an algorithm that would do that.
19 Q Let me ask you about a limitation in Claim 2 of
20 the 988 patent. You see that refers to logic to
21 identify position information based on error prone GPS
22 information?
23 A Yeah.
24 Q My first question is, what is error prone GPS
25 information in your understanding?

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

Min-U-Script®

questions.
MR. LU: Okay. And I may have one or two
follow-up questions. So let's take a short
break.
VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 10:20 and
we're going off the record.
(Recess taken)
VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 10:28 and
we're on the record.
A So I wanted to start with a clarification about
what we were just discussing with respect to the
algorithm in the 988 patent.
Q Sure.
A And so, you know, I -- I had some time to look at

it a little more closely, and these mathematical
equations close to the paragraphs we were looking at
before lines 50 through 64, for example, are part of

a -- it actually calls it this, applying the
algorithm. So this is the algorithm for triangulating

the position of an access point using latitude and
longitude. It goes on. I mean, there's more detail
on the next column as well. And it describes it in a
sequence of steps so, for example, column 13, line 26
or 7 there's a paragraph, this final lat long is then

used as the final centroid value for the location of

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(14) Pages 53 - 56

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 57
(10:29:14-10:31:26)

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 59
(10:33:04-10:34:19)

that access point. So these two columns together at
least provide, like I said before, sufficient detail,
I think, for one to construct an implementation of an
algorithm for calculating or recalculating the
positions of access points.
Q Since you've directed our attention to them, I do
have a question for you about them. In all cases it
refers to a lat subscript U and long subscript U, both
equations. I should probably say sets of equations
refer to that. In the text it says, if the
corresponding recorded GPS location of access point I
is denoted by lat I long I, what's the relationship
between lat I long I and lat U long U?
A So lat U, for example, is calculated using this
equation from a combination of all the lat I values,
and from the looks of it there are N, N as in Nancy,
lat I values that are being computed together to
produce lat U and, similarly, long U. And so the -the U subscript refers to the result and the I
subscript refers to the inputs.
Q In paragraph 70 of your declaration you note that
there are many possible ways to divide data points
into groups or clusters. Do the claims require
clustering by, for example, distance?
MR. LU: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

1
for the witness at this time, though I do
2
reserve the right to recross if you direct him.
3
MR. LU: Fair enough.
4
EXAMINATION
5
BY MR. LU:
6 Q Dr. Kotz, I'd like you to turn to the 897 patent.
7 And you recall that we had a discussion regarding the
8 meaning of the phrase predefined rules, and during
9 that discussion you were asked whether or not you
10 recollected any portions of the 897 patent
11 specification that disclosed using the locations of
12 recorded WiFi access points in conjunction with the
13 predefined rules. Do you recall that line of
14 questioning?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And it was my recollection that you did not
17 immediately recollect any portions of the patent
18 specification. Is that also correct?
19 A I think so.
20 Q I would direct your attention to column 10, line
21 5 of the 897 patent titled Realtime Filtering of
22 Suspect Access Points. Do you see that?
23 A Yes.
24 Q If you could read that section and let me know
25 when you're done.

Page 58
(10:31:32-10:33:03)

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 Talking about 988 claims?
Q Yes.
A And specifically Claim 2, clustering logic?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Would any criteria for putting the data into
groups or clusters fall within the scope of that
limitation?
MR. LU: And you're talking about the
whole limitation? Could you read the
limitation, otherwise I object to it being
vague and ambiguous.
BY MS. MANNING:
Q In Claim 2 where it recites, clustering logic to
identify position location based on error prone GPS
information, would any -- any clustering logic that
clustered based on any criteria fall within that
claim?
MR. LU: Other than error prone GPS
information? I just want to make sure the
claim -- the question is clear. Objection.
Vague and ambiguous.
A I would think so.
Q Okay.
MS. MANNING: I have no further questions

Min-U-Script®

Page 60
(10:34:58-10:36:06)

1 A Okay.
2 Q Does rereading that section refresh your
3 recollection as to whether the 897 patent discloses
4 the use of recorded access -- recorded location
5 information for WiFi access points in conjunction with
6 predefined rules?
7
MS. MANNING: Objection. Leading.
8 A Well, this -- this paragraph or section certainly
9 does use location information to determine which
10 access points to include in location calculations,
11 yes.
12 Q Okay.
13
MR. LU: No further questions.
14
MS. MANNING: I have no further questions.
15
VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 10:35, and
16
this concludes the video deposition of David
17
Kotz.
18
THE REPORTER: Same transcript orders as
19
yesterday?
20
MS. MANNING: Yes, please.
21
MR. LU: Yes.
22
(WHEREUPON, the deposition was closed at
23
approximately 10:36 a.m.)
24
25

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(15) Pages 57 - 60

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
Page 61

1
I have carefully read the foregoing
2
deposition and the answers made by me are true.
3
4
_____________________________________
5
David Kotz, Ph.D.
6
7
8 STATE OF _______________________________
9 COUNTY OF ______________________________
10
11
At ___________________________ in said
12
County, this ______ day of _______________,
13
2011, personally appeared the above named
14
______________________ and made oath that the
15
foregoing answers, subscribed by him, are true.
16
Before me,
17
18
19
_____________________________________
20
Notary Public
21
22
23
24 My commission expires: ____________________________
25
Page 62

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

CERTIFICATE
I, Lisa M. Hallstrom, Registered Professional
Reporter, certify:
That the foregoing proceedings were
reported stenographically by me at the time and

place herein set forth;
That the foregoing is a true and correct

transcript of my shorthand notes so taken;
That the witness was sworn by me as a
Notary Public for the State of Vermont;
That I am not a relative or employee of

any attorney of the parties nor financially
interested in the action.
The certification of this transcript does not apply
to any reproduction of the same by any means unless

under the direct control and/or direction of the
certifying reporter.

_____________________________________

Lisa M. Hallstrom, RPR, CRR, CCP

My commission expires February 10, 2015.

Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(16) Pages 61 - 62

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google

1
1 (21)
5:12,15;7:19;9:25;11:19;

29 (3)
48:25;53:10,13

3

12:15;13:5,13,16,17,21;14:16, 3 (8)
20:8;21:17,25,25;22:22,24,
25;15:3,5;18:7,10;32:1,5;33:12;

49:15
10 (1)
59:20
10:20 (1)
56:5
10:28 (1)
56:8
10:35 (1)
60:15
10:36 (1)
60:23
1004 (1)
34:21
1007 (1)
5:15
1010 (1)
13:18
1015 (1)
31:20
10-CV-11571-RWZ (1)
3:9
12 (4)
48:25;49:6;51:10;53:10
122 (1)
21:16
123 (1)
21:18
124 (1)
21:18
125 (1)
24:9
126 (1)
26:2
13 (1)
56:23
132 (2)
28:5,7
133 (4)
29:4;30:7,24;31:7
14th (1)
3:3

2
2 (5)
51:11,11;54:19;58:3,14
2005 (2)
31:3,16
2011 (2)
3:3;61:13
25 (1)
53:12
26 (1)
56:23
28 (1)
9:2
Min-U-Script®

24;23:5
304 (1)
20:8
305 (1)
20:8
306 (1)
20:11
307 (1)
20:11
33 (2)
49:5;51:10
34 (3)
49:5,6;51:10
38 (2)
48:25;53:11

89 (3)
action (1)
33:8;34:20;45:20
3:16
897 (8)
actual (4)
32:5,23;33:13;35:1;59:6,10,
17:13,21;51:4;55:2
21;60:3
actually (13)
20:19;21:8;28:10,13;33:19;
34:8;48:22;49:11,21;50:14;
9
53:18;54:11;56:18
add (3)
9:20 (1)
49:12,16;50:12
27:23
added (2)
9:31 (1)
49:7,22
28:1
adding (2)
94 (2)
50:13,23
34:10,20
additional (4)
988 (29)
28:9,12,16;29:2
5:12,14,14,15;7:19;8:25;10:1;
11:19;12:15;13:5,16,16;14:8; addressed (1)
21:8
18:9,10,25;19:24,25;23:11;
26:6;28:21;46:21;47:3,14; admit (1)
22:18
48:23;49:6;54:20;56:12;58:1
again (9)

A

4

ability (1)
22:10
able (3)
4 (12)
7:24;47:2,11
19:25;21:18,23;22:2,7,14,21,
23;23:1,6,6;28:21
above (1)
61:13
ac (1)
5
41:7
access (64)
5 (1)
5:16;6:4;7:2;8:4;11:20;12:16;
59:21
13:23;14:18;15:21;16:19,25;
50 (1)
17:6,13,19,22;22:3,11;24:3;
56:17
27:6,11,18,19;32:10,11,16;
34:24;35:8,9,14,17;36:20;
6
37:23;40:4,7,10,11,13,15,16,17,
19,22,25;41:2;46:20;49:7,17,19,
6 (1)
20;50:5,13;51:12;52:2,5,19;
18:18
56:20;57:1,5,11;59:12,22;60:4,
64 (1)
5,10
56:17
accidentally (1)
694 (13)
45:12
13:17,18,21;14:16,25;15:3,5,
19;18:7,18;19:1;23:12;26:6 accomplish (8)
7:23;8:19,22;13:13;16:8,9;
45:24;52:1
7
accomplishes (3)
15:14;53:16;54:5
7 (1)
accomplishing (1)
56:24
45:16
70 (1)
according (1)
57:21
53:3
74 (1)
accuracy (4)
31:22
16:22;17:11;18:2,23
7474897 (1)
accurate (2)
31:21
33:6,9
achieve (4)
8
6:22;8:5;15:11;18:20
achievement (1)
8 (4)
8:6
9:2;19:23,24,25
achieving (2)
8:32 (2)
15:12;16:10
3:1,4

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

20:18;28:23;29:13;32:4;38:5;

40:5;41:6;42:18;45:14
age (2)
53:4;54:1
ago (3)
9:24;24:5;26:8
agree (8)
9:4;17:11;49:10,17;50:11,17;
51:21;53:16
al (1)
54:12
algorithm (33)
16:24;17:10,14,18,25;18:4;
44:25;45:8,14,24;46:2,14,18,23;
47:2,4,7,7;52:14;53:1,15,15,17,
21,25;54:3,5,15,18;56:12,19,19;

57:4
algorithms (1)
17:8
allow (3)
6:7,22;37:22
along (1)
16:20
alternatives (1)
8:17
always (1)
6:17
Ambiguous (37)
5:18;6:1;7:6,20;9:10,15;
10:18;11:22;12:21;13:25;
14:20;15:8;16:3;17:1,16;18:14;
20:22;24:19;26:25;29:18;32:13,
24;33:15;35:2;36:3;37:16;38:3;

43:13;46:6,24;47:24;49:13;
50:19;53:19;57:25;58:12,22
among (2)
7:10;11:13
amount (3)
20:9;27:3,6
analogize (1)
46:14
analogy (4)
(1) 1 - analogy

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
6:15;46:12,15,16
answered (11)
5:2,9;11:24;14:3,23;16:5;
18:16;41:11,14;42:13;43:1
antenna (2)
24:24;25:13
antennas (1)
22:12
anticipated (1)
10:25
apologize (1)
38:7
appeared (1)
61:13
appears (2)
45:8;55:7
applied (2)
39:2;40:21
apply (1)
37:12
applying (1)
56:18
approach (1)
12:4
approaching (2)
31:2,5
approximately (2)
3:1;60:23
ar (1)
29:12
area (8)
11:5;15:21,24;16:2;24:16;
25:4;27:6,16
areas (2)
10:12;27:16
around (5)
8:4;15:3;18:7,10;27:18
art (6)
4:24;31:3,16;51:17;52:1;54:5
arterial (61)
4:12,13;5:7,22;8:2,6;9:25;
10:17;12:24;13:12;15:5,12,16;
16:9,23;17:4,10;18:8,11,21,25;
19:5,7,13;21:13,13,19;22:1,4,4,
7,9,15,20;23:7,10,19,21;24:7,

18;25:2,7;26:5,12,15,20,23;

assumption (1)
23:4
attention (2)
57:6;59:20
average (1)
52:17
avoid (16)
8:6;10:17;15:6,16;18:11;

18:3;47:25;48:12,13,16;
49:18;57:8
break (5)
3:24;25:21;27:21;55:23;56:4
broad (1)
15:24
broke (1)
4:3
21:2,5,6,9,10,13;25:16;29:25; buildings (2)
30:1;32:7,8
10:6;25:14
avoidance (1)
9:24
C
avoided (3)
23:11;24:8;25:8
calculate (3)
avoiding (5)
16:18,24;53:6
12:24;18:7,21;29:16;30:9
calculated (26)
avoids (3)
5:16,23;8:1;10:7;11:20;
8:1;15:4;26:5
12:16;13:22;14:17;15:25;17:12,
aware (4)
20;18:2;21:24;22:3;23:19;
4:19;5:4;30:19;31:25
35:22;36:2,7;37:7,13,14;38:1;
49:20;50:5,15;57:14
B
calculating (2)
46:4;57:4
calculation (2)
back (8)
17:5;45:25
8:19;11:18;19:12;20:18;25:1;
calculations (3)
41:21;49:24,25
bad (2)
22:16;52:25;60:10
Calls (14)
24:17,22
5:19;6:1;7:7,21;9:16;10:19;
Baker (1)
11:23;14:1,21;15:9;18:15;
3:14
ballparking (1)
24:20;46:7;56:18
Can (30)
6:11
4:7;5:6;7:4,18,18;11:2;15:15;
based (13)
18:13;20:23;22:6,8;23:13,14;
5:16;11:20;12:16;13:23;
14:18;32:17;41:16;44:19;
24:3;25:11,13;27:7;29:25;
48:19;51:12;54:21;58:15,17
30:14,20;31:12;38:13;44:18;
47:25,25;48:1;52:10;54:5;
basing (1)
55:19,24
42:4
basis (2)
capabilities (3)
21:12;40:23
24:11,13,16
captioned (1)
Bates (1)
21:25
31:21
besides (1)
carefully (2)
5:5
40:8;61:1
case (7)
better (4)
10:20;11:16;14:6;20:24;23:6;
24:3;27:16;29:5;45:17
beyond (1)
32:2;36:18
43:14
cases (2)
28:9;57:7
bias (70)
4:12,13;5:7,23;8:2,6;9:25; caused (1)
17:6
10:7,17;12:24;13:12;15:5,12,
16;16:9,23;17:4,5,10;18:8,11, centroid (4)
46:19;47:3,6;56:25
21,25;19:5,7,13;20:3;21:3,13,
13,19;22:1,4,4,7,9,15,18,20; certain (5)
33:3;34:16;44:14,17;45:21
23:7,10,19,21;24:7,18;25:2,7,
16;26:5,12,15,20,23;27:1,3,6, Certainly (7)

39:13,20,24
characterization (1)
8:11
Chinese (2)
28:7,14
choose (1)
39:21
citation (2)
28:9;33:1
citing (1)
33:9
city (1)
22:23
Claim (49)
5:12,15,20;7:19;9:25;11:18;
12:15;13:5,13,16,17,21;14:16,
25;15:3,5,7,12,13;18:7,10,13;

23:17;26:4;32:1,5;33:12,17;
35:21;36:7,24;38:18;41:17,19,
20;44:23;49:15;50:2,3,6,11,20;

54:6,19;55:12;58:3,14,18,21
claimed (3)
6:21;7:18;11:6
claims (7)
29:17;30:2,10;42:6;47:14;
57:23;58:1
clarification (1)
56:10
clarify (2)
31:4;48:2
clause (1)
50:8
clear (3)
33:24;50:2;58:21
close (3)
17:12,20;56:16
closed (1)
60:22
closely (1)
56:15
closer (2)
17:21;21:24
clustered (1)
58:17
clustering (7)
55:12,14,17;57:24;58:3,14,16

clusters (2)
16,21;30:9,15;31:9
57:23;58:7
arteries (21)
coin (1)
10:4,5,8;13:11;17:7;19:10,11,
32:17
14;20:3,8,13;22:18,21,22,24;
collect (3)
23:1,5,6;24:25;28:16,24
19:9;23:17;24:14
artery (8)
collected (3)
10:6;19:2,19,20;20:6,20,21;
6:3,18;10:5
29:23
collecting (3)
assignment (1)
6:25;8:7;23:25
46:18
4:16;6:14;27:14;42:23;48:13; collection (5)
13,20;28:10,13,19;29:3,9,16,21,
associated (1)
6:4;11:10;12:14;17:25;19:8
52:6;60:8
21;30:9,13,15;31:9
52:15
column (10)
chance (1)
Bingham (1)
assume (4)
9:2;19:23,25;48:24;49:6;
3:15
6:17
23:3;24:23;43:22;44:15
51:10;53:10;56:22,23;59:20
bit (1)
change (2)
assuming (3)
columns (1)
11:25;25:2
48:4
16:8;22:23;43:22
57:1
characteristic (3)
both (7)
27:1,3,6,13;28:10,13,19;29:3,9,

Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(2) answered - columns

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
combination (1)
57:15
comma (1)
20:3
Commencing (1)
3:1
commentary (1)
55:5
commission (1)
61:24
common (3)
6:15;46:16;48:20
compensate (1)
29:7
competitor (3)
15:2;18:9;32:4
compiled (1)
27:4
complete (1)
10:12
Compound (2)
11:8;36:4
computed (1)
57:17
computer (12)
46:2,9,13;47:17,19,20;48:7,
15,15,16;50:21;51:8
con (1)
25:13
concentrate (3)
10:3,4;13:10
concept (4)
4:21,24;27:13;30:13
concludes (1)
60:16
conclusion (1)
46:8
conjunction (8)
36:25;37:4;38:21,23,24;39:1;
59:12;60:5
conscious (2)
8:22;12:10
considering (1)
43:9
consistent (1)
13:5
constitute (1)
19:19
constitutes (6)
10:15;12:9;19:2,19;20:20,21
constrain (1)
39:24
constraining (1)
40:14
construct (3)
23:18;54:5;57:3
construction (1)
26:5
construe (1)
45:13
contention (1)
21:12
contest (2)
Min-U-Script®

45:6,13
context (12)
18:9;19:7;21:10;23:17;29:1;
35:4,5,7;36:12;47:17;55:8,11
continued (1)
3:6
coordinating (2)
11:11,15
copy (3)
4:9,10;31:20
correctly (4)
8:3;15:13;35:13;40:18
correspond (1)
7:15
corresponding (2)
50:4;57:11
counsel (1)
3:12
count (1)
29:6
COUNTY (2)
61:9,12
couple (4)
29:9;55:21,22,25
course (4)
8:13;17:8;29:4;47:5
Court (2)
3:8,11
cover (9)
5:15;7:4;10:21;11:19;12:15;
13:11,21;14:16;21:4
coverage (3)
20:2;27:15,16
covered (2)
20:12;38:25
covering (1)
21:1
covers (3)
20:2;24:1,15
criteria (7)
32:23;35:20;36:1;37:6;39:12;

58:6,17
cumulative (1)
20:2

D
data (26)
6:2,8,17;8:7;10:5,13;12:5,14;
18:24;19:8;20:10;23:18,25;
24:14;27:13;28:17;29:6,11,14,
25;30:24;51:4,12;52:14;57:22;

58:6
database (14)
5:15;11:19;12:15;13:5,22;
14:17;23:18;27:4;49:8,12,16;
50:12;51:2;52:3
David (8)
3:6;41:24;42:9,18;43:3;52:6;
60:16;61:5
day (1)
61:12
decide (2)

40:12;55:14
decided (1)
32:16
deciding (1)
40:16
decision (5)
36:19,22;37:13;38:17;44:19
decisional (3)
35:25;37:5;39:12
decision-making (1)
32:23
declaration (13)
4:9;21:14;22:10;24:6;28:5;

18:24;19:1,12,14;32:9;34:24;

35:7;37:1,22;44:18;60:9
determined (3)
34:11,14;35:18
determining (1)
46:19
device (6)
24:11,13,17,21,25;34:25
devices (1)
55:10
dictionary (2)
33:2,10
different (7)
32:25;34:20;43:15,18;45:2,3,8;
12:19;14:11;27:12;30:12;
57:21
31:6;37:20;39:7
deemed (1)
difficult (8)
23:5
7:22;15:10;18:19;22:13;
define (2)
25:16;26:11,17;32:15
39:22;45:17
difficulty (1)
defined (3)
22:19
32:25;39:19;45:1
digit (4)
defines (2)
44:2,5,15,17
12:1;19:11
direct (2)
defining (1)
59:2,20
19:6
directed (2)
definition (13)
13:16;57:6
12:3,8;19:4;20:5;33:5,7;
discarding (3)
45:15,19,23,23;46:1,5,11
29:11,14;30:24
definitions (1)
disclose (1)
34:19
54:15
degree (8)
disclosed (1)
22:8,20;23:14;24:7;26:9,11;
59:11
27:17;44:14
discloses (2)
delivery (1)
54:12;60:3
13:9
discovered (3)
denoted (1)
49:16;50:12;52:4
57:12
discussed (4)
depend (2)
10:9;12:14;14:8;36:16
28:23;37:25
discusses (1)
depends (3)
9:4
7:10;8:7;22:9
discussing (3)
deposition (8)
9:13;12:20;56:11
3:6,25;4:3;10:10;12:12;
discussion (3)
60:16,22;61:2
10:13;59:7,9
describe (3)
distance (1)
9:8;11:2;13:3
57:24
described (1)
distinction (5)
25:18
11:3,7;12:12;28:24;39:7
describes (3)
distribution (5)
6:24;21:1;56:22
15:20,24;22:11,11;25:5
description (1)
District (2)
47:7
3:8,8
design (2)
divide (1)
15:3;18:10
57:22
designing (1)
document (1)
18:6
31:22
destination (1)
done (5)
20:13
4:2;43:8,10;55:25;59:25
detail (5)
down (1)
53:21;54:3,16;56:21;57:2
47:2
determinant (6)
Dr (4)
33:2;34:16;36:17,20;45:16,21
3:21;28:4;31:19;59:6
determine (11)
draw (3)

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(3) combination - draw

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
19:18;20:19,23
drawing (3)
11:3;21:15;28:24
drew (1)
12:12
drive (3)
25:12,13;28:8
driven (4)
29:12,15;30:8,25
drivers (5)
7:17;10:11,20;11:4,9
driving (33)
5:17,21;6:2,7,23;7:1,5,12;

ends (2)
44:5,10
enough (3)
17:7;34:4;59:3
entire (1)
8:16
equation (1)
57:15
equations (3)
56:16;57:9,9
Eric (1)
3:10
erroneous (3)
8:16,17;9:13,24;10:3,16,16,24;
55:7,9,15
11:21;12:2,3,9,13;13:15,24; error (6)
14:5;19:9;20:1;28:9,12,16;29:2,
54:21,24;55:2,3;58:15,19
6,22;30:8
errors (1)
drove (1)
55:11
16:17
established (1)
during (3)
26:24
10:9;12:11;59:8
estimated (1)
53:6
etc (2)
E
50:23;54:2
even (6)
earlier (4)
24:14;29:5;32:15;43:25;
16:6;36:11,16;50:6
44:10,18
easily (1)
Eventually (2)
44:18
6:16;43:1
effect (7)
10:22;19:22;25:12,19;26:10; exactly (5)
12:20;15:25;16:1;19:23;
30:15,16
23:23
effective (1)
example (18)
46:2
13:8;19:23;21:15,17,18,21;
effects (3)
22:1;25:1;26:23;27:4;32:16;
25:2;28:18;31:9
33:1;34:9;36:11;56:17,23;
effort (5)
57:14,24
7:1;8:22;10:4,11;16:18
examples (7)
efforts (3)
19:5;24:12;26:22;31:10,11,
11:13,15;13:10
14,15
either (3)
except (1)
25:6;47:24;48:11
32:5
either/or (1)
exclude (4)
47:20
32:16;36:19;37:1,24
eliminate (2)
excluded (3)
21:5,6
32:10;40:13;55:16
eliminated (2)
exclusive (2)
21:20,22
48:8,11
else (4)
Exhibit (4)
12:7;51:24;52:10;55:24
5:14;13:18;31:20;34:20
elsewhere (1)
existing (1)
17:7
51:11
embodiment (1)
expect (1)
54:18
47:1
emphasize (1)
expense (1)
37:2
20:4
employ (2)
expert (1)
12:25;13:2
43:14
employed (1)
expires (1)
7:12
61:24
enabling (1)
explain (1)
55:14
28:11
end (3)
explicitly (1)
13:12;18:23;43:25
Min-U-Script®

50:23
Express (1)
3:4
expressed (1)
46:3
extent (8)
5:8;14:2,22;16:4;18:15;19:4;
33:9;46:7

F
fact (4)
4:17;12:22;24:17;46:22
factor (3)
25:5,6;53:1
factors (9)
6:20;7:11,16;22:9,20;24:6;
25:7;52:14;53:25
fair (8)
8:11,13;12:5;31:6;34:4;
46:14,15;59:3
fairly (1)
47:4
fall (3)
38:18;58:7,17
familiar (1)
9:3
far (1)
15:15
feel (2)
38:17;42:22
feeling (1)
36:10
Fernald (1)
3:10
few (2)
9:23;26:8
field (1)
48:21
Figure (20)
20:8;21:23,25,25;22:2,7,14,
21,22,23,24,24;23:1,5,6,6;
28:17,20,21;55:24
Figures (1)
21:17
filed (1)
31:17
Filtering (1)
59:21
final (3)
44:5;56:24,25
find (2)
18:19;52:10
finding (1)
7:22
fine (2)
38:8;42:3
finish (1)
55:19
finite (1)
46:3
firm (1)
3:15

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

first (5)
3:24;10:9;14:12;47:1;54:24
fit (1)
39:23
fits (1)
39:25
flip (1)
32:17
fly (2)
42:20;45:13
following (1)
9:2
follow-up (3)
10:25;18:21;56:3
foregoing (2)
61:1,15
form (2)
16:21;21:3
forth (2)
13:9;22:12
found (2)
37:18;46:1
Foundation (16)
5:19,25;7:7;10:19;11:23;
14:1,21;15:9;17:2,23;24:20;
29:19;32:14;38:4;44:11;46:25

four (1)
4:10
frequent (1)
20:12
function (8)
16:23;17:9,14,24;18:3;39:18,
19;46:4
functions (1)
39:22
fundamentals (1)
18:17
further (5)
50:10;51:7;58:25;60:13,14

G
gather (1)
50:25
gathered (5)
5:17;11:21;12:17;13:23;
14:18
gave (4)
9:23;34:19;46:17,21
general (4)
15:20;21:2;22:17;27:12
generally (2)
11:10;12:6
generically (2)
50:18;51:1
gets (1)
17:12
given (9)
10:15;18:24;23:4;27:6,11;
40:21,23;46:23;50:10
gives (1)
20:15
giving (1)
(4) drawing - giving

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
42:4
glance (1)
14:12
goal (2)
15:14;23:17
goals (2)
8:22;13:13
goes (6)
20:18,18;43:14;50:21;51:10;
56:21
Good (4)
3:14,21,22;45:23
Google (3)
3:7,16;31:20
GPS (12)
54:21,24;55:1,4,5,6,6,9,10;
57:11;58:15,19
graduate (2)
46:17;47:10
great (2)
30:19;55:24
green (2)
4:6,6
ground (1)
20:2
groups (2)
57:23;58:7
GSHFED_0000061 (1)
31:21
guess (5)
19:11;22:25;23:8;45:14;
53:13

H
Hallstrom (1)
3:11
hand (1)
47:8
handed (1)
31:19
happen (3)
16:12;18:23;21:3
happy (1)
14:14
hard (1)
20:23
hardware (3)
47:20;48:15,16
hardware/software (1)
47:19
head (1)
30:22
heard (5)
4:16,17;35:12;39:7;40:23
hearing (1)
16:14
heavily (2)
19:22;20:8
heavy (1)
20:9
help (2)
19:18;36:13
Min-U-Script®

helping (1)
52:24
histories (1)
5:6
Holiday (1)
3:4
hoping (1)
55:21
Hotel (1)
3:5
hours (1)
55:18
hypothetical (3)
15:1;32:14;33:16

individualized (1)
40:22
inform (1)
5:6
information (78)
5:4,11,16,23;6:25;11:20;

4:14,23;31:2,15;55:10
Kotz (7)
3:6,21;28:4;31:19;59:6;
60:17;61:5

L

12:16;13:22;14:17;18:2;19:18;
20:16;35:6,10,15,19,22;36:2,6, label (1)
8,11,15,21,25;37:7,9,14;38:1,6,
22:22
14,16,23,25;39:3,5,9,14,16,18, labels (1)
25;40:2,3,6,9,16;41:5,8;42:16;
22:24
43:11,23;44:9,21;46:20;49:19, language (4)
20;50:4,5,15,15,22;51:2,9;52:2,
38:25;41:17,19,21

4,19;53:5,6;54:16,21,22,25;
55:4,5,9;58:16,20;60:5,9
I
informed (1)
42:7
infringe (1)
idea (1)
32:6
20:25
inherently (1)
identification (3)
26:12
49:19;50:4,14
Inn (1)
identified (6)
3:4
23:5;24:6;29:8;30:23;31:11;
inputs (1)
32:6
57:20
identify (4)
instructions (1)
25:5,6;54:21;58:15
46:4
imagine (3)
interested (1)
8:17;15:15;39:17
16:13
imagined (1)
interpretation (1)
18:22
17:4
immediately (2)
into (2)
50:2;59:17
57:23;58:6
implementation (1)
introduce (1)
57:3
3:12
implementing (1)
invent (1)
47:18
30:16
implication (1)
invention (9)
22:25
4:14;6:21,24;7:18;10:22;
implicitly (1)
11:6;21:1;23:20,23
35:15
inventions (1)
implied (1)
4:24
11:14
involved (1)
important (1)
22:20
12:7
Irell (1)
imprecise (2)
3:17
23:15;26:13
issue (4)
impression (2)
30:5;32:1;38:12;48:5
19:3,6
iterative (1)
inaccurate (1)
9:9
22:15
Inc (3)
J
3:7,16,18
include (8)
32:16;35:7,9,13;36:19;37:1; Junction (1)
48:13;60:10
3:5
included (2)
32:10;40:13
K
including (4)
22:10;50:3,22;51:9
kind (3)
Incomplete (2)
10:16;24:1;29:24
32:14;33:16
kinds (1)
increase (2)
28:25
28:11,13
known (5)

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

large (1)
55:11
largely (1)
12:18
last (6)
12:11;23:22;28:11;37:19;
44:15,17
lat (9)
56:24;57:8,12,13,13,14,15,17,

18
late (2)
31:3,16
latitude (7)
43:12,23;44:3,10,12,16;56:20

latitudes (1)
43:25
lawyer's (1)
46:10
lead (11)
5:22,24;6:5,7,21;9:13,24;
12:23;13:5;16:22;27:15
Leading (1)
60:7
leads (1)
26:15
least (8)
7:11;10:10;15:15;16:23;
20:15;36:5;48:20;57:2
legal (2)
46:8;54:8
less (3)
26:15,18,20
level (1)
23:16
likelihood (2)
6:12;7:10
likely (5)
5:21;6:5,6;7:9;13:11
limitation (13)
15:5,6;18:12;32:1,7,8;33:17;
49:15;51:7;54:19;58:8,10,11
limited (2)
24:13;25:17
line (11)
19:18,24,25;20:19,23;48:25,
25;49:5;56:23;59:13,20
lines (5)
9:2;51:10;53:10,12;56:17
Lisa (1)
3:11
(5) glance - Lisa

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
list (1)
46:3
literally (1)
35:14
literature (2)
4:20;5:10
litigating (1)
48:5
little (1)
56:15
live (1)
25:11
location (61)
16:25;17:6,12,13,20;18:2;
21:25;22:15;34:25;35:6,10,15,
19,22;36:2,6,8,15,21,25;37:7,8,
14,24;38:1,6,13,16;39:2,4,9,14,
16,20,21,25;40:2,3,6,9,16;41:4;
42:16;43:2,11,17,23;44:9,16,20;
49:20;50:15;53:6,7;55:2;56:25;

making (3)
16:7;17:9;18:22;22:13;24:7;
10:21;36:21;38:17
39:21
Manella (1)
mind (4)
3:17
21:5;42:6,13,24
MANNING (29)
minute (2)
3:14,15,20;8:10;25:22;26:1;
14:13,14
27:9,21;28:3;33:19,22;34:2,5; minutes (1)
35:24;41:12,15;42:1,11,21;
26:8
43:7;44:5;48:2,10;55:20;58:13, missed (2)
25;60:7,14,20
8:18,20
many (4)
model (12)
7:2,2;22:20;57:22
12:13,23;13:2,4,8,15;19:8;
mapped (1)
28:8,14;52:13,18;53:24
8:15
moment (4)
marked (3)
23:3;24:5;44:12,15
5:14;13:18;31:19
moments (1)
Massachusetts (1)
9:23
3:9
monitor (1)
mathematical (1)
3:3
56:15
monkey (1)
mathematically (1)
6:15
39:17
more (25)
mathematics (2)
4:2;10:12;19:10;20:2,2,13;
46:1;53:23
25:22;27:19;28:8,17;29:12,15,
matter (4)
22;30:25;33:4;37:10;42:22;
3:7;26:6,16;47:12
47:5;50:18;51:1;52:17;55:22,
may (6)
22;56:15,21
11:13;13:11;15:16;23:16;
morning (4)
28:8;56:2
3:14,21,22;4:5
McCutchen (1)
most (1)
3:15
6:2
mean (20)
moves (1)
17:24;21:15;23:23,25;26:7,
43:5
19;27:2;32:25;35:3;36:14;38:9, much (4)
9;39:1,10;42:12;48:11;50:6;
21:11;23:10;26:16,17
53:20,22;56:21
multiple (2)
meaning (15)
7:25;8:4
9:25;18:25;23:11;29:16;
must (2)
30:10;32:22;33:7,12,20,25;
36:14;40:21
35:1,3,21;44:23;59:8
means (6)
N

57:11;58:15;60:4,9,10
locations (9)
8:4;15:25;16:1,20;21:24;
22:3;24:4;41:8;59:11
logic (18)
47:13,18,18;48:14;49:15;
50:11,17,21,22;51:8,9;54:20;
55:12,14,17;58:3,14,16
long (7)
54:4;56:24;57:8,12,13,13,18
longitude (6)
43:12,24;44:4,13,16;56:21
look (10)
5:6;35:4;40:8;41:22,24;42:2,
9;47:3;48:24;56:14
looked (3)
8:18,24;9:1
looking (5)
22:14;26:2;36:7;50:8;56:16
looks (2)
4:6;57:16
loose (1)
8:14;11:10;21:11;37:5;38:22;
39:23
43:17
lot (4)
meant (4)
22:9;47:5,15;54:16
22:23;44:8;45:11;48:6
Lu (80)
measured (2)
3:17,17;5:2,8,18,25;6:9,13;
44:13,16
7:6,14,20;8:9;9:10,15;10:2,18; meet (2)
11:8,22;12:21;13:25;14:20;
15:4;18:11
15:8;16:3,16;17:1,16,23;18:14; meeting (1)
20:22;24:19;25:9,21,24;26:25;
15:6
27:8,22;29:18;30:11;32:13,24; mention (1)
33:15,21,24;34:4;35:2,23;36:3;
35:14
37:16;38:3;39:6;41:11,14,24; mentioned (1)
42:2,9,18;43:3,13;44:1,6,11;
24:5
46:6,24;47:23;48:3,9;49:13,23; method (22)
50:19;52:6;53:19;55:18;56:2;
6:25;7:5;12:13,17;14:19;

named (1)
61:13
Nancy (1)
57:16
natural (1)
37:10
nature (1)
37:6
necessarily (5)
11:11,12;12:4;21:19,22
need (10)
8:13;19:13;23:16;42:9,22;
47:8;52:7;53:22;54:2;55:25
needed (1)
54:17
57:25;58:9,19;59:3,5;60:13,21
15:14,17;26:21,21,24;27:1,5,14; needs (4)
32:18;33:2;34:16;36:17,20;
20:24;23:15;36:20;54:13
42:17;45:16,21;46:3
M
new (4)
methodology (1)
30:16;49:7;51:12;52:13
18:3
newly (3)
main (1)
might (6)
49:16;50:12;52:4
20:3
Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

next (4)
20:7,11;26:2;56:22
nonarteries (1)
28:18
Notary (1)
61:20
note (5)
29:8,14;30:6;45:4;57:21
notebook (3)
4:6,7;5:13
notice (1)
4:5
Number (13)
3:9;7:11;17:8;25:4,17;31:8,
21;43:25;44:10;51:11;52:15;
53:1,25
numbered (1)
31:21
numbers (1)
44:13

O
oath (2)
3:23;61:14
object (5)
14:2,22;16:4;18:15;58:11
Objection (49)
5:2,8,18,25;7:6,20;9:10,15;
10:18;11:8,22;12:21;13:25;
14:20;15:8;16:3;17:1,16,23;
18:14;20:22;24:19;25:9;26:25;

27:8;29:18;32:13,24;33:15;
35:2,23;36:3;37:16;38:3;39:6;
41:11,14;43:13;44:1,11;46:6,7,
24;49:13;50:19;53:19;57:25;

58:21;60:7
objections (7)
6:9,13;7:14;8:9;10:2;16:16;
30:11
observations (2)
25:15;27:18
observe (1)
7:1
observed (7)
6:4;32:10;34:24;35:17;37:22;

40:7,10
obtain (2)
24:3;36:18
obtaining (4)
33:3;34:16;36:17;45:21
obvious (1)
42:17
occasionally (1)
55:10
occur (1)
19:9
occurrence (2)
34:12,15
October (1)
3:3
off (5)
27:24;30:7,22,25;56:6
(6) list - off

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
once (8)
52:12,24;53:10,12;56:24;57:21; planned (7)
28:8;29:12,15,22;30:25;32:4;
60:8
6:24;7:16;8:8,14;13:1;24:1,
49:2,4
paragraphs (3)
14
one (37)
21:18;34:20;56:16
planning (10)
4:13,23;8:13,16;9:1;10:9;
parsing (2)
7:19,23;8:14,20;9:1,5;11:4,
12:1;16:7,9;17:6,8,18;18:20;
49:2,4
12,14;13:3
19:13;20:5,24;21:21;23:13,14; part (10)
plans (1)
24:12;25:12,14,15,22;26:14;
15:11,12;16:23;17:17;35:6;
10:21
30:1;31:8;43:20;44:14,18;46:1,
36:5;42:17;51:15;53:23;56:17 please (2)
17;48:12;54:2,4;56:2;57:3
particular (9)
3:12;60:20
ongoing (2)
15:4;18:11;32:6,7,9;40:11,14; point (45)
8:20;9:8
42:14;48:5
5:17;8:5;11:20;12:16;13:23;
only (3)
parts (1)
14:18;16:25;17:6,13,21,22;
25:12,13;43:24
8:20
21:8;24:3;27:7,11,19;29:5;31:6;
on-the-fly (1)
passage (1)
32:10,17;34:24;35:8,9,14;
45:15
48:25
36:20;37:23;40:4,7,11,15,16,17,
opine (1)
passages (1)
19,22,25;41:3;46:9,10,20;49:19,
43:17
8:25
20;50:5;56:20;57:1,11
opined (1)
patent (57)
points (29)
34:8
5:13,14,15;7:19;8:25;9:7;
6:4;7:2;15:21;16:19;17:7,19;
opinions (1)
10:1,1;11:17,19;12:14,15;13:6,
19:8;21:14;22:3,12;27:19;
47:16
16,17,18,21;14:9,16,25;15:3,5,
28:17;32:11;35:17;40:10,13;
opposed (8)
20;18:7,9,18;19:1,17,24;20:1,
49:7,17;50:13;51:12;52:3,5,19;
9:9;17:21;19:2;22:15;39:3,3;
25;23:16;26:13;28:21;30:3,4;
57:5,22;59:12,22;60:5,10
42:25;46:10
31:20;32:23;35:1,3;42:19;43:4; poor (3)
optimal (1)
46:22;47:3,4,14;48:23;49:6;
16:22;17:18;18:23
20:14
51:25;54:11,20;56:12;59:6,10, portions (3)
order (5)
17,21;60:3
33:18;59:10,17
10:12;18:24;19:12;23:11;
patents (9)
position (18)
54:3
4:10,15,17,25;5:5;23:12;26:6;
5:16;8:1;11:20;12:16;13:22;
orders (1)
31:17;47:17
14:17;16:19;46:19,20;50:5,22;
60:18
pedantic (1)
51:9;52:2,4,19;54:21;56:20;
ordinary (5)
44:12
58:15
31:3,16;33:7;51:16;54:4
Pending (1)
positions (3)
original (1)
49:25
10:7;23:19;57:5
11:18
perfect (1)
possibility (3)
orthogonal (2)
55:10
16:12,13,17
30:13,13
perform (3)
possible (6)
others (2)
23:20,23;26:14
6:10;7:2,3,8;17:8;57:22
27:17,20
perhaps (1)
postman (2)
otherwise (3)
11:15
28:7,14
7:24;29:7;58:11
permits (1)
practice (3)
out (7)
26:6
7:18;18:12;32:5
8:16;29:5;37:13,15;53:21;
person (3)
practicing (5)
54:3;55:25
31:3;51:16,25
10:22;11:6;15:7;32:7,8
outside (1)
personally (1)
precise (3)
30:2
61:13
24:23;26:5;33:4
over (2)
persons (1)
precision (3)
20:1;48:5
31:15
23:16;44:14,17
overall (1)
PhD (1)
predefined (24)
17:11
61:5
31:25;32:12,20;34:6,7,10,13,
own (1)
phrase (2)
23,25;35:5,21;36:12;37:5,11,
12:8
55:3;59:8
21;39:12;40:1,20,24;43:24;
owned (1)
phrased (1)
44:22;59:8,13;60:6
40:22
40:18
prepare (1)
piece (1)
4:2
40:3
preplanned (1)
P
place (3)
8:15
9:7;42:14;51:24
preplanning (1)
papers (1)
places (1)
9:9
4:19
13:8
present (1)
paragraph (19)
plan (3)
27:3
21:16;24:9;26:2,2;28:5,7;
8:19;9:8,9
presented (1)
30:7,24;31:7;33:8;34:10;45:20;
Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

13:7
presumably (1)
32:20
previously (3)
52:3,5,20
prior (5)
4:14,24;34:11,14;52:23
probable (1)
6:10
probably (3)
15:16;17:3;57:9
problem (6)
4:14;14:4;29:25;30:13;31:2,5

problems (1)
14:6
process (4)
8:21;17:25;49:2,4
processing (1)
52:13
produce (2)
6:18;57:18
project (1)
7:12
prone (6)
54:21,24;55:4,4;58:15,19
prosecution (1)
5:5
provide (2)
53:22;57:2
provides (4)
47:5,6;53:23,24
Public (1)
61:20
purpose (1)
55:13
put (1)
37:22
putting (2)
34:13;58:6

Q
qualities (1)
24:22
quality (9)
16:24;17:14;37:25;39:4,8,13,
20,24;55:5
quantify (5)
23:13,14;26:11,14,17
quantifying (1)
6:14
quasi (1)
52:17
question's (1)
54:10
quick (3)
5:20;45:18;55:23
quite (5)
17:20;40:18;45:19;47:15;
48:4

R
(7) once - quite

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
radio (1)
25:12
raise (1)
48:4
random (16)
12:13,13,17,23;13:2,4,8,15;
14:19;19:7;20:1;26:24;27:1,5,
14;32:17
randomly (2)
6:15;19:9
range (1)
25:13
rarely (1)
20:12
rather (3)
17:7;33:17;44:21
reached (1)
55:18
read (10)
20:7;33:16;36:24;38:21;
40:10;49:23,25;58:10;59:24;
61:1
reading (9)
4:17;12:19;19:4;37:10;41:19,
20;42:5;55:1,7
readings (11)
5:17;7:25;8:4;11:21;12:17;

59:16;60:3
reconciling (1)
22:19
record (8)
3:2;27:24;28:2;49:21;50:3;
53:9;56:6,9
recorded (36)
35:5,10,15;36:6,8,15,21,25;
37:8;38:6,13,16;39:2,4,8,14,25;

40:2,3,6,9,15;41:8;43:2,11,12,
17,22,23;44:9,20;51:13;57:11;

59:12;60:4,4
recording (1)
16:19
records (9)
49:16,18;50:12,13;52:15;
53:1,5;54:1,1
recross (1)
59:2
redriving (1)
31:1
reduce (9)
21:9,13;22:8;23:19;28:10,13,
18;29:3;31:8
reduced (9)
21:16,19,22;22:4;23:10,14,
15,21;24:8
13:23;14:18;52:4,16;53:3;55:15 reducing (3)
real (1)
29:9,12;30:15
44:13
reduction (3)
really (3)
5:22;26:9,11
11:25;37:17;43:19
refer (14)
Realtime (1)
6:14;34:10;36:5,10,13,14,21;
59:21
39:16;47:14,19;50:3;52:6,7;
reason (2)
57:10
29:2;48:3
reference (24)
reasonable (4)
5:12,22,24;6:5,7,18,21,22;
33:10;45:23;46:5,11
7:25;8:5;9:14,17;12:23;15:11,
Reasonably (1)
14,19,23;16:10,21;18:20;25:19;
8:13
38:13;49:5,7
reasons (9)
referenced (2)
9:12,21;12:18,19,22;13:4;
49:18;51:8
14:8,11,24
referred (1)
recalculate (3)
4:20
50:22;51:9;52:19
referring (3)
recalculating (2)
9:17;28:21;53:10
52:2;57:4
refers (5)
recalculation (2)
49:15;54:20;57:8,19,20
50:24;53:7
reflection (1)
recall (10)
22:13
4:19;9:11;10:13;30:4;43:21; refresh (1)
45:5;47:6;55:13;59:7,13
60:2
Recess (2)
regarding (1)
27:25;56:7
59:7
recipe (1)
regardless (2)
46:15
29:24;54:12
recites (1)
relate (2)
58:14
24:7;39:13
recollect (1)
related (3)
59:17
7:16;29:21;47:16
recollected (1)
relates (1)
59:10
12:1
recollection (2)
relationship (1)
Min-U-Script®

57:12
relative (1)
55:2
relies (2)
37:6,8
remember (5)
4:22;19:21,23;34:8;45:1
reported (1)
46:20
reporter (2)
3:11;60:18
repositioned (1)
51:12
represent (3)
3:13,16,18
require (2)
26:13;57:23
requirement (2)
50:10;54:8
rereading (2)
5:20;60:2
reserve (1)
59:2
respect (4)
14:8,25;48:22;56:11
rest (2)
15:7;18:12
restate (1)
37:17
result (12)
8:5;14:5;17:5,19;20:1;23:20;
33:3;34:16;36:17,18;45:21;
57:19
resulting (1)
20:9
results (2)
17:10;29:22
reverse (4)
52:13,25;53:14,24
review (3)
42:19,22;45:3
reviewed (1)
31:22
reviewing (1)
43:3
rid (1)
29:25
right (38)
7:13;10:23;15:21;16:15;

48:25;53:11
route (9)
7:19,23;8:16;9:1,5,9;11:4;
24:1,15
routes (3)
11:15;13:1;19:22
routine (1)
47:4
routing (2)
28:8,14
rule (42)
32:18,22;33:7,12,20,25;34:6,
7,13,23,25;35:5,7,12,14,16,18,
21;36:5,12,16;37:11,11,12,21,
25;38:15,24;39:2,12;40:1,5,11,
20,21,24;41:6;43:24;44:19,22;

45:20,20
rules (8)
31:25;32:12;37:1,5;38:22;
59:8,13;60:6

S
salt (1)
47:11
same (29)
4:6,6;6:9,13;7:14;8:9;10:2;
12:1,18,20,22;14:4,5,6,8,24;
16:16;17:23;18:8,17;22:23,25;

24:21,25;27:8;30:11;52:12;
53:8;60:18
sample (1)
24:3
Samuel (1)
3:17
save (2)
50:18;51:1
saved (1)
51:5
saying (2)
26:10;47:24
scan (3)
10:13;16:1;24:14
scanner (1)
31:1
scanners (2)
13:8;51:13
scanning (21)
7:11,16;8:23;10:4;11:5,13;
17:24;19:15;20:5;23:2;24:9,10;
12:5;17:6,20;18:3;20:9,10;
25:3;26:24;29:1;31:12,13;
23:25;24:11,13,16,21,22;26:14;
32:19,21;33:21;34:17,21;37:4,
27:5;30:8
7;38:15;39:15;41:10;42:2;43:1, science (2)
4;45:9,9,22;49:9;50:9;54:7,9,9,
46:2;48:7
10;59:2
scientist (1)
River (1)
46:13
3:5
scientist's (1)
road (2)
46:9
20:21;25:18
scope (2)
roads (9)
43:14;58:7
20:3,4,14;22:11,25;25:4,6,11, section (3)
16
59:24;60:2,8
roughly (2)
seem (1)

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(8) radio - seem

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
46:5
seems (3)
8:21;33:10,14
selective (1)
33:18
sense (1)
36:14
sentence (4)
20:7,11;28:11;51:23
sentences (2)
52:23,23
sequence (1)
56:23
series (1)
45:24
session (3)
3:24;10:10;12:11
set (9)
18:25;27:14,17;32:11;37:14,
15,23,24;40:13
sets (1)
57:9
seven (1)
55:18
Shakespeare (1)
6:16
short (2)
25:21;56:3
show (3)
21:18;22:21;23:7
showing (2)
21:23,23
shown (2)
22:7;26:21
shows (3)
20:3;21:21;22:2
side (4)
10:6;25:12,14,15
sides (1)
7:2
signal (5)
52:15,16;53:2,3;54:1
signals (1)
52:17
significance (1)
55:24
significant (1)
25:7
significantly (1)
25:3
silly (1)
44:21
similar (3)
11:17;33:3;45:19
similarly (1)
57:18
simple (1)
38:20
simply (13)
16:19;22:13,15;26:14;29:6;
30:7;35:13;38:20;39:1;44:19;
45:20;47:2;50:23
situation (4)
Min-U-Script®

18:22;23:4;25:18;27:12
skill (5)
31:3,16;51:16;52:1;54:4
Skyhook (3)
3:7,18;15:2
Skyhook's (1)
26:4
sleep (1)
47:11
slightly (1)
37:20
small (1)
25:17
smaller (2)
20:4;25:10
software (3)
47:21;48:15,16
solution (1)
29:5
somehow (1)
15:17
someone (2)
11:5;46:12
somewhere (1)
52:10
sorry (5)
26:20;39:8;47:23;49:5;50:9
sort (4)
9:8;25:17;26:12;51:7
sounds (2)
9:3;33:3
sources (1)
5:4
sparse (1)
25:11
specific (3)
47:7;48:24;55:6
specifically (4)
30:5;34:9;52:1;58:3
specification (20)
13:7;21:15,17;41:18,22,25;
42:3,7,10,14,15,19;43:4;46:21;
51:15;52:9;53:17;55:13;59:11,

18
specified (2)
34:11,15
speculation (12)
5:19;6:1;7:7,21;9:16;10:19;
11:23;14:1,21;15:9;18:16;24:20

spell (2)
53:21;54:2
spend (1)
19:10
spent (1)
48:4
spot (1)
30:17
start (4)
8:15,16;20:16;56:10
starting (1)
19:25
starts (1)
51:8

state (2)
3:13;61:8
stated (1)
35:12
statement (1)
28:23
States (1)
3:8
stating (1)
46:18
Step (2)
32:1,8
steps (3)
45:24;46:15;56:23
still (7)
3:23;15:11;22:4,14,17;43:3,9
stored (3)
52:3,5,20
straight (3)
41:19,20;42:12
street (8)

suit (2)
4:15,25
supports (1)
41:18
suppose (1)
16:17
sure (12)
20:23,24;23:13,13;25:1,24;
27:2;39:9;45:17;55:23;56:13;

58:20
surprised (2)
41:22;42:15
surrounding (1)
20:4
Susan (1)
3:14
Suspect (1)
59:22
symmetry (20)
5:22,24;6:5,8,19,21,23;8:1,6;
9:14,17;12:24;15:11,14,19,23;

16:10,21;18:20;25:19
synonym (3)
21:5,6,9
7:1,4;10:21;13:11;16:1,18,20; synonymous (1)
20:10,11,13;21:2,4;22:24;23:1;
38:10
24:2,2,15;25:1;27:17;28:8,16, systematically (2)
25;29:6,11,15;30:25
10:11;11:5
strength (1)
22:12
T
strengths (4)
52:16;53:2,3;54:1
talk (4)
strike (6)
8:25;12:8;40:18;41:23
23:9;29:10,13;34:6;37:19; talked (1)
40:20
12:11
stronger (1)
talking (10)
52:16
24:24;27:12;30:5;33:4;40:11;
structure (1)
44:3;47:17;55:12;58:1,9
8:23
talks (2)
structured (1)
9:7;52:14
6:25
target (2)
student (4)
15:24;25:4
46:21,22;47:1,10
targeted (1)
students (1)
15:21
46:17
task (2)
studying (1)
45:16,25
52:9
taxis (1)
subject (1)
13:9
26:6
teach (1)
subscribed (1)
54:3
61:15
technique (3)
subscript (4)
29:11,14;30:6
57:8,8,19,20
techniques (3)
subset (1)
29:9;30:24;31:8
11:14
technology (1)
substantially (3)
30:17
24:2,15;55:15
tells (3)
sued (1)
49:11;51:16,25
15:2
tend (5)
sufficient (2)
10:3,7;13:10;19:10;28:18
6:18;57:2
term (16)
sufficiently (1)
4:16;5:7;11:9;17:4;23:16;
54:4
24:8;26:13;38:9,18;45:6,7,13;
19:2;28:9,12;29:3,22,24;30:8;

31:1
streets (26)

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(9) seems - term

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google
47:13,16;48:20;50:20
terminology (1)
10:23
terms (2)
27:17;44:3
testify (1)
40:23
testimony (3)
15:18;33:25;39:11
therefore (1)
41:2
thinking (6)
12:22;22:16,17;25:10;28:15;
39:17
though (1)
59:1
thought (4)
15:17;40:14;43:19;45:22
thus (1)
10:5
titled (1)
59:21
Today (3)
3:2,13;12:8
together (4)
34:13;48:17;57:1,17
top (1)
30:22
touched (1)
26:8
toward (3)
10:7;22:18;25:16
town (1)
25:17
towns (1)
25:10
tracking (1)
19:9
trade (1)
4:20
trafficked (1)
19:22
transcript (1)
60:18
travel (1)
20:14
traverse (1)
10:12
traversed (2)
16:2;20:8
traversing (1)
27:5
triangulating (1)
56:19
triangulation (4)
52:13,25;53:15,24
true (4)
23:3;49:14;61:2,15
try (1)
40:5
trying (4)
8:12;34:8;36:18;40:12
turn (4)
Min-U-Script®

30:7;36:1;41:7;59:6
turning (2)
V
30:25;39:4
twice (1)
Vague (43)
29:6
5:18,25;7:6,20;9:10,15;10:18;
two (11)
11:8,22;12:21;13:25;14:20;
28:10,12;29:3;30:23,24;31:9,
15:8;16:3;17:1,16;18:14;20:22;
10,14,15;56:2;57:1
24:19;25:9;26:25;29:18;32:13,
typewriter (1)
24;33:15;35:2;36:3;37:16,18;
6:16
38:3;39:6,9;43:13;44:1;46:6,24;
typical (1)
47:23;49:13;50:19;53:19;
55:5
57:25;58:12,22
typically (1)
vaguely (1)
55:9
19:21
typing (1)
value (1)
6:15
56:25
values (2)
U
57:15,17
vans (1)
uncoordinated (1)
13:9
11:10
varies (2)
under (2)
26:23;27:1
3:23;38:18
various (1)
undergraduate (1)
39:2
47:12
vary (1)
understood (1)
27:7
15:18
vehicle (2)
United (1)
16:1;17:21
3:8
vehicles (4)
unlike (1)
7:11;13:10;19:9;20:9
46:12
Vermont (1)
unlikely (2)
3:5
6:19;8:21
versus (3)
unplanned (2)
3:7;11:5;28:24
6:3;12:4
video (1)
unpredictable (1)
60:16
27:15
VIDEOGRAPHER (7)
unstructured (1)
3:2,10;27:23;28:1;56:5,8;
6:3
60:15
up (5)
view (17)
13:12;18:23;44:16;50:10;
9:13,23;10:10,15;15:19;
55:19
20:15;22:2;24:8;26:4;40:21,24;
upon (1)
46:9,10;48:14,19;53:14;54:12
28:23
views (1)
use (26)
42:8
6:6;17:9;21:16;34:23;35:4,8, vita (1)
13,16;37:4,23;38:16;39:24;
4:11
40:1,6,15,25;41:2,4;43:24;44:8, volunteers (1)
8,9;45:7;48:20;60:4,9
11:11
used (9)
16:24;17:14;18:4;24:21;33:1;

W

38:22,24;39:18;56:25
user (1)
war (25)
34:25
5:17,21;6:2,7,23;7:5,12;9:13,
uses (1)
24;10:3,11,16,16,20,24;11:4,9,
53:25
21;12:1,3,9,12;13:15,24;14:4
using (23)
way (29)
12:8;13:24;23:25;24:14,25;
4:13,23;6:3,11,18;7:22;8:8;
27:5;32:12;35:5,9,10;36:1,24;
16:7;18:19;19:11,11;21:1;
37:2,13;38:7;40:9;42:15;44:20;
23:18;26:15;29:12,15;30:1,9;
52:25;53:5;56:20;57:14;59:11

utilize (1)
52:3

32:21;36:24;37:9,20;38:16,21;

29:20;30:14;31:1,4,10,12;
57:22
weaker (2)
24:24;52:17
Wednesday (4)
4:3,7;8:24;15:18
weighted (4)
46:19;47:3,5;52:17
weighting (1)
53:2
weights (1)
52:16
welcome (2)
42:23;45:3
well-defined (1)
46:3
well-known (1)
33:10
weren't (2)
24:23;28:16
what's (8)
4:7;11:17;21:12;34:7;44:25;
48:19;54:6;57:12
WHEREUPON (1)
60:22
White (1)
3:5
whole (4)
27:13,14;33:17;58:10
WiFi (17)
32:11;34:24;35:8,9,13;36:19;
40:3,7,10,22;49:16;50:4,12;
52:2,5;59:12;60:5
Wireless (2)
3:7,18
withdrawn (1)
40:4
within (15)
9:25;15:21;18:25;23:11;
25:12;29:16;30:9;32:22;33:12;

34:25;35:3,21;44:23;58:7,17
without (7)
7:19,23;8:22;15:12;18:20;
26:21;47:2
WITNESS (4)
34:1;43:6;48:7;59:1
witness's (1)
43:14
word (6)
6:6;21:16;35:4;38:21;45:8;
47:18
words (2)
35:25;39:22
work (1)
51:4
worth (1)
47:10
write (1)
47:2
writes (1)
6:16

39:13,17;43:20;44:21;53:8
ways (7)
Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(10) terminology - writes

David Kotz, Vol. 2
October 14, 2011

Skyhook Wireless v.
Google

Y
yesterday (1)
60:19

Min-U-Script®

Jones Reporting Company
617-451-8900

(11) yesterday - yesterday