Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 996

RESPONSE in Opposition re 877 SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] filed by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Josh Budwin, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

EXHIBIT H

Confidential

For Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 138

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
Eolas Technologies,
Incorporated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Adobe Systems, Inc.,
Amazon.com, Inc.,
Apple, Inc., Argosy
Publishing, Inc., et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) Civil Action
) No. 6:09-cv-446
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL
)
)
)
)

******************************
VIDEOTAPED and ORAL DEPOSITION OF
MICHAEL DOYLE, Ph.D.
JUNE 30, 2011
VOLUME 2
******************************
VIDEOTAPED AND ORAL DEPOSITION of
MICHAEL DOYLE, Ph.D., produced as a witness at the
instance of the Defendant and duly sworn was taken in
the above-styled and numbered cause on the 30th of
June, 2011, from 10:16 a.m. to 8:45 p.m. before
Gina Oertli, RMR, CSR in and for the State of Texas,
reported by method of machine shorthand, at the law
offices of McKool Smith, 300 W. 6th Street,
Suite 1700, Austin, Texas, pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
the record or attached hereto.

Veritext Corporate Services
800-567-8658

973-410-4040

26707ca7-321c-4bfa-b0f1-9e2595acd6b7

Confidential

For Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 483

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

that corresponds to other elements within the claim.
In each claim, the embed text format has
that same meaning in -- in that it's language that
corresponds to the other elements in the -- in the
individual claims.
Q. Did you provide any examples of an embed text
format in the 985 patent?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you point me to that?
A. In the specific embodiment, one example is
given, for example, in Column 11 -- no, sorry -Column 12, Table II.
Q. That is Column 12 starting at Line 55?
A. Yes.
Q. So this is an example of an HTML tag format
used by the present invention. Is that what you're
referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. So Table II of the 985 patent is an example
of an embed text format?
A. Yes. It gives an example of an embed text
format.
Q. Does an embed text format have to have little
angled brackets around it?
A. This is one example of an embed text format.

Page 485

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

12, Table II, did you have any other examples of an
embed text format in your mind?
A. Well, we had various specific embodiments
that we had created that used embed text format, but
we recognized that -- that that format was -- was -or the way to implement that format would be limited
only by the language in the claims itself, which -which means that that format could be any information
that -- that, for example, in Claim 1 of the 985, is
information which corresponds to a first location in
the document where the embed text format specifies the
location of at least a portion of the object. And
then so on, to the end of the claim.
Q. Does an embed text format have to specify the
location of an object in order to be an embed text
format?
A. It depends on the individual claims.
Q. But if the claim language says, every time it
talks about an embed text format, that it has to
specify the location of an object, does an embed text
format have to specify the location of an object in
order to be an embed text format?
A. If the location -- or if the claim language
states that the embed text format specifies the
location of at least a portion of an object in that

Page 484

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

It could be implemented in any manner that is
consistent with the language in the claim, in any
particular claim, in either of the patents.
Q. At the time of your patent application, what
were the different ways you contemplated an -- what
were the different examples of an embed text format
you had in mind?
MR. BURGESS: Objection, form.
A. Well, we used what we thought was the best
example we had at the time, which we conveyed in the
patent specification, realizing that in the future,
there could be other ways to implement the particular
aspects of systems using the technology.
For example, in Column 16, Line 47, it
says, "In the foregoing specification, the invention
has been described with reference to a specific
exemplary embodiment thereof. It will, however, be
evident that various modifications and changes can be
made..." And then it goes on to talk about how you
can use different programming approaches, different
ways to implement. That the invention itself is
defined by and limited only by the provided claims.
Q. (BY MS. RAO) At the time that you filed for
the -- your patents, the 906 and 985 patents, other
than the example that you just pointed me to at Column

Page 486

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

claim, then the embed text format needs to specify the
location of at least a portion of an object. Yes.
Q. And what's -- now, I want to go back to your
answer about the examples in the patent. You said
that you had in mind other ways to do an embed text
format but you disclose in your patent the best way,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the other ways you had in mind?
A. Well, we -- we were working with -- at
different times, we -- we used the Word Viewer, or
other characters, to correspond to that word, that
what we thought the actual choice of characters for
that -- for that word was actually irrelevant to the
embed text format and -- and what it was able to do.
So we -- we picked the particular format that was -that was laid out in the table.
Q. This is written in C language, the example of
an embed text format here in your patent?
MR. BURGESS: Objection, form.
A. I don't understand. That question doesn't
make any sense.
Q. (BY MS. RAO) Okay. Help me out. Why not?
A. Because this particular language is talking
about an HTML tag format which is expressed in the

88 (Pages 483 to 486)

Veritext Corporate Services
800-567-8658

973-410-4040

26707ca7-321c-4bfa-b0f1-9e2595acd6b7