WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 498

REPLY to Response to Motion re 482 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law [RENEWED] OF NO INVALIDITY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON INVALIDITY filed by WI-LAN Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Weaver, David)

Exhibit A

1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

2
3

WI-LAN, INC.

)

4

DOCKET NO. 6:10cv521
-vs-

)

5

Tyler, Texas
12:09 p.m.
July 12, 2013

6

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.,
ET AL

7

******************************************************

8

WI-LAN, INC.

)

)
DOCKET NO. 6:13cv252

9
10

-vsHTC CORPORATION,
ET AL

)
)

11
12
13
14
15

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
AFTERNOON SESSION
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

COURT REPORTERS:

MS. SHEA SLOAN
MS. JUDY WERLINGER
211 W. Ferguson
Tyler, Texas 75702
[e-mail]

23
24
25

Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
produced by a Computer.

33
1

single element within the patent is met, is present in

2

the invention.

3

Q.

And what if there's a single element in the

4

claims that's missing from Gitlin?

5

us?

6
7
8
9
10

A.

What does that tell

Well, if there's -- if there's a single

element that's missing, then Gitlin doesn't anticipate.
Q.

Now, let me ask you that question.

Does

Gitlin anticipate any of the asserted claims of the
'326, '211, or '819 patents?

11

A.

No, it doesn't.

12

Q.

Now, let me ask you a couple of questions

13

about obviousness.

14

You heard Mr. Lanning talk about obviousness

15

this morning?

16

A.

Yes, I did.

17

Q.

All right.

18

And that's a different concept

than anticipation?

19

A.

That's right.

20

Q.

All right.

And you understand that for

21

obviousness, there can be something missing from a

22

reference that might be obvious to one of ordinary skill

23

in the art back at the time of the invention.

24

that happens, then what?

25

A.

And if

Then if there's something missing, then -- I

34
1
2
3
4
5
6

apologize.
Q.

Could you repeat the question?

Tell me what you understand needs to be done

to establish obviousness.
A.

Okay.

For obviousness, it has to be obvious

that within -- that the elements are there.
Q.

All right.

Would Mr. Lanning's combination of

7

Tiedemann and the Gitlin reference have been obvious --

8

have rendered the claims at issue obvious?

9

A.

No, it wouldn't.

10

Q.

And why do you say that?

11

A.

Because, first of all, Gitlin is talking about

12

this system with PN codes.

13

non-orthogonal codes.

14

reason.

He chose them because he's building a low-cost

15

system.

PN codes are easy to generate.

16

different system to what's disclosed in Tiedemann.

17
18

It has a system with

And Gitlin chose PN codes for a

It's a very

So I don't think it would have been obvious to
combine the two together.

19

Q.

Any other reasons?

20

A.

There's also, that together, they still don't

21

disclose all the elements in the patent.

22

disclose TDM techniques, for example.

23

Q.

All right.

They don't

What about the claims at least

24

that Mr. Lanning talked about, would those -- would any

25

of those four claims have been obvious in light of the

35
1

Tiedemann reference by itself to one of ordinary skill?

2

A.

No, it wouldn't.

3

Q.

And why do you say that?

4

A.

Well, Tiedemann doesn't disclose these

5

orthogonal codes -- I beg your pardon -- Tiedemann

6

doesn't disclose these overlay codes, for example.

7

Tiedemann doesn't disclose TDM techniques.

8

The system is different.

9

combine them together.

10

It wouldn't be obvious to

And even if you did, there wouldn't be the

11

full -- there wouldn't be meeting every single element

12

of this claim.

13

Q.

All right.

What about the idea of using TDM

14

techniques on a paging channel, would that have been

15

obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?

16

A.

No.

No, it wouldn't, because a paging channel

17

is used to send just -- for example, in IS-95, it's just

18

a particular page, a paging message.

19

different types of data.

20

paging channel.

21

on that paging channel.

22
23
24
25

There's not

There's not voice going on a

There's not these other services going

So you wouldn't need to put TDM techniques on
a paging channel.
Q.

And how about the idea of using overlay codes

on a data channel instead of TDM techniques?

36
1

A.

Well, no, I don't think you would want to do

2

that as well, because by doing that, you're trying to

3

get these -- you're trying to put something that's on

4

the data channel.

5

traffic channel.

6

because they have very different characteristics, the

7

two channels.

8

Q.

9
10

You're trying to feed that into a
That really doesn't make sense,

All right.

Dr. Wells, take us home.

Can you

summarize your conclusions on validity?
A.

11

Yes, I can.
So my conclusions on validity are that the

12

patents-in-suit are indeed valid.

13

to disclose the following:

14

codes.

15

The prior art fails

IS-95-A doesn't have overlay

It doesn't have TDM techniques.
Tiedemann doesn't have overlay codes that

16

subdivide an orthogonal channel, and Tiedemann doesn't

17

have TDM techniques.

18

Gitlin doesn't have overlay codes.

19

have TDM techniques, and it doesn't have overlay codes.

20

And then Gilhousen doesn't disclose TDM techniques.

21
22
23

It doesn't

And then, finally, Mr. Lanning's combinations
of the prior art, I don't think they're obvious.
Q.

So let me just ask:

For each of these

24

references, IS-95-A, Tiedemann, Gitlin, the Gilhousen

25

'652 patent application --

37
1

A.

Uh-huh.

2

Q.

-- do those -- do any of those references

3

anticipate any of the claims in the '326, '211, or '819

4

patent?

5

A.

No.

6

Q.

And did Mr. Lanning show that any of those

No, they don't.

7

references anticipate any of those claims by clear and

8

convincing evidence?

9

A.

No, he didn't.

10

Q.

Do any of those four references, either alone

11

or in combination with each other, render obvious to one

12

of ordinary skill in the art the claimed inventions in

13

the '326, '211, and '819 patents?

14

A.

No, they don't.

15

Q.

And do you agree with Ms. Lanning's

16

conclusions as to obviousness?

17

A.

No, I don't.

18

Q.

All right.

19
20

MR. BORGMAN:

Pass the witness, Your

Honor.

21

THE COURT:

22

Cross-examination?

23
24
25

All right.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. APPLEBY:
Q.

Good afternoon, Dr. Wells.