Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 94

MICROSOFT'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PATENTS ASSERTED AGAINST BOTH MICROSOFT AND NINTENDO filed by Microsoft Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14)(Jakubek, Joseph)

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 94 Att. 3

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT 3

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ANASCAPE, LTD., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 9:06-CV-00158-RC VS. ) ) Hon. Ronald Clark MICROSOFT CORP. and ) NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC.,) ) Defendants. )

VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF BRAD A. ARMSTRONG, produced as a witness at the instance of the DEFENDANTS, and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 19th, day of April 2007, from 9:54 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., before Dawn M. Green, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor New York, New York 212-750-6434 Ref: 83961

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

Page 81 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. Q. Yes. Okay. So you say in -- in -- in Column 2 ARMSTRONG

of the '700, you say for converting up to -- sorry. "Providing up to six degrees of

freedom in preferred embodiments," flipping back to the similar text in Column 4 of the '525, you say "six degree of freedom controllers." It doesn't say -- the "up to"

language was added in the '700, correct? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. Am I right? It appears so. Okay. Why did you make that change?

I -- I believe it was just more clear. Okay. Were you attempting to broaden the

specification in any way? A. Q. No. Okay. Were you attempting to broaden the

coverage of the patent in any way? A. Q. No. Did you add the words "up to 6" -- up to" Can you

before six degrees of freedom?

remember anything more specific about why you added that other than to make it more clear?

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 4 of 4

Page 169 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 ARMSTRONG degree of freedom controllers to 3-D graphic image controllers was a broadening of the definition of six degree of freedom controllers? A. him. Q. I don't think I ever disputed that with I can't remember having done that. Okay. But you believe he was mistaken

when he made that statement? A. Q. Yes. Because you don't think that changing six

degree of freedom controllers, that language to 3-D graphic image controllers, broadens the definition in any way. You think it keeps it

exactly the same in terms of scope, correct? A. Q. A. Q. in -A. Q. It does not broaden the scope. -- any way? Okay. What would happen if it Yes. That's your testimony? I think it clarifies, yeah. And it -- and it doesn't broaden it

did broaden the scope, based on your understanding of patent prosecution practice?