Exhibit 20 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

1 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 

GOOGLE LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

Patent Owner. 

Case No. IPR2021-01041 

US Patent No. 8,095,879 

REMOTE DEPOSITION OF CRAIG ROSENBERG, PhD 

Thursday, July 7, 2022 

12:11 p.m. EDT 

REPORTED BY: Deanna Dean, RDR, CRR 

202-220-4158 

Page 1 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063686 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

1 

2 

3 

4 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Thursday, July 7, 2022 

12:11 p.m. EDT 

Deposition of CRAIG ROSENBERG, PhD, held 

via Zoom videoconference, before Deanna J. Dean, 

a Registered Professional Reporter, Registered 

Diplomate Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, 

and licensed court reporter of the state of New 

Hampshire. 

2 

202-220-4158 

Page 2 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063687 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

1 

2 

3 

APPEARANCES 

Representing the Petitioner: 

3 

4 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 

7 

271 17th Street, NW Suite 1400 

Atlanta, GA 30363-6209 

(404) 653-6484 

8 BY: KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQ. 

9 kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com 

10 

11 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 

12 1875 Explorer Street 

13 Reston, VA 20190-6023 

14 (571) 203-2479 

15 BY: YI YU, PHD, ESQ. 

16 yi.yu@finnegan.com 

17 

18 Representing the Patent Owner: 

19 LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP 

20 CENTURY PARK EAST 

21 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 

22 (310) 307-4510 

23 BY: PARHAM HENDIFAR, ESQ. 

24 hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com 

25 

202-220-4158 

Page 3 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063688 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

ATTORNEY RODKEY: Okay. 

A. Okay. It's downloading now. 

Okay. I have Exhibit 2019 open on my 

screen. 

Q. Okay. Would you please take a moment to 

look through Exhibit 2019 and just confirm that 

7 it's the second declaration that you submitted in 

8 this proceeding. 

9 A. Yes, it appears to be so. 

10 Q. And just for formality, if you'll flip to 

11 the very last page, which would be page 71, is that 

12 your signature there? 

13 A. Yes, it is. 

14 Q. If you would, please, could you turn to 

15 paragraph 71 of Exhibit 2019. 

16 A. Okay, I'm looking at paragraph 71. 

17 Q. Okay. And if you look in paragraph 71, in 

18 the fourth line, about halfway across, there's a 

19 sentence that says "While 'gliding' is a particular 

20 type of 'movement,' it does not follow that any 

21 'movement' is 'gliding,' particularly in the 

22 context of touch-based user interfaces." 

23 Did I read that right? 

24 A. You did. 

25 Q. What do you mean by that statement? 

202-220-4158 

Page 17 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANLO0063702 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

1 A. Just simply that there are various forms 

2 of movement, and gliding is one form of movement. 

3 In the next sentence, I sort of described 

4 the subset/superset relationship, using the analogy 

of a chicken is a type of bird but not every bird 

is a chicken. Gliding is a type of movement, 

flicking is a type of movement, but they are not 

the same. 

Q. Would you consider them distinct types of 

movement? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

A. I would. Distinct from each other, yes. 

Q. Are there other types of movements that 

can be used in touch-based user interfaces? 

A. I would say so, yes. 

Q. Are there a lot of different types of 

movements that can be used? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

scope, and relevance. 

A. I guess I would need to think about all 

the different kinds, but, I mean, tap or touch 

would be two other kinds of movement. 

So I think there's -- there's a variety of 

different kinds. Whether one would consider it to 

be a lot or just, you know, more than three or 

18 

202-220-4158 

Page 18 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063703 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

four, there are a number of different kinds of 

2 movements, and computer programmers and designers 

3 can classify those movements and gestures to enact 

4 different outcomes associated with the computer 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

program, to recognize different movements and 

gestures. 

Q. So you mentioned gestures. Other than 

flick and glide, what other kind of gestures can be 

used in touch-based user interfaces? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

scope, relevance. 

A. Well, I just mentioned clicking, which 

could be just a tap, so down and up; or it could be 

a touch, which is just down; or it could be -- I'm 

just -- this is -- by no means is this fully 

exhaustive, this list. This is just me giving some 

examples. 

There's long press. There's harder 

presses, if the input can detect the amount of 

pressure. There's drag-and-drop movements. There 

can be a variety of different kinds of movements. 

Q. So if I'm understanding you right, then, 

movement is like a sorry. I'm going to go back 

to basic science class here with, you know, 

kingdom, phylum, genus, species, all like that. 

19 

202-220-4158 

Page 19 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063704 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 7 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

20 

1 Movement is like a genus; it's like a 

2 superset. And then gliding or flicking would be a 

3 species; it's a subset of that genus of movement. 

4 Right? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

A. Yes. Like I testified earlier, movement 

7 is a superset and gliding is a subset. I agree 

8 with that. 

9 Q. And for gliding and flicking, if the user 

10 is using a pen, which I believe is an example that 

11 you have in your declaration, do both of those 

12 movements involve dragging the pen across the 

13 screen for some distance? 

14 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

15 A. Well, I wouldn't characterize it as 

16 dragging. I wouldn't say that, because I would --

17 it's important to distinguish between a flick and a 

18 drag-and-drop, or even a swipe and a drag-and-drop. 

19 But there -- I would really need to think 

20 about this and analyze this carefully, and I do 

21 talk about in my declaration the differences 

22 between flick and swipe. 

23 So if your question is your question 

24 does a flick require at least some minimal distance 

25 on the screen? Is that -- I want to be responsive 

202-220-4158 

Page 20 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063705 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 8 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

to your question. 

Q. 

bit. 

Sure. So let me break it down a little 

So for a flick gesture, does the object 

performing the flick gesture need to -- and I'll 

use a different word -- need to contact the screen 

7 for some distance before it's lifted off? 

8 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

9 A. Well, I haven't fully analyzed this. This 

10 isn't something that the petitioner's expert, that 

11 I'm aware of, had opinions on that, that I needed 

12 to respond to. 

13 But if -- as a programmer, I -- as a 

14 programmer, if it didn't travel any distance at 

15 all, then that would be equivalent to a touch or a 

16 tap. If it went down on one pixel and went up on 

17 the same pixel, or just stayed down on the one 

18 pixel and there was no lateral, you know, vertical 

19 or horizontal movement at all, I would need more 

20 time analyzing it. 

21 But my initial thought is I don't believe 

22 that that could be detected as a flick. However, 

23 if it traveled just one additional pixel in any 

24 direction, then the computer could recognize that 

25 as a flick. 

202-220-4158 

Page 21 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063706 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 9 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

So I guess your question said some 

2 distance. I would think -- and, again, this is a 

3 very preliminary analysis here on the fly, 

4 unrelated to what I understand is what Dr. Wobbrock 

has opined on -- that there would likely need to be 

at least one pixel worth of movement, at a minimum. 

Q. Didn't you testify in your declaration 

that gliding is a "relatively slower, smoother, and 

longer motion, while flick is a sharper, faster and 

shorter movement"? 

A. I believe that's correct. If you want to 

point me to the paragraph where I said that, I can 

read from it. But that sounds accurate. 

Q. Sure. And I'll point you to the paragraph 

just so you can confirm. It's paragraph 84. It's 

the last sentence of that paragraph. 

A. Yes. Yes, I've read that. 

Q. So you are drawing some distinction based 

on the length of the movements. Correct? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

A. That is correct. 

Q. What is the maximum length that a flick 

can be? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

Scope and relevance. 

22 

202-220-4158 

Page 22 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063707 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 10 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 10 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

27 

1 

2 

3 

4 

did you draw the boundary between a flick and a 

glide? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

scope, and relevance. 

A. I believe this is the fourth time you've 

asked the same question where you're trying to 

7 elicit a certain number, at what length, you know, 

8 what's the distance. And I'm politely saying for 

9 the fourth time it's not my role to on the fly to 

10 do -- I haven't done that analysis because it 

11 wasn't required of me. What was required of me was 

12 to be responsive to Dr. Wobbrock and to apply the 

13 plain -- analysis of plain and ordinary, which is 

14 what I did. 

15 Q. So, to be clear, although you said you did 

16 an analysis of the plain and ordinary meaning of 

17 flick and glide, used the meanings of flick and 

18 glide to distinguish a prior art reference from the 

19 '879 patent in your opinion, you cannot offer the 

20 delineation between flick and glide in terms of 

21 distance moved. Correct? 

22 A. I guess that's one way to put it, but I 

23 wouldn't put it that way. The way I would put it 

24 is the way that I've said a few times now, which is 

25 I have been responsive to Dr. Wobbrock and 

202-220-4158 

Page 27 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063712 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 11 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 11 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

Dr. Wobbrock did not offer any opinions himself on 

2 the distance between flick and glide. I would have 

3 been happy to read his opinion, go through his 

4 analysis, point out where I agree with 

Dr. Wobbrock, where I might disagree with 

Dr. Wobbrock. 

But that wasn't done. My understanding is 

just to do an analysis of what one of skill in the 

art, a POSITA, would understand when reading the 

terms "flick" or "glide" or "swipe." And I've done 

that analysis in the various paragraphs that I 

pointed you to. I think it was 40, 77, and 84, at 

least in those -- those paragraphs. So I don't 

have a number for you how many meters per second, 

how many pixels per second. 

And, by the way, that one number in my 

analysis would also depend. It would probably 

depend on many different things. It would depend 

on the screen size. It would depend on the 

resolution of the screen. It would probably depend 

on the input device, whether you're using a stylus, 

whether you're using a light pen, whether you're 

using a finger. It would probably depend on the 

task. 

So it's -- the question, I think, is -- I 

28 

202-220-4158 

Page 28 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063713 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 12 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 12 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

1 don't want to say your question is flawed because I 

2 certainly don't want to be disrespectful. But I 

3 think that one number doesn't suffice to answer 

4 that question what the difference between a flick 

5 and a glide. It would really depend on so many 

6 attributes of both systems anyway. 

Q. So in some cases, depending on different 

systems, what's considered in one system might be 

considered a glide in another, depending on all the 

factors that you just listed? 

ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

scope, and relevance. 

A. I can't answer that. I think really the 

difference between a flick and a glide are -- are 

best -- my opinions related to that, the plain and 

ordinary meaning, which is what controls -- to my 

understanding, "control" might not be the best, 

accurate word -- but what's appropriate in this 

case is on paragraphs 77, 40, and -- I'm sorry --

40, 77, and 84, with the dictionary definitions 

being on 77. So, there, you can see -- see the 

differences. 

I also have a number of graphics on 

page 35 and 36 of my report. A POSITA would 

understand the difference between a flick and a 

29 

202-220-4158 

Page 29 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANLO0063714 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 13 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 13 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

34 

1 of the original claims as filed? 

2 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

3 A. Again, I'd need to review the prosecution 

4 history, but I believe the -- at a high level, the 

5 term was "movement" or "move," and that that was 

6 narrowed to "glide" or "gliding away," after 

7 discussions with the applicant, after reviewing the 

8 video, to properly distinguish between this 

9 superset, which is movement, to a subset, a more 

10 narrowed claim, which is gliding or gliding away. 

11 I do talk about that in my declaration if 

12 you'd like me to find the paragraph numbers. 

13 Q. No, that's fine. I just want your general 

14 understanding for now. 

15 To be clear, the '879 patent doesn't 

16 describe the speed of movement of the thumb or the 

17 finger moving across the screen when activating the 

18 icons at the bottom. Correct? 

19 A. Well, there are four references in the 

20 '879 that talk about the speed of movement, or the 

21 speed of the movement. If you want me to point 

22 those out, basically the bottom of column 2 talks 

23 about speed of movement. And --

24 Q. So let's go in order here. 

25 So the speed of movement in column 2 is 

202-220-4158 

Page 34 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063719 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 14 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 14 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

35 

1 referring to the marking on a list. Correct? 

2 A. According to the present invention, 

3 navigation in the list is performed by moving the 

4 object in a direction toward the top of the list or 

toward the bottom of the list. This will cause the 

6 marking to move in the same direction. The speed 

7 of movement of the marking is lower than the speed 

8 of movement of the object with the purpose of 

9 making navigation easier. That's correct, yes. 

10 Q. So that's not the activation of the icons 

11 at the bottom of the screen shown in Figure 1? 

12 A. Yes, I agree with that. 

13 Q. Okay. And you said speed was somewhere 

14 else? 

15 A. No. Column 5, around lines 33, and 

16 they're talking about the same thing as we just 

17 discussed previously there. 

18 So the fact that the '879 also didn't 

19 describe a single number, if you will, 

20 corresponding to -- well, I mean, I don't want to 

21 anticipate your question, so I'll just let you 

22 speak. I think it sounded like to me you were 

23 trying to ask if the '879 had anything to 

24 distinguish between a flick or a swipe. But like I 

25 said, the '879 patent is all about swipe. It's all 

202-220-4158 

Page 3.5 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063720 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 15 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 15 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

about moving away. 

2 Q. Doesn't a flick also move away from a 

3 touched point? 

4 A. Well, it's gliding away. Let me be more 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

precise. Gliding away. 

We spoke about how movement is a superset, 

and swipe and glide are subsets, and even the 

patent office agrees that movement was too general. 

So it's -- it was narrowed to be a gliding away. 

And so, yes, gliding is moving, and, yes, 

flicking is moving, but they are distinct from one 

another and moving is too broad. 

Q. And flicking is moving away from a touched 

point. Correct? 

A. As I just said, flick is a kind of 

movement and swipe is a kind of movement, but both 

of those, the patent office thought were too broad 

and unpatentable in that previous form of the 

claim. So the claim was narrowed to be more 

specific to gliding. 

Yes, basically, to use the analogy, a 

glide is a bird and a flick is a bird -- I'm sorry. 

A glide is a move -- to get my analogy straight 

here, chicken and bird. Chicken is the subset. 

So you've got a chicken and you have a 

36 

202-220-4158 

Page 36 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063721 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 16 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 16 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

45 

1 understanding of what a function is. 

2 Q. So what definition of "function" did you 

3 apply when you wrote your declaration? 

4 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

scope, and relevance. 

6 A. I think -- I don't intend, unless you want 

7 me to which I would think you would not want me 

8 to to go through each of the 77 occurrences. 

9 But just to start at the first couple of 

io them, in the abstract of the '879 patent, it says 

11 the menu area 2 is adopted to present a 

12 representation of a first item 21 and a second item 

13 22 and a third predefined function. 

14 And we -- you can see -- I guess, let me 

15 go to the most appropriate figure for you. 

16 In Figure 1, we see elements 21, 22, and 

17 23, and there's three different icons that bring up 

18 three different user interfaces. 

19 So at a high level, the function in '879 

20 is bringing forward for the user the appropriate 

21 user interface associated with the icon that was 

22 that was swiped on, the icon that was glided away 

23 from, to use the term that's in the claim. 

24 Q. So the definition of "function" that you 

25 applied was bringing forth the appropriate user 

202-220-4158 

Page 4.5 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063730 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 17 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 17 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

46 

1 interface associated with the icon that was glided 

2 away from? 

3 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

4 scope, relevance. 

A. Well, in general, like I said, I also --

6 plain and ordinary meaning, "function" can be 

7 broad function and computer programming could be 

8 like a method. A function is a method. So there's 

9 data and there's functions. It's an operation. 

10 It's an algorithm. It can be called. It can have 

11 arguments. 

12 So if one were to look at the code to 

13 bring up the user interface associated with a given 

14 icon by gliding away from it, one would find a 

15 function call or a function, oftentimes with 

16 arguments. So it can be broader than the narrow --

17 what's described in the abstract. 

18 I think the abstract is -- is important. 

19 The abstract of '879 is -- is important and 

20 relevant because they talk about that function of 

21 displaying the appropriate interface. But one of 

22 skill in the art wouldn't say that a function --

23 you know, dialing a phone number is a function in 

24 Robertson. Displaying a phone number is a 

25 different function in Robertson. So there are 

202-220-4158 

Page 46 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063731 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 18 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 18 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

47 

1 

2 

3 

4 

functions in Robertson, too. 

Function is broader than just bringing up 

a user interface, but that's how it's used at least 

in part of the '879 patent. 

Q. So can a representation, then, in the '879 

patent have different functions associated with it? 

7 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

8 scope, and relevance. 

9 A. Say -- please say the question one more 

10 time. 

11 Yeah. 

12 Can a representation in the '879 patent 

13 have different functions, or have more than one 

14 function associated with it? 

15 A. Yeah. I believe you asked that --

16 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. 

17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Parham. Go ahead 

18 with any objection. 

19 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form, 

20 scope, and relevance. 

21 A. I believe I answered that question. I'm 

22 not sure if it was just before the break or just 

23 after the break. But that's not something that 

24 Dr. Wobbrock opined on. So my role, being 

25 responsive to Dr. Wobbrock, I have not considered 

202-220-4158 

Page 47 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063732 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 19 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 19 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

48 

that. Yeah, I think that was the same question you 

2 asked earlier. 

3 Q. All right. I'm still -- you gave kind of 

4 a long rambling answer, so I'm still trying to 

understand if you can do it more succinctly. 

6 What is your general understanding of what 

7 a function is? 

8 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Scope, 

9 relevance, and form. 

10 A. In general or in the context of this 

11 patent? 

12 Q. Let's start with in general. 

13 A. In general and in software engineering, it 

14 would be a method, a procedure. Sometimes it takes 

15 the form of an algorithm. It usually invokes some 

16 action. Sometimes it's visible to the user. 

17 Sometimes it may not be visible to the user. 

18 Just in general, functions are one of the 

19 basic building blocks of computer programming. You 

20 have data and you have functions, and functions can 

21 take data in terms of arguments. They can 

22 manipulate data. They can return data. Functions 

23 can call other functions. Functions can even have 

24 functions as their argument. 

25 So it's a -- it's very broad in terms of 

202-220-4158 

Page 48 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063733 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 20 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 20 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

49 

computer programming and what you can do with 

2 functions, and it's a big part of programming, both 

3 procedural as well as object-oriented programming. 

4 Q. Speaking of objects, what's a first-class 

object in a user interface? 

6 ATTORNEY HENDIFAR: Objection. Form. 

7 A. Well, in general, or in -- as Robertson 

8 defines it? 

9 Q. In general. 

10 A. Okay. So, in general, the first-class 

11 object can appear in expressions. They can be 

12 assigned to variables. It can be used as arguments 

13 in functions. Functions can return them. They can 

14 encapsulate data or behaviors. It's kind of like a 

15 standalone computer class -- I don't know how much 

16 you know about computer programming; I assume 

17 some -- that you can think of a class that may have 

18 attributes associated in the class, and you can 

19 pass that class to another function. You can save 

20 it to disk and return it. It's -- it's a lot more 

21 portable. You can assign it to variables. It just 

22 gives the programmer much more flexibility than 

23 something that's more temporary and not a 

24 first-class object. 

25 In Robertson, they equate a first-class 

202-220-4158 

Page 49 of 70 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

www.hendersonlegalservices.corn 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SANL00063734 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 21 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 21 of 22
IPR2021-01041 

Rosenberg, Ph.D., Craig July 7, 2022 

57 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

CERTIFICATE 

I, Deanna J. Dean, a New Hampshire Licensed 

Court Reporter, Registered Diplomate Reporter, and 

Certified Realtime Reporter, do hereby certify that 

6 the foregoing, to the best of my knowledge, skill, 

and ability, is a true and accurate transcript of 

8 my computer-aided electronic stenographic notes of 

9 the deposition of CRAIG ROSENBERG, PhD, who was 

i0 duly sworn, taken at the place and under the 

11 circumstances present on the date hereinbefore set 

12 forth. 

13 I further certify that present on behalf 

14 of the Petitioner, Attorney KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQ. 

15 and YI YU, PHD, ESQ. of FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

16 GARRETT & DUNNER LLP, and on behalf of the Patent 

17 Owner: NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, was PARHAM HENDIFAR, ESQ. 

18 of LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP. 

19 I further certify that I am neither attorney 

20 or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any 

of the parties to the action in which this 

21 deposition was taken, and further that I am not a 

relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 

22 employed in this case, ror am I financially 

interestia- this actinpV 

23 

. Deanna 4.1:Wan', RDR, CRR 

24 NH LCR NO..,!87 (RSA 310-A) 

25 Signed this 14th day of July, 2022 

Henderson Legal Services, Inc. 

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.eom 

Page 57 of 70 

GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1031 

GOOGLE v. NEONODE 

IPR2021-01041 

507SAM_00063742 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-27 Filed 04/14/23 Page 22 of 22 Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-22 Filed 05/19/23 Page 22 of 22