(Part 2)

Q: You said that you think his experience was narrow. What do you mean by “narrow”?

A: So I have described without giving a very formal definition of what I mean by these layers and we have the physical layer which simply sends material, digital material from one point to another. We have the networking layer which includes, it doesn’t care about the physical transmission media but addresses how the bits get from pointA to point B.

I guess my understanding of such a person as I described is that the physical person would have some knowledge of the networking layer and the networking person would also have some knowledge of the physical layer and simply because I most commonly interact with people who know both layers, as an electrical engineer. And with that, I suppose I would have to rethink or think, think through in greater detail if somebody solely focuses on the network issue, the networking layer alone, without any consideration of the physical

I guess what I’m really looking for is somebody who's able to think flexibly and understand that they are delivering digital information and that there are multiple layers and that they may sit at one layer but other things go on at other layers.

Q: Are you capable of making a judgment right now about whether Mr. Halpern has ordinary skill in the art under your definition?

A: Ordinary skill in the art here, you are referring to both items, the digital communication technology and the compression techniques?

Q: Correct.

A: And, again, I would like to go back to what I said. I am, based on what I read in his report and what I heard during the deposition, I am unsure of the depth of his knowledge on the compression techniques.

Q: So does that mean that your, the answer to my question is yes, you’re not capable of making a judgment right now?

A: I think that’s accurate.

============================================

COMMENT:

1) Why would Apple attorney Brown want to include in the court documents this portion of the Hemami deposition? Why does he want Dr. Hemami's opinion on the expertise of Apple's expert witness? Did he expect Dr. Hemami to say that Halpern was well qualified to be an expert on the Burst patent issues? If this were the case this was wishful thinking.

2) Time compressed and time compression multiplexing is a central issue in the claim construction procedure. Dr. Hemami says "I believe that his level of familiarity with compression is perhaps a bit on the low side". This is a nice way of saying he is weak in this area and his testimony is questionable in this area.

3) Since compression is a BIG part of this case why is the Apple expert so weak in this area?

One possibility is that the Apple position is so far off the wall that nobody with decent compression credentials was willing to testify that the Burst patents describe "time compression multiplexing" and not the "time compressed representation" created by the use of data compression techniques.

4) Why would Apple want to open up this can of worms in Dr. Hemami's deposition? How does it benefit the Apple position?

The Apple brief is pretty to look at but when you take a closer look it all starts to fall apart.