Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 1 of 37

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 2 of 37

1/30/2007 Horowitz, Paul

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 v. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Vol. 2, Pgs. 1-239 Exhibits See index

CA No. 04-1371

corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation Defendants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONTINUED DEPOSITION of PAUL HOROWITZ, Ph.D. Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 9:36 a.m. Fish & Richardson P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts

- - - - - Jill K. Ruggieri, RMR/CRR - - - - -

1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 3 of 37

1/30/2007 Horowitz, Paul

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 Okay.

And if someone said have you modulated your oscillator about a target frequency, the answer would be, sure, the central frequency of the band would be -could be called a target frequency. It's analogous language.

I think that that seems to be a backwards perspective. Are you saying that, well, any time you do spread spectrum you're going to get an average frequency somewhere in the range, and therefore, you would construe that to be the target frequency? Well, average -- you're going to get some spectrum. And the spectrum has some center,

and if the modulation is -- if you -- if you -There's several different ways one might produce such a set of frequencies. One might use a direct digital synthesis producing each frequency in isolation or, alternatively, and in the prior art that's being talked about here, one would achieve it by using a voltage-controlled oscillator

65

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 4 of 37

1/30/2007 Horowitz, Paul

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

or ramp-controlled oscillator whose frequency variation can be thought of as deviation from a central frequency. And in that particular kind of application, the use of the term "central frequency" or "unmodulated frequency" or "target frequency" would be synonymous or nearly synonymous. So is it your opinion, then, that any time you modulated the frequency of an oscillator, which would have by its nature a base frequency, an unmodulated frequency, that then you would be varying about a target frequency in that case? I think it -- certainly in the form of a VCO whose control signal deviates about -deviates from its unmodulated frequency, that it would be reasonable to use the term "target frequency" as the central band of the modulated frequencies. I think it depends a little bit on context, and I would like to see the context in this case. Give me a moment here. We're

still talking about this -Well, we're talking about the '876

66

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 5 of 37

1/30/2007 Horowitz, Paul

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 A Q

patent, and we're talking about the Markman interpretation? Correct. (Witness read document.) In the context of the '876 patent -- and it's Markman -- frequency jittering means varying the switching frequency of an SMPS about a target frequency to reduce EMI. The -- my understanding, and one of skill in the art's understanding, would be, would have been, that the switching supply absent the modulation would operate at some frequency. That would be the target frequency of this interpretation, that the addition of modulating circuitry causes the frequency to vary about that frequency. That would be the same frequency that I've described earlier today as the central frequency or the middle of the spectrum or the center of the band. What if the modulation was all additive, meaning that it only modulated above the base frequency? Well, you could do that.

67

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 6 of 37

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 7 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

1 2 3 4 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE --oOo--

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

6 7 8 9 vs. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 10 Delaware corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 11 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: TRACY FLETCHER, CSR NO. 11683 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT BLAUSCHILD March 9, 2007 VOLUME II Defendants. ____________________________// Pages 1 through 243 inclusive. Plaintiff, Case No. 04-1371 (JJF)

1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 8 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

discussions you had yesterday to prepare for your deposition? A. Q. No. Do you recall any specifics of the discussion

01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:16 01:16 01:16

you had with Mr. Headley or Mr. Pollack yesterday? A. Q. A. Any specifics? Yes.

What do you recall? Specifically -- let's see, we talked about --

well, it's just talking about the stuff that was in my report, the specific, um, disagreements I had with Dr. Horowitz. Um, we talked -- I'm sorry, we talked about, That's what I can remember. I

um, target frequencies.

know we talked about lots of stuff that was in my report. Q. What did you discuss concerning target

01:16 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:17

frequencies? A. The lack thereof in the three -- the '876

references, um, Habetler, Wang and Martin. Q. Do you believe that it's required that a

reference disclose a target frequency in order to meet the elements of the '876 patent? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

01:17 01:17 01:17

Disclose a target frequency, um,

you don't -- can I check the claim construction?

118

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 9 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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 Q. A.

MR. DE BLANK: Of course. I want to see something. I can get it out of

01:17 01:17 01:17 01:17 If you'd 01:17 01:17 01:18 01:18 01:18 01:18 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:20 01:20 01:20

my report. Q. If it's in your report, that's fine.

like I have a copy of the court's actual -A. to look. I think it's in my report, that's why I wanted Um, I believe it doesn't have to say the

target frequency is hundred kilohertz, and we're going to vary about that. It doesn't have to say that. It

doesn't have to have a specific one.

It could say we

have this frequency, and we're going to vary about that, and that could be -- depending on how the wording was, that could be the target frequency. give it a spec, for example. Q. Okay. But it's your opinion that a target -You don't have to

that a target frequency is required to practice Claim 1 of the '876 patent? A. Uh-huh. I believe you have to vary around --

in a range around the target frequency, yes. Q. And you believe that Fairchild would not have

met its burden of proof to show that a reference anticipates Claim 1 of the '876 patent without proving that the reference varies the frequency around a target frequency?

119

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 10 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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 Q. Q.

MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS:

Objection. I would say if it doesn't vary

01:20 01:20 01:20 01:20 01:20 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 I 01:21 01:21 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22

around the target frequency, it's not -- let me look again. I think it's -- then I would say it's not the

frequency jittering circuit as defined by the court. Yeah. I think that's right. MR. DE BLANK: So you believe it's Fairchild's burden to prove

that a reference varies the oscillator frequency around a target frequency in order to show that that reference meets each element of Claim 1 of the '876 patent? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

I believe that Claim 1 -- yep.

believe that Claim 1 requires a frequency jittering circuit, and the court construed that to require varying about a target frequency. MR. DE BLANK: We were discussing the, um, preparation you had

with Mr. Pollack and Mr. Headley before today's deposition. Other than the discussions concerning the

target frequency, are you aware -- can you recall any other specific, um, topics you discussed with either gentleman? A. We discussed single-ramp versus repeating

frequency variation circuit waveforms, and I can't

120

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 11 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

remember now if we discussed every reference with respect to that or every one of Dr. Horowitz's opinions, um, that was one of the topics. Um, just generally went

01:22 01:22 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24

over each -- I can't even say that we went over each of the seven circuit references versus what's in my report. I'm trying to think of other topics of discussion. internal with respect to frequency variation signal. Q. Is there anything about your supplemental Um,

report, Exhibit 10, that you believe is inaccurate or incorrect, or an opinion you would like to change? MR. POLLACK: answered. THE WITNESS: correct. MR. DE BLANK: Q. Other -- other than the meeting you had with Not at this time. I think it's Objection. Compound, asked and

01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24

Mr. Pollack and Mr. Headley yesterday, did you do anything else to prepare for today's deposition? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: prior deposition. again. MR. DE BLANK: Q. Other than the discussions you had with Mr. Objection. Asked and answered. I read my

I read my report.

I read the Habetler reference in part

01:25 01:25 01:25

Pollack and Mr. Headley yesterday, did you have any

121

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 12 of 37

EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 13 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

1 2 3 4 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE --oOo--

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

6 7 8 9 vs. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 10 Delaware corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 11 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: TRACY FLETCHER, CSR NO. 11683 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT BLAUSCHILD March 9, 2007 VOLUME II Defendants. ____________________________// Pages 1 through 243 inclusive. Plaintiff, Case No. 04-1371 (JJF)

1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 14 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

Q.

-- the switching frequency of the oscillator

02:49 02:49 02:49 02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50

shown in figure 1 of the Martin patent would vary about a frequency or a set of frequencies, correct? MR. POLLACK: Objection. Compound, lacks

foundation, vague and ambiguous. THE WITNESS: programming? Okay. Again, what's the

Um, let's assume a whole bunch of Is that what you're --

different codes in there. MR. DE BLANK: Q. That's fine.

So we'll assume that the contents

02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50

of the EPROM were programmed by drawing numbers out of a hat; the contents were -A. Q. Big hat. Big hat. Programmed randomly, but they are not

02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50 02:50 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51

programmed and set, and we are assuming that they're not being reprogrammed during the operation of the Martin circuit. Given that, isn't it true that there is --

that the oscillation -- sorry -- that the frequency of the oscillator in figure 1 of the Martin patent varies around a target frequency? A. No. You didn't -- your design process did not

put into the hat saying this is my target, vary around this. Q. That was not in there. I understand. So you're saying that target --

the inclusion of the word target frequency requires an

165

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 15 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

intent by someone that it vary around a specific frequency? A. process. Q. Okay. Would the device -- or the circuit shown Yeah. That's -- that's my understanding of the

02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51 02:51

in figure 1 of the Martin patent work if the oscillator were allowed to vary in frequency between zero and a billion hertz? A. Q. A. Q. By work -Well, let me -Okay. Let me try it this way. A

02:51 02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52

voltage-controlled -- sorry.

Figure 1 of the Martin

patent shows a voltage-controlled oscillator. Voltage-controlled oscillators vary the frequency of the oscillator based on the voltage received at the control input, correct? A. Q. High level, yes. Good. The voltage-controlled oscillator can

vary a -- receive a range of frequencies at the control input, correct? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: MR. DE BLANK: Q. Sorry, that was poorly phrased. A Objection. Arrange a frequency --

02:52 02:52 02:52 02:52

166

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 16 of 37

EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 17 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

1 2 3 4 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE --oOo--

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

6 7 8 9 vs. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 10 Delaware corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 11 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: TRACY FLETCHER, CSR NO. 11683 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT BLAUSCHILD March 9, 2007 VOLUME II Defendants. ____________________________// Pages 1 through 243 inclusive. Plaintiff, Case No. 04-1371 (JJF)

1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 18 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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 Q. Q.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: time is 2:37 p.m. MR. DE BLANK:

Back on the record.

The

02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:37 02:38 02:38 02:38

Mr. Blauschild, the term "frequency generator"

is being construed to mean varying the switching frequency of a switch mode power supply about a target frequency in order to reduce electromagnetic interference; do you understand that? A. Q. Yes. This is a term, "frequency jittering," that

appears in what's called a preamble of the claim; do you know what a preamble -A. Q. I do. Is it your opinion that the preamble to Claim 1

of the '876 is a limitation? MR. POLLACK: Objection. Calls for a legal

02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38

conclusion, one that's already been decided. THE WITNESS: Well, I agree with him in that

I'm not a lawyer, but my assumption was it was because it was a construed term. MR. DE BLANK: Okay. So it's your understanding that in order

to determine whether a circuit meets the elements of Claim 1 of the '876 patent, it requires the oscillator, the digital to analog converter, the counter elements as

158

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 19 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

set forth in Claim 1, but also that it vary the switching frequency of a switch mode power supply about a target frequency in order to reduce electromagnetic interference; is that correct? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: Objection. Asked and answered. I had the wrong I

02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39

I believe so.

patent in front of me, but it didn't make much sense. think so, yes. MR. DE BLANK: Q.

What is a target frequency as that term is used

in the -- in terms of frequency jittering? A. What my understanding of that is is you pick a

frequency, and this is based on what people do, you pick a frequency, and then you wiggle around that frequency, and it's the frequency you would have without the wiggle. Q. So it's the frequency of the oscillator if

02:39 02:39 02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40

there were no frequency variation circuitry involved? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: different things. Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

That's -- we're talking about two

One is designing an oscillator that

has frequency jitter, and you design it by having a target, and then you vary around it. doesn't have frequency jitter. The other one

You could have some

design value, um, whether you call that the target

159

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 20 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

frequency or not, it doesn't really apply because we're not talking about that with respect to the claim construction. Q. Is that clear?

02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40 02:40

I'm not sure I understand the last part when

you're saying whether you call it a target frequency doesn't apply? A. It's different. It's not the same kind of

02:40 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41

design where you're designing a frequency jittering circuit, and you have a target frequency, and then you wiggle around that versus not -- totally different design process. Q. Okay. Maybe it would help me to understand if

02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41

you could tell me what the target frequency of figure 1 of the '876 patent would be? A. My understanding of the target frequency would

be you could pick either the code of 0111 or the 100 code, either of those would be the target frequency, and then you wiggle around that. Q. the -A. Q. Figure 2, yeah. And you're saying the target frequency is I'm sorry. You were referring to figure 2 of

02:42 02:42 02:42 02:42

either 0111 or 1110? A. Q. Yeah. Okay. Does --

02:42

160

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 21 of 37

EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 22 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

1 2 3 4 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE --oOo--

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

6 7 8 9 vs. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 10 Delaware corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 11 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: TRACY FLETCHER, CSR NO. 11683 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT BLAUSCHILD March 9, 2007 VOLUME II Defendants. ____________________________// Pages 1 through 243 inclusive. Plaintiff, Case No. 04-1371 (JJF)

1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 23 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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 Q. A.

MR. DE BLANK: Of course. I want to see something. I can get it out of

01:17 01:17 01:17 01:17 If you'd 01:17 01:17 01:18 01:18 01:18 01:18 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:19 01:20 01:20 01:20

my report. Q. If it's in your report, that's fine.

like I have a copy of the court's actual -A. to look. I think it's in my report, that's why I wanted Um, I believe it doesn't have to say the

target frequency is hundred kilohertz, and we're going to vary about that. It doesn't have to say that. It

doesn't have to have a specific one.

It could say we

have this frequency, and we're going to vary about that, and that could be -- depending on how the wording was, that could be the target frequency. give it a spec, for example. Q. Okay. But it's your opinion that a target -You don't have to

that a target frequency is required to practice Claim 1 of the '876 patent? A. Uh-huh. I believe you have to vary around --

in a range around the target frequency, yes. Q. And you believe that Fairchild would not have

met its burden of proof to show that a reference anticipates Claim 1 of the '876 patent without proving that the reference varies the frequency around a target frequency?

119

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 24 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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 Q. Q.

MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS:

Objection. I would say if it doesn't vary

01:20 01:20 01:20 01:20 01:20 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 I 01:21 01:21 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22 01:22

around the target frequency, it's not -- let me look again. I think it's -- then I would say it's not the

frequency jittering circuit as defined by the court. Yeah. I think that's right. MR. DE BLANK: So you believe it's Fairchild's burden to prove

that a reference varies the oscillator frequency around a target frequency in order to show that that reference meets each element of Claim 1 of the '876 patent? MR. POLLACK: THE WITNESS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

I believe that Claim 1 -- yep.

believe that Claim 1 requires a frequency jittering circuit, and the court construed that to require varying about a target frequency. MR. DE BLANK: We were discussing the, um, preparation you had

with Mr. Pollack and Mr. Headley before today's deposition. Other than the discussions concerning the

target frequency, are you aware -- can you recall any other specific, um, topics you discussed with either gentleman? A. We discussed single-ramp versus repeating

frequency variation circuit waveforms, and I can't

120

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 25 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

does. MR. DE BLANK: Q. And if you turn to the page ending in 1863,

03:02 03:02 03:02 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 Yes. And then he lists four constraints. C1, 2, 3 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 The first constraint is that "The 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:03 03:04 03:04 03:04

it's about five pages from the front. A. Q. Okay. At the end of the second column in the

beginning of the -- sorry -- end of the first column and beginning of the second, Wang wrote, "For our purposes, the programmed PWM waveform must meet several constraints, both in the time and frequency domains." Do you see where I'm reading on the bottom of the first column? A. Q.

and 4 on the second column, correct? A. Q. Yes. Okay.

programmed PWM waveform must have the same average period and the same average duty cycle as the original PWM waveform," correct? A. Q. That's what it says. So the Wang article teaches or states that

notwithstanding the frequency variation, the programmed PWM waveform must have the same average period and same average duty cycle as the original PWM waveform without

173

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 26 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

frequency variation, correct? A. Q. You lost me in the beginning of that question. Sure. I'm just confirming my understanding

03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04

that when it's distinguishing between the programmed PWM waveform and the original PWM waveform in constraint C1, that it's referring to -- the programmed PWM waveform is the waveform with frequency modulation, and the original PWM waveform is the waveform without frequency modulation? MR. POLLACK: lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: Okay. Frequency modulation, Objection. Vague and ambiguous,

03:04 03:04 03:04 03:04 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05

again, I think that was -- we can look again, but I think that specific term was included somewhere by the court. If we're just using modulation to mean change,

then I'll agree with that, but as you know from my report I don't think this has the -- the frequency jittering of the patent. MR. DE BLANK: Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. You're referring to the -- again -The Wang. -- to the preamble of Claim 1 -Yeah. -- of the '876 patent specifically? Yes.

174

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 27 of 37

3/9/2007 Blauschild, Robert

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

Q.

And just to confirm again, it's your belief

03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:06 03:06 03:06 03:06

that the Wang reference doesn't teach a target frequency or describe a target frequency, correct? A. Q. Varying about a target -- that's correct. The remaining portion of the preamble, you

agree that the Wang reference would satisfy, correct? A. Q. I believe so. Okay. And I'm going to give you what will be

marked as Blauschild Exhibit 13, which is a copy of a document bearing production numbers FCS1692016 through 1692043. It's also marked as DX 10.

(Defendants' Exhibit 13 was marked.)

03:06 03:06

THE WITNESS: up? MR. DE BLANK: Q. A.

Should I -- can I fold this one

03:06 03:06 03:06 03:06 03:06

You can set that aside for now. Okay. MR. POLLACK: Just for the record, this one

03:06 03:06 03:06

also has two copies of the -- actually I think this one has three copies of the article. THE WITNESS: little thick. I didn't get it, right? It's a

03:06 03:06

175

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 28 of 37

EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 29 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 30 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 31 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 32 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 33 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 34 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 35 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 36 of 37

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 670-2

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 37 of 37