Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:O4—cv-01371-JJF D0cument433—19 Fi|ec|11/21/2006 Page10f3
E h`b `t C)

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 433-19 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
?
Page 1
1 I VOLUME: I é
2 PAGES: 1 to 214 i
3 EXHIBITS: See Indexf E
5 _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT §
6 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
7 —————————————————— x
8 POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. , a
9 Delaware corporation §
10 Plaintiff
ll v. C.A. No. 04-1371 JJF E
l2
13 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR- g
14 INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
15 corporation, and FAIRCHILD é
I 16 SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a %
17 Delaware corporation i
18 Defendants ‘ E
19 —————————~-——————— x
20 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of PAUL HOROWITZ
21 Saturday, February 4, 2006 %
22 9:20 a.m. g
23 . g
24 Michelle Keegan, Court Reporter g
1-866-619-3925

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 433-19 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
Page 134 Page 136 E
1 wanted to make sure that those were entered into the 1 sure I'm clear for what it is that you've provided
2 opinion. 2 as your opinion in the chart as of the time that you Q
3 When there's 16 other things -- one can 3 prepared it. And I'm reading —- I believe -- I
4 count them here -- going into that little detail for 4 thought I was reading in your chart that you were
5 each of these would have involved many pages of 5 asserting that Keller anticipated claim 1 of the
6 report and many, many hours of time that was not 6 '366 patent. And I'm trying to read that in light
7 really available to me. 7 of what you said in paragraph 66.
8 I thought that mentioning them and 8 A. Okay. Well, that's not a question yet.
9 saying that they had these features, which I'm 9 Q. So would it be correct that because you said
10 willing to support with additional answers when 10 that Keller would anticipate if the soft-start
11 asked, was the best I could do given those 11 element is not construed as means plus function,
12 constraints. 12 that in the further detail —— that was a presumption
13 I should add that these additional ones, 13 that you were making in that further detail?
14 although it's simply a long laundry list, was not 14 A. If it's not means plus function, then this
15 simply concocted because I looked through grade 15 is all cool. If it's means plus function, it
16 sheets and said, Maybe this one has this, maybe that 16 depends on what the corresponding structure is ruled
17 one. I looked at each one of these in sufficient 17 by the court to be.
18 detail to ensure that it had these features. 18 And I haven't specifically discussed
19 Q. Since we're on paragraph 66 of your report, 19 that because one would have to say, Well, if the
20 Exhibit 3, you also mention at the end of this 20 function generator part doesn't matter, the ramp
21 paragraph the Keller article and the SMP 4260. And 21 generator, then it can be different; but if it is
22 you state here that they anticipate claim 1 if the 22 included, then I think that structure and way of
23 soft-start element is not construed as means plus 23 doing it is sufficiently different that it would not
24 function. 24 come under the limitation. That has not been done
Page 135 Page 137
1 So do I take it that if the soft-start 1 here. What's here is what's here.
2 element is construed as means plus function, you 2 Q. Okay. And I'm just trying to make sure I
3 would not say that the Keller or SMP 240 3 understand what is here because in other places you
4 anticipates? 4 have provided alternatives: if this, then this; if
5 A. Well, of course, I didn't explicitly state 5 this, then that.
6 that negative, but my understanding of means plus 6 I thinkI understood that last answer to
7 function, that a digital implementation may well be 7 say that, at least with regard to that Keller
8 sufficiently different that it wou|dn't come under 8 article, you didn't provide a discussion of that
9 that claim limitation. So I only made the stronger 9 alternative in your claim chart?
10 statement here. 10 A. I didn't specifically say means plus
11 Q. So I take it that in providing the analysis 11 function, not means plus function. The statement
12 of the Keller article and the SMP 240, 260 data 12 might well apply to means plus function depending
13 sheets in your claim chart, which begins at the page 13 upon how the means plus function ruling comes down.
14 you've marked D-15 of Exhibit 6, that this analysis 14 That is, I haven't excluded this as applying.
15 presumes that soft-start circuit is not a means plus 15 H0w's that? ·
16 function limitation, correct? 16 Q. Okay. Fair enough. I'd like to refer you
17 A. Well, I suppose it would depend upon what 17 to paragraph 99 of Exhibit 3, your initial report.
18 the court -- Let's say the court rules a soft-start 18 And this is in the section related to the '851
19 circuit element to be a means plus function but does 19 patent now.
20 not include the ramp generator circuitry within the 20 So again, in paragraph 99 you provide a
21 structure, then it may well be that the 240, 260 21 list of potential prior art you believe is relevant
22 would read on it. So the claim chart is silent as 22 to the invalidity or the validity of the '851
23 to what would happen in that situation. 23 patent, claim 1, correct?
24 Q. Right. Exactly. So I just want to make 24 A. Yes. This does, of course, follow the
35 (Pages 134 to 137)
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES
1-866-619-3925