Joint Appendix One

I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cas,, 2:10-cv-07678-JFW -DTB
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
26
27
28
Document 58 Filed 09/28/11 Page 3 of 21 Page ID
#:1130
Q. Is this the patent that you're the named inventor on that is being asserted against
Nanoptix in this case?
A. I believe so.
Meyerhofer Dept. Vol. I at 19:20-20:8:
Q. Let me direct your attention if I could to Bates number 4655.
MR. WILLIAMSON: They are at the top.
THE WITNESS: 4655. Okay.
Q. BY MR. ROUNDS: To 4660. And specifically let me direct your
attention to Bates numbers 4658 to 4660.
A. Okay.
Q. Is this the third declaration that you were referring to in your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature on Bates number 4660 dated June 1st, 2009?
A. Yes, it is.
Meyerhofer Dept. Vol. I at 31:19-32:3:
Q. Okay. Is there any particular portion of Claim 1 that differentiates it from things
that you had done previously with printers at FutureLogic?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Object to the form as calling for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: The only thing I could -- I could say with regard to that is that this
would be a dual port claim, and that would be potentially different than printers that
had been -- that we were aware of that operated in the specific way.
Meyerhofer Dept. Vol. I at 35:16-20:
Q. BY MR. ROUNDS: Okay. Is Bates numbers 4924 through 4930 a February 11,
2008, declaration that you signed to submit to the Patent Office during the
application process?
Nanoptix' -3-
Excerpts of
Deposition
-A0298-