`EXHIBIT 2171
`CBM2013-00020 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S FIRST SET
`OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER APPLE INC’S EXHIBITS
`SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 000002
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for SightSound Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”),
`
`hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Apple Inc.’s (“Petitioner”)
`
`Exhibits 4157-4267and any reference to/reliance on the foregoing, including,
`
`without limitation, citations thereto in Petitioner’s Reply. Petitioner’s objections
`
`below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.62, as well as pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(b), 42.53, 42.61, and 42.65, as
`
`stated below.
`
`I.
`
`Objections to Exhibit 4256 and Exhibits 4253, 4194-4195, 4197-4198,
`
`4199-4207, 4254, 4259-4260, 4251, and 4267 cited therein, Any
`
`Reference to/Reliance Thereon, and Improper Incorporation Thereof
`
`into Reply
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 4256, titled “Declaration of Lawrence
`
`Kenswil,” and exhibits 4253, 4194-4195, 4197-4198, 4199-4207, 4254, 4259-
`
`4260, 4251, and 4267 cited therein.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E.
`
`601 (“Competency to Testify in General”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal
`
`Knowledge”); F.R.E. 701 (“Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness”); F.R.E. 702
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000003
`
`
`
`(“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E. 703-705 (“Witness Not Qualified to
`
`Provide Expert Testimony”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Impermissible Hearsay”); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony; tests and data”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`(“Oppositions and replies”).
`
`There has been no showing that Mr. Kenswil is qualified to provide expert
`
`opinions on any technical matter, including bandwidth, compression, hard drives,
`
`memory size, storage systems, hard disks, data transmission, DRM, the iTunes user
`
`interface, the prevalence of computers and access to data-enabled
`
`telecommunications lines in consumers’ homes, and encryption and purported
`
`technical problems solved or not solved by the patents (see, e.g., Ex. 4256,
`
`Sections VII-VIII), rendering his opinions on these matters improper and
`
`inadmissible under at least F.R.E. 702 and F.R.E. 703-705. There has further been
`
`no showing that Mr. Kenswil is qualified to provide any expert opinion on whether
`
`the iTunes Music Store (“ITMS”) practices or is coextensive with the patented
`
`claims (see, e.g., Ex 4256 ¶¶ 29-31), rendering his opinions on these matters
`
`improper and inadmissible under at least F.R.E. 702 and F.R.E. 703-705. There
`
`has further been no showing that Mr. Kenswil is qualified to provide any expert
`
`opinion on any consumer-related issue, including branding, consumer behavior,
`
`consumer purchasing patterns, and consumer demand for the ITMS or for any
`
`particular feature of the ITMS (see, e.g., Ex. 4256, Section VIII), rendering his
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000004
`
`
`
`opinions on these matters improper and inadmissible under at least F.R.E. 702 and
`
`F.R.E. 703-705. Further, Mr. Kenswil has not demonstrated that he possesses first-
`
`hand knowledge, experience, or perceptions regarding the above-identified
`
`opinions, rendering any lay testimony or lay opinions on these matters improper
`
`and inadmissible under at least F.R.E. 601, F.R.E. 602 and F.R.E. 701.
`
`Mr. Kenswil’s testimony regarding SightSound’s business strategies, its
`
`operations, and the reasons for its purported failure (Ex. 4256, Section VI, ¶¶ 34-
`
`50, 77-79, 82-83) are similarly not based upon any established expertise or first-
`
`hand experience or knowledge in violation of F.R.E. 602, F.R.E. 701, F.R.E. 702
`
`and F.R.E. 703-705. Instead, Mr. Kenswil’s testimony recites and misconstrues
`
`internal SightSound documents, many of which are incomplete drafts, and thus not
`
`appropriate facts or data upon which to base expert testimony under F.R.E. 702.
`
`Mr. Kenswil’s opinions regarding the failure of other digital download companies
`
`(see, e.g., Ex. 4256 ¶ 32) are similarly unsupported by expertise or first-hand
`
`knowledge in violation of F.R.E. 602, F.R.E. 701, F.R.E. 702 and F.R.E. 703-705,
`
`and the documents upon which he bases his opinion regarding the failure of other
`
`digital download companies are impermissible hearsay documents in violation of
`
`F.R.E. 801 and 802.
`
`Mr. Kenswil’s statements in paragraphs 90-92 and 95-96 of Exhibit 4256
`
`provide neither expert opinion nor facts or data upon which any testimony is based.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000005
`
`
`
`These paragraphs recite what SightSound’s expert, Mr. Snell, testified to in
`
`deposition, and are not relied upon or commented on by Mr. Kenswil in any
`
`fashion whatsoever, and thus violate F.R.E. 402, 403 and 702.
`
`Mr. Kenswil’s opinions regarding the reasons for the commercial success of
`
`the ITMS, including that such commercial success is attributable to features or
`
`attributes other than the claimed invention or that such features are important to the
`
`success of the ITMS, are not based upon reliable facts, data, or empirical or
`
`scientific evidence (including survey evidence), and thus such testimony is
`
`improper and inadmissible. Specifically, Mr. Kenswil’s opinions on the reasons
`
`for the commercial success of the ITMS appear to be based either: (1) on no
`
`evidence or data, or undisclosed evidence and data, in violation of F.R.E. 702 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (see, e.g., Ex. 4256 ¶¶ 67 (no data disclosed to support opinion
`
`that the ITMS success is based upon “its experience, its credibility, its established
`
`brand name . . . its user-friendly features, the existing iPod and iTunes music
`
`management software. . .”), 68 (no data disclosed to support opinion that
`
`consumers demand for content has driven the success of the ITMS), 92-94 (no data
`
`disclosed to support opinion that success of ITMS was driven by the identified
`
`features)); or (2) on impermissible hearsay documents as discussed below in
`
`violation of F.R.E. 801 and 802 (see Ex. 4256, Section VIII).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000006
`
`
`
`Mr. Kenswil appears to rely upon out of court statements in Exhibits 4253,
`
`4194-4195, 4197-4198, 4199-4207, 4254, 4259-4260, 4251, and 4267 for the truth
`
`of the matters asserted therein, rendering his testimony and the associated exhibits
`
`inadmissible hearsay pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802. There has been no showing
`
`that a hearsay exception or exclusion applies to the statements or exhibits.
`
`Further, the statements by Mr. Kenswil that the concept of selling digital
`
`audio and video signals over telecommunications lines was well known in the prior
`
`art or often discussed by those skilled in the art prior to the invention constitute
`
`new evidence of obviousness that is improper on reply in violation of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b). See, e.g., Ex. 4256 ¶¶ 52 (citing Ex. 4103), 52 n.28 (same), 64.
`
`Further, the statements of Mr. Kenswil that purport to declare what any
`
`person associated with Universal, UMG, RCA, or the RIAA planned, conceived,
`
`intended, anticipated, or believed are unsupported by the personal knowledge of
`
`the declarant and thus improper under at least F.R.E. 601 and 602, and irrelevant
`
`under F.R.E. 402 or prejudicial/misleading under F.R.E. 403.
`
`Finally, the statements of Mr. Kenswil that purport to declare what any
`
`person associated with “the labels” or “record labels” planned, conceived,
`
`intended, anticipated, believed or was capable of are unsupported by the personal
`
`knowledge of the declarant and thus improper under at least F.R.E. 601 and 602,
`
`and irrelevant under F.R.E. 402 or prejudicial/misleading under F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000007
`
`
`
`II. Objections to Portions of Exhibit 4258, Any Reference to/Reliance
`
`Thereon, and Improper Incorporation Thereof into Reply
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 4258, titled “Declaration of Tom Weyer.”
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E.
`
`601 (“Competency to Testify in General”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal
`
`Knowledge”).
`
`Mr. Weyer declares that while he remembers “attending a lunch meeting”
`
`with a “SightSound entity” and recalls seeing “some documents,” he did “not recall
`
`discussing any specific patents” and no longer has any notes. Ex. 4258 ¶¶ 4-6. No
`
`foundation or explanation is provided for the statement that “[i]f we had been
`
`impressed with the technology offered by the company, Apple would have
`
`followed up with additional meetings.” Ex. 4258 ¶ 7. Mr. Weyer was “not
`
`involved in the development of iTunes or the iTunes Music Store,” but states that
`
`“[a]s far as I know, nothing from the early 1999 meeting was communicated to
`
`anyone who was involved with the development of iTunes or the iTunes Music
`
`Store.” Ex. 4258 ¶ 9. By Mr. Weyer’s own admission he lacks relevant
`
`information and personal knowledge regarding what information Apple may have
`
`possessed and what was done with that information after the 1999 meeting; Mr.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000008
`
`
`
`Weyer instead provides conjecture about what Apple “would have” done. The
`
`declaration was made without personal knowledge, is irrelevant, and its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by prejudice to Patent Owner in violation of
`
`F.R.E. 402-403 and F.R.E. 601-02.
`
`III. Objection to Exhibit 4255, Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon, and
`
`Improper Incorporation Thereto into Reply
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 4255, titled “Declaration of Jeffrey Robbin.”
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401 (“General Admissibility of Relevant
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 601 (“Competency to Testify in
`
`General”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal Knowledge”); F.R.E. 701 (“Opinion
`
`Testimony by Lay Witness”); F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”);
`
`F.R.E. 703-705 (“Witness Not Qualified to Provide Expert Testimony”); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61 (“Admissibility”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony; tests and data).
`
`The statements by the witness, Jeffrey Robbin, purporting to state what any
`
`person associated with Apple planned, conceived, intended, anticipated, or
`
`developed, are unsupported by the personal knowledge of the declarant and thus
`
`improper under at least F.R.E. 601 and 602, and irrelevant under F.R.E. 402 or
`
`prejudicial/misleading under F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000009
`
`
`
`There has been no showing that Mr. Robbin is qualified to provide expert
`
`opinion or other opinion about the U.S. Patents and “features” cited in paragraph 7
`
`of his declaration, nor the application of such patented inventions to the ITMS.
`
`Mr. Robbin’s declaration also does not provide sufficient underlying facts or data
`
`upon which the opinions about these patents and features could be based and are
`
`thus improper lay or expert opinion testimony under at least F.R.E. 701, 702, and
`
`703-705, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65. To the extent Apple intends to rely upon the truth
`
`of any of the data contained in any specifications or drawings contained in the U.S.
`
`Patents identified in Mr. Robbin’s declaration, Mr. Robbin’s declaration fails to
`
`identify any facts based on first-hand knowledge regarding how such data was
`
`generated and is thus inadmissible pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`Further, the statements in paragraph 9 of Mr. Robbin’s declaration that the
`
`idea to sell music and video files over computer networks was “prevalent in the
`
`industry since the mid-1980s” is not based upon personal knowledge and is
`
`improper under at least F.R.E. 601-602 and 701-705 (as well as for the additional
`
`reason that it is improper new evidence on Reply as stated below).
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000010
`
`
`
`IV. Objections to Exhibit 4262 and Exhibits 4175-4193, 4208, and 4212-4250
`
`cited therein, Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon, and Improper
`
`Incorporation Thereof into Reply
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 4262, titled “Second Declaration of Dr. John
`
`P.J. Kelly In Support of Apple Inc.’s Petition For Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Review of United States Patent No. 5,966,440 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.304,” and Exhibits 4175-4193, 4208, and 4212-4250 cited therein.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E.
`
`601 (“Competency to Testify in General”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal
`
`Knowledge”); F.R.E. 701 (“Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness”); F.R.E. 702
`
`(“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E. 703-705 (“Witness Not Qualified to
`
`Provide Expert Testimony”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Impermissible Hearsay”); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony; tests and data); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`(“Oppositions and replies”).
`
`Dr. Kelly’s declaration lists dozens of unrelated patents held by Apple which
`
`purportedly “demonstrate Apple’s innovation, including in the context of
`
`iTMS/iTunes . . . .” Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 66, 67-81 (citing Exs. 4212-4250). There has
`
`been no showing that this recitation of unrelated patents is relevant to this
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000011
`
`
`
`proceeding, and if admitted, the minimal probative value of such materials would
`
`be substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause, the confusing
`
`and misleading nature of the materials, the undue delay upon these proceedings,
`
`and the waste of time that would ensue, in violation of F.R.E. 401-403. While Dr.
`
`Kelly suggests that the identified patents bear some relation to the ITMS, he
`
`discloses no facts, data, or analysis linking the identified patented inventions to the
`
`ITMS, in violation of at least F.R.E. 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`Dr. Kelly purports to offer numerous opinions concerning the working of the
`
`ITMS. Ex. 4262, Sections VI-VII. Dr. Kelly has not demonstrated that he is
`
`qualified to present opinions concerning the ITMS and whether it practices the
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,191,573, nor the various patents cited that have issued
`
`to Apple, particularly those that Dr. Kelly asserts “issued over” a SightSound
`
`patent. Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 67-81. Reference to such patents is irrelevant and likely
`
`prejudicial to SightSound far in excess of any probative value these references may
`
`provide, in violation of F.R.E. 402-403. Dr. Kelly also relies on insufficient facts
`
`and data and inadmissible hearsay for his testimony regarding the workings of the
`
`ITMS and payment methods accepted by Apple, such as undated screenshots and
`
`printouts from Apple’s website (Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 30-49, 56 (citing Exs. 4182-4186,
`
`4189-4191)) and third-party descriptions of how payment for content purchased
`
`from the ITMS works (Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 40, 42 (citing Exs. 4186-4187)). For other
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000012
`
`
`
`opinions concerning the role played by Akamai Technologies, Inc. in connection
`
`with the ITMS, Dr. Kelly provides no citation or support at all. Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 45-47.
`
`Dr. Kelly also provides no support or citation for his opinions concerning the
`
`sequence in which the ITMS processes transactions. Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 58-59.
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Kelly provides no support or citation for opinions concerning
`
`playback on iPod classic, iPod nano, and iPod shuffle devices. Ex. 4262 ¶ 62. The
`
`foregoing opinions rely on unauthenticated hearsay, do not reflect Dr. Kelly’s
`
`personal knowledge, and do not rest on reliable materials (such as technical
`
`documentation or schematics) or methods of analysis that were available to Dr.
`
`Kelly and which a qualified expert would have analyzed or utilized in reaching
`
`opinions and conclusions of this nature. As such, Dr. Kelly’s opinions and
`
`conclusions constitute prejudicial and unreliable expert testimony or inadmissible
`
`lay opinion testimony based on hearsay in violation of F.R.E. 402-403, 602, 701-
`
`703, 801-802, 901, 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(c), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Kelly’s declaration submits and relies upon new material
`
`and opinions in support of Petitioner’s prima facie case for the first time on reply,
`
`in contravention of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). For example, Dr. Kelly provides several
`
`new opinions based in part on hearsay concerning the information or combinations
`
`that would have been known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`the priority date. See, e.g., Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 6, 14, 18, 19, 22 (“it would have been
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000013
`
`
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements of
`
`electronic sale and electronic transmission . . .”), 24 (“one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that providing a monthly bill versus immediately billing the
`
`customer for the content are both feasible options a seller would consider . . .”), 64
`
`(“shared public key encryption[] was already well known in the art”), 82 (citing
`
`hearsay “Ex. XXX” or Exhibit 4178 and providing opinions about what was
`
`known in the art regarding cable TV signals). Dr. Kelly offers new information
`
`and opinions concerning hard drive technology in the early 1980’s. Ex. 4262 ¶ 5
`
`n.2 (citing Ex. 4208). Dr. Kelly also offers new opinions concerning whether an
`
`electronic purchase inherently assumes transferring money. Ex. 4262 ¶ 17. The
`
`witness also provides several new opinions based on previously undisclosed
`
`materials concerning the uses of credit cards as of and prior to the priority date.
`
`Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 20-22 (citing Exs. 4175-4178, 4179-4181, 4192-4193). Dr. Kelly
`
`impermissibly provides extensive opinions for the first time on reply concerning
`
`the workings of the ITMS and Apple’s own patents that are purportedly related to
`
`the ITMS. Ex. 4262, Sections VI-VII (citing Exs. 4212-4250). Finally, Dr. Kelly
`
`has opined for the first time concerning whether CompuSonics “would have
`
`enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claims.” Ex. 4262 ¶ 83.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000014
`
`
`
`V. Objections to Exhibits 4209-4210 and 4212-4250, Any Reference
`
`to/Reliance Thereon, and Improper Incorporation Thereof into Reply
`
`Evidence Objected To: Exhibits 4209-4210 and 4212-4250.
`
`Grounds for Objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 402
`
`(“General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant
`
`Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”).
`
`Apple identifies numerous U.S. Patents for the first time in support of its
`
`Reply along with various assertions regarding the truth of the data contained in the
`
`patents. To the extent that Apple is relying upon the truth of any of the data
`
`contained in the specifications and drawings in such patents (Exs. 4209-4210,
`
`4212-4250), Apple has not provided the requisite affidavit or declaration by an
`
`individual having first-hand knowledge of how the data was generated, rendering
`
`these exhibits improper and inadmissible under 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`To the extent Apple claims that the ITMS includes inventions disclosed in
`
`Exhibits 4212-4250, Apple has provided no testimony or other evidence
`
`establishing that these inventions are utilized by the ITMS or were utilized by the
`
`ITMS during the relevant time period, rendering the exhibits irrelevant under
`
`F.R.E. 402 and to the extent relevant, unduly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`
`of time under F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000015
`
`
`
`VI. Objections to Portions of Exhibits 4165, 4166 and 4173, Any Reference
`
`to/Reliance Thereon, and Improper Incorporation Thereof into Reply
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 4165, titled “Deposition Transcript of John
`
`Snell in Apple v. SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013-0020, -0023,
`
`March 6, 2014”; Exhibit 4166, titled “Redacted Version of Plaintiff SightSound
`
`Technologies, LLC’s Expert Report of John Snell on Validity, 6/5/13”; and Exhibit
`
`4173, titled “Technology Tutorial SightSound Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`
`No. 2:11-cv-1192-DWA Special Master Gregory Bradley October 11, 2012,”
`
`marked “Exhibit 15 of the Deposition of John Snell.”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii) (“Taking testimony”).
`
`With respect to portions of Exhibit 4165, SightSound objects to the extent
`
`that Apple questioned Mr. Snell regarding claim construction issues and other
`
`issues that are unrelated to his declaration. Exhibits 4166 and 4173, upon which
`
`Apple questioned Mr. Snell, similarly relate to issues outside the scope of his direct
`
`testimony and the issues raised by Apple in its Petition. These documents and
`
`testimony relate to validity and claim construction issues raised in District Court
`
`litigation between the parties and not relevant to the current proceedings, and are
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000016
`
`
`
`thus improper, prejudicial, and/or confusing in violation of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53(d)(5)(ii), F.R.E. 402, and F.R.E. 403.
`
`VII. Objections to Portions of Exhibits 4192, 4193, 4175, 4176, 4177, 4179,
`
`4180, 4181, 4256, 4103, 4209, 4210, 4255, and 4262, Any Reference
`
`to/Reliance Thereon, and Improper Incorporation Thereof into Reply
`
`Evidence objected to: Portions of Exhibits 4192, 4193, 4175, 4176, 4177,
`
`4179, 4180, 4181, 4256, 4103, 4209, 4210, 4255, and 4262.
`
`Grounds for Objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“Oppositions and replies”).
`
`In Exhibits 4256, 4103, 4209, 4210, 4255, and 4262, Apple attempts to offer
`
`new evidence relating to obviousness for the first time in its Reply briefing which
`
`was not included in Apple’s Petition. For example, Apple seeks to offer new
`
`evidence regarding obviousness via new opinions from new witnesses who opine
`
`that, prior to the invention, the desirability and advantages of selling and
`
`distributing digital audio and digital video signals over telephone lines was well
`
`known. See, e.g., Ex. 4256 (Declaration of Lawrence Kenswil) ¶¶ 52 (citing Ex.
`
`4103), 52 n.28 (same), 64; Ex. 4255 (Declaration of Jeffrey Robbin) ¶ 9; Ex. 4262
`
`(Second Declaration of Dr. John P.J. Kelly) ¶¶ 6, 18, 22, 27, 82.
`
`Further, Apple offers new materials via Exhibits 4209 and 4210 regarding
`
`whether electronic payment methods would have been obvious. Apple submits
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000017
`
`
`
`new materials in Exhibits 4192, 4177, 4179, 4180 and 4181, concerning what was
`
`known in the art.
`
`Apple also offers new evidence regarding anticipation, obviousness, and
`
`inherency, including new testimony and evidence regarding the features of
`
`CompuSonics, electronic payment, and matters within the knowledge and
`
`understanding of persons of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 4262 (Second
`
`Declaration of Dr. John P.J. Kelly) ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 83; Exhibits
`
`4175-4176.
`
`VIII. Objections to Exhibit 4263 and Exhibits 4182-4202, 4205, and 4207
`
`Thereto
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 4263, titled “Declaration of Roberto J.
`
`Gonzalez” and Exhibits 4182-4202, 4205, and 4207 thereto.
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal Knowledge”).
`
`Mr. Gonzalez’s declaration attempts to authenticate documents he located on
`
`the Internet by claiming that they are “true and correct copies” of certain materials
`
`such as articles and presentations. Mr. Gonzalez has offered no facts establishing
`
`that he has sufficient knowledge to verify that in fact, the exhibits cited are true
`
`and correct copies of the documents they purport to be, and only establishes that
`
`Mr. Gonzalez located them at particular Internet addresses. For example, Mr.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000018
`
`
`
`Gonzalez states that Exhibit 4188 is a true and correct copy of a “presentation
`
`entitled ‘Payment Systems, E-Commerce Winter 2011, Maurek Maurizio,’”
`
`however, he only declares that he retrieved the document provided at a particular
`
`URL address. Mr. Gonzalez provides no information whatsoever to establish that
`
`the document provided is a copy of any presentation, who authored it, or other
`
`information establishing that the exhibit is what it purports to be. The exhibit itself
`
`contains no self-authenticating information. Another example is Exhibit 4187,
`
`which Mr. Gonzalez states is a “true and correct” copy of an “article.” The only
`
`fact his declaration establishes about the document is that it was located at a
`
`particular Internet address. This violates F.R.E. 901 and 602. The remaining
`
`Gonzalez exhibits suffer from the same defects.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 28, 2014
`
`
` By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David R. Marsh/
`David R. Marsh, Ph.D.
`Kristan L. Lansbery, Ph.D.
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`555 12th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 942-5068
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`SightSound Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`PAGE 000019
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS
`
`TO PETITIONER APPLE INC’S EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT
`
`OF REPLY was served on March 28, 2014 to the following Counsel for Petitioner
`
`via e-mail, pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman, Lead Counsel
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`Steven.Baughman@ropesgray.com
`Ching-Lee.Fukuda@ropesgray.com
`ApplePTABServiceSightSound@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`/David R. Marsh/
`David R. Marsh (Atty. Reg. No. 41,408)
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`555 12th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 942-5068
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`-18-
`
`