UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC., EVENTBRITE INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS &
`RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE CBM Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`
`CASE CBM Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`CASE CBM Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DON TURNBULL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONS FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEWS OF AMERANTH PATENTS
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1002, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`Qualifications and Professional Experience ................................................. 12
`Relevant Legal Standards ............................................................................. 19
`A. Anticipation. ....................................................................................... 20
`B.
`Obviousness. ....................................................................................... 21
`C.
`Indefiniteness ...................................................................................... 27
`III. Background Of The ’850, ’325, and ’077 Patents ........................................ 28
`A.
`The ’850 Patent .................................................................................. 28
`B.
`The ’325 Patent .................................................................................. 35
`C.
`The ’077 Patent .................................................................................. 41
`IV. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 43
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 44
`B.
`“Web page” ........................................................................................ 45
`C.
`“applications” ..................................................................................... 45
`D.
`“application program interface” ......................................................... 46
`E.
`“communications control module” .................................................... 47
`F.
`“database” ........................................................................................... 48
`G.
`“data are synchronized between the central database, the at least
`one wireless handheld computing device, at least one Web
`server and at least one Web page” ..................................................... 49
`“hospitality application information” ................................................. 51
`H.
`“synchronized” ................................................................................... 51
`I.
`“cascaded sets” ................................................................................... 52
`J.
`“graphical user interface screens” ...................................................... 53
`K.
`“unique to the wireless handheld computing device” ........................ 53
`L.
`“real time” .......................................................................................... 53
`M.
`State of the Prior Art ..................................................................................... 54
`A.
`Internet and the World-Wide Web and eCommerce .......................... 54
`B. Mobile Devices ................................................................................... 55
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`WEST\254066694.2
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1002, Page 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`Page
`
`VI. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art .............................................................. 58
`VII. Patentability Analysis of the ’850 Patent ..................................................... 62
`A. Obviousness of Claims 12-16 Based on Inkpen, Digestor and
`Nokia .................................................................................................. 62
`1.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 71
`2.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 85
`3.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 87
`4.
`Claim 15. .................................................................................. 90
`5.
`Claim 16. .................................................................................. 94
`Obviousness of Claims 12-16 Based on DeLorme ............................ 96
`1.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 97
`2.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 109
`3.
`Claim 14. ................................................................................ 110
`4.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 112
`5.
`Claim 16. ................................................................................ 113
`Obviousness of Claims 12-16 Based on Blinn and Inkpen. ............. 115
`1.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 118
`2.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. 131
`3.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 134
`4.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 137
`5.
`Claim 16. ................................................................................ 140
`VIII. Patentability Analysis of the ’325 Patent ................................................... 145
`A. Obviousness of Claims 11, 13, and 15 Based on Inkpen, Nokia,
`and Digestor ..................................................................................... 145
`1.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 152
`2.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 168
`3.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 170
`Obviousness of Claim 12 Based on Inkpen, Nokia, Digestor,
`and Flake. ......................................................................................... 171
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1002, Page 3
`
`WEST\254066694.2
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`Claim 12. ................................................................................ 176
`1.
`Obviousness of Claims 11, 13, and 15 Based on DeLorme. ............ 178
`1.
`Claim 11. ................................................................................ 179
`2.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 191
`3.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 194
`D. Obviousness of Claims 11-13 and 15 Based on Blinn and
`Inkpen. .............................................................................................. 194
`1.
`Claim 11. ................................................................................ 198
`2.
`Claim 12. ................................................................................ 211
`3.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 213
`4.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 216
`IX. Patentability Analysis of the ’077 Patent ................................................... 216
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1-18 Based on the Micros 8700 Pub and
`Digestor. ........................................................................................... 217
`1.
`Claim 1. .................................................................................. 220
`2.
`Claim 2. .................................................................................. 242
`3.
`Claim 3. .................................................................................. 245
`4.
`Claim 4. .................................................................................. 246
`5.
`Claim 5. .................................................................................. 247
`6.
`Claim 6. .................................................................................. 248
`7.
`Claim 7. .................................................................................. 248
`8.
`Claim 8. .................................................................................. 249
`9.
`Claim 9. .................................................................................. 251
`10. Claim 10. ................................................................................ 257
`11. Claim 11. ................................................................................ 258
`12. Claim 12. ................................................................................ 258
`13. Claim 13. ................................................................................ 258
`14. Claim 14. ................................................................................ 270
`
`WEST\254066694.2
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1002, Page 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`15. Claim 15. ................................................................................ 271
`16. Claim 16. ................................................................................ 272
`17. Claim 17. ................................................................................ 272
`18. Claim 18. ................................................................................ 272
`Obviousness of Claims 13-18 Based on Blinn and Digestor. .......... 273
`1.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 275
`2.
`Claim 14. ................................................................................ 294
`3.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 297
`4.
`Claim 16. ................................................................................ 298
`5.
`Claim 17. ................................................................................ 299
`6.
`Claim 18. ................................................................................ 300
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\254066694.2
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1002, Page 5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`I, Don Turnbull, do hereby declare:
`1.
`I am making this declaration at the request of Petitioner Apple Inc.
`(“Apple”), Eventbrite Inc. (“Eventbrite”), and Starwood Hotels & Resorts
`Worldwide, Inc. (“Starwood”) (collectively, “Petitioner”) in the matters of
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850 (the “’850
`patent”), 6,871,325 (the “’325 patent”), and 8,146,077 (the “’077 patent”)
`(collectively, the “Ameranth Patents”).
`2.
`I am being compensated for my work in these matters at my usual
`hourly rate of $550. My compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of
`these proceedings.
`3.
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied the items in the
`Exhibit lists for the petitions for Covered Business Method Review of the
`Ameranth Patents as well as the documents listed below:
`a. U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 to McNally, et al.
`b. U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 to McNally, et al.
`c. U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 to McNally, et al.
`d. U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 to McNally, et al.
`e. U.S. Patent Application Number 09/400,413 (the “’413
`application”) (’850 Application)
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1002, Page 6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`f. U.S. Patent Application Number 10/015,729 (the “’729
`application”) (’325 Application)
`g. U.S. Patent Application Number 11/112,990 (the “’990
`application”) (’077 Application)
`h. U.S. Patent Application Number 10/016,517 (the “’517
`application”) (’733 Application)
`i. File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 to McNally, et al.
`j. File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 to McNally, et al.
`k. File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 to McNally, et al.
`l. CBM2014-00015 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`6,384,850
`m. CBM2014-00016 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`6,871,325
`n. CBM2014-00014 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`8,146,077
`o. CBM2014-00013 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`6,982,733
`p. CBM2014-00015 – Paper 20 – ’850 Institution Decision
`q. CBM2014-00016 – Paper 19 – ’325 Institution Decision
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`r. CBM2014-00014 – Paper 19 – ’077 Institution Decision
`s. CBM2014-00013 – Paper 23 – ’733 Institution Decision
`t. Inkpen, Gary, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR TRAVEL AND
`TOURISM (2d ed. 1998)
`u. Timothy Bickmore and Bill N. Schilit, Digestor: Device
`Independent Access to the World Wide Web, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems 29, 1075-1082 (1997)
`v. Nokia 9000i Communicator Owner’s Manual (1997)
`w. U.S. Pat. No. 5,948,040 to DeLorme et al.
`x. U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,373 to Blinn et al. (“Blinn”)
`y. McFadden et al., MODERN DATABASE MANAGEMENT (5th ed.
`May, 1999), Chapter 11
`z. Micros 8700 HMS Version 2.10 User’s Manual
`aa. Aronson, Larry, HTML Manual of Style (1994)
`bb. Jesitus, “Wireless Technology Keeps Customers In Order,”
`Hospitality Technology (January 1977)
`cc. Ameranth Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-02350 (S. D.
`Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2012) (ECF No. 7)
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`dd. Ameranth Inc. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
`Case No. 12-cv-1629 (S.D. Cal. Filed June 29, 2012) (ECF
`No. 1)
`ee. Ameranth Inc. v. Eventbrite Inc., Case No. 13-cv-350 (S.D. Cal.
`Filed February 13, 2013) (ECF No. 1)
`ff. The complaints filed by Ameranth related to Ameranth Inc. v.
`Apple Inc.
`gg. Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., et al., No. 2:07-CV-271,
`ECF No. 106 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 21,2010)
`hh. Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., et al., 2:10-CV-294-
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ECF No. 169 (Claim Construction)
`ii. Definitions from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`jj. Transcript of Oral Arguments in CBM2014-00013 (Paper No.
`34)
`kk. American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992) (for the definition
`of “cascade”)
`ll. http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/educator/product/Information-
`Technology-for-Travel-and-Tourism/9780582310025.page
`mm.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,897,622 to Blinn et al.
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`nn. U.S. Patent No. 6,107,944 to Behr
`oo. U.S. Patent No. 5,912,743 to Kinebuchi et al.
`pp. U.S. Patent No. 5,724,069 to Chen et al.
`qq. U.S. Patent No. 6,920,431 to Showghi et al.
`rr. U.S. Patent No. 6,301,564 to Halverson et al.
`ss. Complaint for priority in the IPDEV suit – 14-cv-1303
`tt. U.S. Patent No. 5,937, 041 to Cardillo
`uu. Micros Systems Inc. “POS Configuration User’s Guide: 3700
`POS”
`vv. U.S. PG Pub 2002/0059405 to Angwin
`ww. WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 97/27556 to Flake et
`al.
`xx. U.S. Patent No. 5,023,438 to Wakatsuki et al.
`yy. U.S. Patent No. 6,300,947 to Kanevsky et al.
`zz. Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Systems Corp., Ameranth Opp. to
`non-party Seamless North America, LLC’s motion for leave to
`file amicus curiae brief, E.D. Tex. Dkt. No. 2:07-cv-00271 at
`ECF No. 336.
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`Micros Hand-Held Touchscreen Pre-Release Information
`aaa.
`(Sept. 8, 1992)
`bbb.
`Thesaurus.com Synonyms for “Ticket”
`ccc.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449 to Cupps, et al.
`ddd.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,974,238 to Chase Jr.
`eee.
`Ameranth v. Menusoft Systems Corp., 07-cv-271-RSP,
`Dkt. 281 (E.D. Tex. 2010) – Opening post-trial JMOL Brief
`fff. Ameranth v. Menusoft Systems Corp., 07-cv-271-RSP, Dkt. 281
`(E.D. Tex. 2010) Opposition JMOL Brief
`ggg.
`Ameranth v. Menusoft Systems Corp., 07-cv-271-RSP,
`Dkt. 281 (E.D. Tex. 2010) Order Denying Ameranth’s Motion
`for JMOL
`hhh.
`Ameranth July 22, 2013 Infringement Contentions
`against Apple Inc.
`iii. File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449
`jjj. Sep. 13, 2010 Trial Testimony. Ameranth v. MenuSoft, 07-cv-
`271-RSP.
`kkk.
`Sep. 14, 2010 Trial Testimony. Ameranth v. MenuSoft,
`07-cv-271-RSP.
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`lll. Sep. 15, 2010 Trial Testimony. Ameranth v. MenuSoft, 07-cv-
`271-RSP.
`mmm. Bruce Brown, “First Looks: Windows CE 2.0
`Cornucopia,” PC Magazine (June 30, 1998)
`nnn.
`Graf, “Modern Dictionary of Electronics” (7th ed. 1999)
`ooo.
`Matthews & Poulsen, “FrontPage 98: The Complete
`Reference” (January 1998)
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered the
`4.
`documents listed above and my knowledge and experience based upon my work in
`this area as described below.
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`5. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`which is attached as an exhibit to this declaration. As set forth in my curriculum
`vitae, I have over 20 years of experience in software engineering.
`6.
`In 1988, I received a Bachelors of Arts in General Studies focusing on
`computer science and cognitive science from the University of Texas at Arlington,
`where I synthesized these fields into a research and development-oriented program
`that allowed me to pursue issues in artificial intelligence and expert systems that
`built upon my experience as a programmer.
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`In the early 1990’s I was a Methodologist at KnowledgeWare, Inc.,
`7.
`where I spent over 4 years designing and developing software applications,
`advising and managing project teams in the development of Computer-Aided
`Software Engineering (CASE) tools and researching software engineering
`methodologies to for next generation CASE tools. More notably at
`KnowledgeWare, I was the designer and project lead for a suite of hypertext
`development tools to provide electronic documents for online help systems or other
`publications as well as serving as an advisory board member for IBM’s Common
`User Access (CUA) committee that shaped the foundations for graphical user
`interface (GUI) standards in commercial operating systems and applications.
`8.
`In 1995, I began my graduate work earning a Masters of Science in
`Information, Design, and Technology from the Georgia Institute of Technology
`where I focused on building automatically created Web sites (large sets of Web
`pages) based on storing Web content in a database and then “publishing” a subset
`of pages via the Web based on a set of interests or filtering criteria (such as page
`size) culminating as my master’s thesis “Object-Oriented Information
`Development: A Methodology and System for Large-Scale Hypertext Documents”.
`9.
`After Georgia Tech, I went to IBM’s first Internet-focused group in
`the U.S. where I took many of my research ideas about Web technology, Web
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`content management systems, and early personalization techniques to develop a
`number of related projects for IBM, including the World Book Interactive
`Encyclopedia, where I was the Lead Technical Architect. We built the first version
`of a hybrid CD-ROM encyclopedia that would connect to the Internet to let people
`use the World Book Web site, automate download of new encyclopedia article
`content, read and search through the encyclopedia’s information in a custom Web
`browsing application, and provide interactive multimedia demonstrations of
`encyclopedia content.
`10.
`In 1997, as part of my doctoral research focus at the University of
`Toronto, I wrote a paper called “Augmenting Information Seeking on the World
`Wide Web Using Collaborative Filtering Techniques” that encapsulated many
`current ideas about how people did Web searching and browsing. This paper
`focused on the history and development of tools, techniques and applications to
`help people use and discover information on the Web.
`11.
`In 2000, I co-authored a graduate-level university textbook called
`“Web Work: Information Seeking and Knowledge Work on the World Wide Web”
`focusing on how people and (business) organizations can use Web technologies to
`coordinate their activities and use applications to automate their systems for
`knowledge work. At the same time, I was building a set of data mining tools that
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`analyzed peoples’ Web use (browsing, searching, researching, shopping, etc.) into
`actionable patterns. These tools grew into a more commercial set of ideas, which I
`then combined with some colleagues at Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center)
`to form a company called (eventually) Outride in 2000.
`12. The Outride system used a hybrid combination of approaches that
`personalized information retrieval and information system interfaces to power
`smarter information selection and retrieval. We worked with a number of the large
`search engine vendors of the time such as Inktomi, Excite and Google, and
`eventually sold the company to Google in 2001. In 2002, the research team at
`Outride published an academic paper called “Personalized Search: A Contextual
`Computing Approach May Prove a Breakthrough in Personalized Search
`Efficiency” on some aspects of our system in the prestigious academic journal the
`Communications of the ACM. I then returned briefly to the University of Toronto
`in 2002 where I finished my doctoral dissertation titled “Knowledge Discovery in
`Databases of Web Use: A Search for Informetric and Behavioral Models of Web
`Information Seeking,” wherein I described a set of analytical proofs what I had
`proven in industry, that my ideas would work in practice as well as contributing to
`the theory of information retrieval, information interaction and user behavior
`analysis.
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`13. Later in 2002, I returned to Texas and accepted a faculty position at
`the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), where as an assistant professor I
`could continue to pursue my research ideas as well as teach graduate students on
`the fundamentals and upcoming advances in subjects including Web Information
`Retrieval Evaluation & Design, Information Architecture, Interaction Design &
`Human Computer Interaction (HCI), Web Analytics, the Semantic Web and
`Knowledge Management systems. While full-time faculty at UT Austin, I
`investigated very large-scale data mining systems and algorithms (including
`follow-up work on analyzing Web use data for personalization) and led numerous
`research projects such as new interfaces for Web search systems including in
`mobile interaction environments.
`14. Now, much of the current work I do is to help software companies –
`from small startups to large corporations – create new technologies and
`applications. As such, I continue to research and monitor academic and industry
`technology development to keep as up to date as possible regarding advances in
`information systems. My 20+ years as a developer, professor, researcher and
`software architect means I have read and am aware of a large part of the rich
`history of computer science research and development. My own history as a
`software developer and designer places me in the eras of programming PC
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`applications as well as the transition to building Web-based systems and Web sites
`and continuing forward to apply this experience into mobile computing as well.
`15.
`In summary, I have deep familiarity with the history, research,
`products, and state of the art for computing and information systems at the time of
`the Ameranth Patents, including being the author of a patent for a system that
`serves interfaces and content for commerce activities in a mobile context. I am the
`author many academic publications and have given dozens of presentations on
`technologies including interaction techniques, novel and standards-compliant
`interfaces, navigation systems, interaction design, information organization, the
`history of web browser applications and functionality and mobile technologies.
`16.
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary
`skill in the art of software engineering, and notably with building Web-based
`systems, at the time of the Ameranth Patents. Specifically, my experience (1) in the
`industry, (2) with undergraduate and post-graduate students, (3) with colleagues
`from academia, and (4) with engineers practicing in the industry allowed me to
`become directly and personally familiar with the level of skill of individuals and
`the general state of the art. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the computer software and computer
`network fields during the 1998-1999 time period.
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`In the general timeframe of the patents in question, I had previously
`17.
`been a software developer creating software applications. This included
`programming and designing the user interfaces as well as understanding the
`differences in each operating system’s functionality and operation. I was also
`designing and researching graphical user interfaces including writing academic
`papers, attending, and presenting at industry and academic conferences.
`Throughout my career, including during this timeframe, I have continually kept
`aware of developments and progress in application and operating system software
`from the system internal levels to the user interface.
`18.
`I have reviewed the Ameranth Patents, their prosecution histories, and
`pertinent art from the field as discussed herein. I have considered these materials
`in forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, and also have drawn upon
`my wealth of experience as a person of at least ordinary skill in the art of computer
`science and software engineering.
`19. With a broad knowledge of computer science, and specifically
`software for (networked) mobile devices, a historical perspective based on active
`personal participation in the industry, and experience with the patent process, I
`believe that I am qualified to provide an accurate assessment of the technical issues
`in this case.
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`20. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`21.
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`claims of the ’850, ’325, and ’077 patents, I am relying upon certain basic legal
`principles that counsel has explained to me.
`22. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of
`what came before it. That which came before is generally referred to as “prior art.”
`23.
`I understand that in this context the burden is on the party asserting
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`likely than not.
`24.
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. The
`claims after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the
`information in the prior art.
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`25.
`evaluated includes patents and printed publications. My analysis below compares
`the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the claims. I
`understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a patent claim
`unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim. Second,
`the prior art can be shown to “render obvious” the claim. My understanding of
`these two legal standards is set forth below.
`A. Anticipation.
`26.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these
`standards in my evaluation of whether the claims asserted in this investigation are
`anticipated.
`I understand that if a prior art reference or prior art product discloses
`27.
`or contains each and every element of a patent claim arranged in the manner
`recited in the claims, either expressly or inherently, it anticipates and therefore
`invalidates the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102. I understand that claim limitations
`that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are inherent if the prior art
`necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim limitations.
`28.
`I understand that prior art is read from the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged inventions of the Ameranth
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`Patents, and that it is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior art reference
`(extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not expressly
`discussed in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`B. Obviousness.
`29.
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`the invention was made.
`30.
`I understand that the ’850 patent was granted from an application that
`was filed on September 21, 1999. Ex. 1001. I understand that the ’325 patent was
`granted from an application that was filed on November 1, 2001, and that the ’325
`patent claims priority to the ’850 patent. Ex. 1003. I also understand that the ’077
`patent was granted from an application that was filed on April 22, 2005, and that
`the ’077 patent claims priority to the ’850 patent as well. Ex. 1004. I have
`therefore used September 21, 1999, as the “Critical Date” in my analysis for the
`purposes of evaluating indefiniteness and prior art status (e.g., whether a reference
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), which case it cannot be “sworn
`behind,” or under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), in which case a patent owner may be able to
`swear behind the reference). As discussed below in Section IV.A, my opinions as
`to the level of ordinary skill in the art and obviousness are applicable to the time of
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1002, Page 21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`the alleged inventions of the Ameranth Patents even if a date of invention earlier
`than the Critical Date is established by Patent Owner.
`31.
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was