`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC, HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL
`TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC., KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP.,
`OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB,
`INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, WANDERSPOT LLC, AGILYSYS, INC.,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, HILTON RESORTS
`CORPORATION, HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON
`INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA HUT OF
`AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC., and USABLENET, INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE No.: Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`
`CASE No.: Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`CASE No.: 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
`
`
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`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
`
`V.
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`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. ................................................................................ 114
`Obviousness of Claims 12-16 Based on Blinn and Inkpen. ............. 115
`1.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 119
`2.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. 132
`3.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 135
`4.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 138
`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 ................................................................................. 153
`2.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 168
`3.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 170
`Obviousness of Claim 12 Based on Inkpen, Nokia, Digestor,
`and Flake. ......................................................................................... 171
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 3
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Claim 12. ................................................................................ 176
`1.
`Obviousness of Claims 11, 13, and 15 Based on DeLorme. ............ 178
`1.
`Claim 11. ................................................................................ 180
`2.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 192
`3.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 195
`D. Obviousness of Claims 11-13 and 15 Based on Blinn and
`Inkpen. .............................................................................................. 195
`1.
`Claim 11. ................................................................................ 199
`2.
`Claim 12. ................................................................................ 212
`3.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 215
`4.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 217
`IX. Patentability Analysis of the ’077 Patent ................................................... 218
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1-18 Based on the Micros 8700 Pub and
`Digestor. ........................................................................................... 218
`1.
`Claim 1. .................................................................................. 222
`2.
`Claim 2. .................................................................................. 244
`3.
`Claim 3. .................................................................................. 247
`4.
`Claim 4. .................................................................................. 248
`5.
`Claim 5. .................................................................................. 249
`6.
`Claim 6. .................................................................................. 250
`7.
`Claim 7. .................................................................................. 250
`8.
`Claim 8. .................................................................................. 251
`9.
`Claim 9. .................................................................................. 253
`10. Claim 10. ................................................................................ 259
`11. Claim 11. ................................................................................ 260
`12. Claim 12. ................................................................................ 260
`13. Claim 13. ................................................................................ 261
`14. Claim 14. ................................................................................ 272
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 4
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`15. Claim 15. ................................................................................ 273
`16. Claim 16. ................................................................................ 274
`17. Claim 17. ................................................................................ 274
`18. Claim 18. ................................................................................ 274
`Obviousness of Claims 13-18 Based on Blinn and Digestor. .......... 275
`1.
`Claim 13. ................................................................................ 277
`2.
`Claim 14. ................................................................................ 296
`3.
`Claim 15. ................................................................................ 300
`4.
`Claim 16. ................................................................................ 301
`5.
`Claim 17. ................................................................................ 302
`6.
`Claim 18. ................................................................................ 303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`Petitioners’ 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 Petitioners StubHub, Inc.,
`
`Travelocity.com, LP, Expedia, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., Hotels.com, LP, Orbitz,
`
`LLC, Fandango, Inc., Kayak Software Corp., Hotel Tonight, Inc., Ticketmaster
`
`LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Wanderspot LLC (d/b/a Urbanspoon),
`
`Opentable, Inc., Papa John’s USA, Inc., Pizza Hut of America, Inc., Pizza Hut,
`
`Inc., Mobo Systems, Inc., Agilysys, Inc., Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Domino’s
`
`Pizza, LLC, Hilton Resorts Corporation, Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Hilton
`
`International Co., and Usablenet, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) 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.
`
`b.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 to McNally, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 to McNally, et al.
`
`53947833.1
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 to McNally, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 to McNally, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Number 09/400,413 (the “’413
`
`application”) (’850 Application)
`
`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.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 to McNally, et al.
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 to McNally, et al.
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 to McNally, et al.
`
`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
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`o.
`
`CBM2014-00013 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,982,733
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`t.
`
`CBM2014-00015 – Paper 20 – ’850 Institution Decision
`
`CBM2014-00016 – Paper 19 – ’325 Institution Decision
`
`CBM2014-00014 – Paper 19 – ’077 Institution Decision
`
`CBM2014-00013 – Paper 23 – ’733 Institution Decision
`
`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)
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`bb.
`
`Jesitus, “Wireless Technology Keeps Customers In Order,”
`
`Hospitality Technology (January 1977)
`
`cc. Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., et al., No. 2:07-CV-271,
`
`ECF No. 106 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 21,2010)
`
`dd. Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., et al., 2:10-CV-294-
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ECF No. 169 (Claim Construction)
`
`ee. Definitions from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`
`ff.
`
`Transcript of Oral Arguments in CBM2014-00013 (Paper No.
`
`34)
`
`gg. American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992) (for the definition
`
`of “cascade”)
`
`hh.
`
`http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/educator/product/Information-
`
`Technology-for-Travel-and-Tourism/9780582310025.page
`
`ii.
`
`jj.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,897,622 to Blinn et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,107,944 to Behr
`
`kk. U.S. Patent No. 5,912,743 to Kinebuchi et al.
`
`ll.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,069 to Chen et al.
`
`mm. U.S. Patent No. 6,920,431 to Showghi et al.
`
`nn. U.S. Patent No. 6,301,564 to Halverson et al.
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`oo. Complaint for priority in the IPDEV suit – 14-cv-1303
`
`pp. U.S. Patent No. 5,937,041 to Cardillo
`
`qq. Micros Systems Inc. “POS Configuration User’s Guide: 3700
`
`POS”
`
`rr. U.S. PG Pub 2002/0059405 to Angwin
`
`ss. WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 97/27556 to Flake et al.
`
`tt.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,023,438 to Wakatsuki et al.
`
`uu. U.S. Patent No. 6,300,947 to Kanevsky et al.
`
`vv. 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.
`
`ww. Micros Hand-Held Touchscreen Pre-Release Information (Sept.
`
`8, 1992)
`
`xx. Thesaurus.com Synonyms for “Ticket”
`
`yy. U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449 to Cupps, et al.
`
`zz. U.S. Patent No. 5,974,238 to Chase Jr.
`
`aaa. Ameranth v. Menusoft Systems Corp., 07-cv-271-RSP, Dkt. 281
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2010) – Opening post-trial JMOL Brief
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`bbb. Ameranth v. Menusoft Systems Corp., 07-cv-271-RSP, Dkt. 281
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2010) Opposition JMOL Brief
`
`ccc. Ameranth v. Menusoft Systems Corp., 07-cv-271-RSP, Dkt. 281
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2010) Order Denying Ameranth’s Motion for
`
`JMOL
`
`ddd. File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449
`
`eee. Sep. 13, 2010 Trial Testimony. Ameranth v. MenuSoft, 07-cv-
`
`271-RSP.
`
`fff. Sep. 14, 2010 Trial Testimony. Ameranth v. MenuSoft, 07-cv-
`
`271-RSP.
`
`ggg. Sep. 15, 2010 Trial Testimony. Ameranth v. MenuSoft, 07-cv-
`
`271-RSP.
`
`hhh. Bruce Brown, “First Looks: Windows CE 2.0 Cornucopia,” PC
`
`Magazine (June 30, 1998)
`
`iii. Graf, “Modern Dictionary of Electronics” (7th ed. 1999)
`
`jjj. Matthews & Poulsen, “FrontPage 98: The Complete Reference”
`
`(January 1998)
`
`kkk. CBM2015-00080 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,384,850
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`lll. CBM2015-00082 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,871,325
`
`mmm.
`
`CBM2015-00081 – CBM petition for U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,146,077
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered the
`
`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 below. I have over 20 years of
`
`experience in software engineering.
`
`6.
`
`In 1988, I received a Bachelor 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.
`
`7.
`
`In the early 1990’s I was a Methodologist at KnowledgeWare, Inc.,
`
`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 for next generation CASE tools. More notably at KnowledgeWare,
`53947833.1
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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 Master 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
`
`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
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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 of 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.
`
`17.
`
`In the general timeframe of the patents in question, I had previously
`
`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
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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.
`
`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,
`
`53947833.1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`21.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`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
`53947833.1
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`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.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that if a prior art reference or prior art product discloses
`
`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
`
`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.
`53947833.1
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; 8,146,077
`Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness.
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`29.
`
`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