UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-103-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, an individual,
`MELANIE ROZMAN, an individual,
`MEGAN ROZMAN, an individual, and
`MORGAN ROZMAN, an individual,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF H.E. (“BUSTER”) DUNSMORE
`
`I, H.E. (Buster) Dunsmore, declare and disclose pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure as follows:
`
`I.
`
`SCOPE OF DECLARATION
`
`1.
`
`This declaration presents opinions and analysis relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE43,103 (the “’103 patent”), U.S. Patent No. RE43,528 (the “’528 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE43,529 (the “529 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. RE43,500 (the “’500 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “patents-in-suit”). This declaration details my examination of the patents-in-suit to
`
`determine if one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would conclude that
`
`certain terms are indefinite.
`
`II.
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS, BASIS OF OPINION AND APPROACH
`
`2.
`
`Qualifications. I am an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Purdue
`
`University in West Lafayette, Indiana. I have been working in the computer industry for more
`
`than thirty years. I received a B.S. in Mathematics and Physics from the University of Tennessee
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF H.E. DUNSMORE
`
`-1-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1015, page 1
`
`

`
`
`
`• “a first logical process capable of executing instructions within the common operating
`system using at least one electronic data processor and further capable of accessing a
`first memory space” (‘103 patent, Claim 21)
`
`16.
`
`Based on my review of the common specification of the patents-in-suit and ‘247,
`
`the challenged claim limitations, the prosecution histories for the patents-in-suit and ‘247, and
`
`the application of how one of ordinary skill in the art the time of invention would understand the
`
`challenged claim limitation in light of the above material, it is my opinion these claim limitations
`
`are not indefinite for failing to claim what the Inventors regarded as their invention.
`
`17.
`
`The Specification Teaches A Connection Between The First Logical Process
`
`And The “Network.” In my review of the specification, I note the following: Figure 1
`
`discloses a communications link (191) between the “1st processor” (120) and the “Network
`
`interface” (190) which is coupled to the “Network” (195).1 One of ordinary skill would
`
`recognize the inventors were disclosing a connection between the “1st processor” (120) and the
`
`“Network interface” for purposes of receiving data from the “Network” (195). The “1st
`
`processor” (120) also represents where the system executes the 1st logical process,” (Col. 16:22-
`
`47) so one of ordinary skill would understand the communications link (191) between the “1st
`
`processor” (120) and the “Network interface” (190) would also necessarily mean the
`
`communications link (190) connecting the first logical process and the “Network interface”
`
`(190).
`
`18.
`
`The specification’s discussion of the “communication link” (191) confirms that
`
`the Inventors intended that the “1st processor” (120) and/or the first logical process be capable of
`
`
`1 ‘528 Patent, Figure 1.
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF H.E. DUNSMORE
`
`-8-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1015, page 8
`
`

`
`passing data to and from the Network (195). In particular, the specification discusses passing
`
`decryption keys between the “1st Processor” (120) and “Network interface” (190). One of
`
`ordinary skill would recognize that communicating with a “Network interface” almost always
`
`means one intends to communicate with the “Network” as that is the purpose of network
`
`interface devices. One of ordinary skill would also recognize that passing decryption keys could
`
`originate from the “1st processor” (120), from the “Network interface” (190), or from the
`
`ultimate source within the “Network” (195) responsible for sending and/or receiving the data.
`
`19.
`
`The Preferred Embodiment Separates The 1st Logical Process From The
`
`“Network interface” But There Is No Disclaimer That All Embodiments Require
`
`Separation. The inventors explain that “[i]n accordance with a preferred embodiment of the
`
`present invention, network 195 is isolated from the first processor 120 and memory 110 by a
`
`second processor 140 (P2).” Col. 10:29-31 (emphasis added). The inventors caution, however,
`
`that “specific embodiments discussed are merely illustrative of specific ways to make and use the
`
`invention, and do not limit the scope of the invention.” Col. 9:27-29. When the inventors
`
`describe their invention in the “Summary Of The Invention” the first logical process “is capable
`
`of accessing data contained in a first memory space and a second memory space.” One of skill
`
`in the art analyzing this disclosure would understand a first logical process to be capable of many
`
`things, but according to the inventors, it should be capable of accessing data contained in the first
`
`and second memory space in order to comport with the scope of the invention. Similarly, in the
`
`“Summary Of The Invention” the inventors describe the second logical process as being capable
`
`of accessing data contained in the second memory space, the second logical process being further
`
`capable of exchanging data across a network of one or more computers.” Col. 8:3-5. Unlike the
`
`first logical process, the inventors require the second logical process to have the capability of
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF H.E. DUNSMORE
`
`-9-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1015, page 9
`
`

`
`exchanging data across the network. The fact that the inventors left open the possibility that the
`
`first logical process may or may not have the capability to access the “Network” (195) when
`
`describing the first logical process, and then the inventors actually disclosed an example of the
`
`first logical process communicating with the network through the network interface device, is
`
`more than sufficient disclosure for one of skill in the art to understand the inventors were not
`
`limiting their invention to the preferred embodiment.
`
`20.
`
`Preventing Malware, Downloaded And Executing In The Second Logical
`
`Process, From Attacking The First Memory Space Does Not Require The First Memory
`
`Space To Be Isolated From The Network. One of skill in the art would recognize that the
`
`fundamental nature of the invention does not require the first logical process to be isolated from
`
`the network. The specification emphasizes that a key component of the invention is preventing
`
`malware downloaded and executing in the second logical process from corrupting files in the
`
`first memory space. (See, e.g., Abstract, Col. 8:14-18). This is accomplished by limiting the
`
`permissions of the second logical process so that it is only allowed to access files in the second
`
`memory space. Col. 10:38-62. Indeed, every claim of the patents-in-suit contemplates that
`
`malware downloaded and executing within the second logical process is prevented from
`
`accessing the first memory space. As noted above, a preferred embodiment teaches isolating the
`
`first logical process from the network to protect the first logical process from malicious code.
`
`One of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that there are certain tasks,
`
`for example HTML parsing and image decoding, that are historical sources of vulnerability for
`
`web browsers, and therefore, should be executed in the sandbox of the second logical process.
`
`However, there are other low threat tasks that involve communication with the network, such as
`
`accessing secure Websites with digital certificates or streaming bits from a network to a media
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF H.E. DUNSMORE
`
`-10-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1015, page 10
`
`

`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`
`
`true and correct.
`
`Executed on the 9th day of June 2014, at
`West Lafayette, Indiana.
`
`
`
`NEIL
`
`By:__________________________________
`H.E. (Buster) Dunsmore
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF H.E. DUNSMORE
`
`-19-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1015, page 19