DOCKET NO: 0100157-00244
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 6,415,280
`
`INVENTOR: DAVID A. FARBER
`AND RONALD D. LACHMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: APRIL 1, 1999
`
` ISSUED: JULY 2, 2002
`
`
`
`TITLE: IDENTIFYING AND
`REQUESTING DATA IN A
`NETWORK USING IDENTIFIERS
`WHICH ARE BASED ON THE
`CONTENT OF THE DATA
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEITH MOORE
`
`I, Keith Moore, declare as follows:
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to provide this Declaration regarding
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`certain factual issues that are common to six Inter Partes Review proceedings, Case
`
`Nos. IPR2013-00082, -00083, -00084, -00085, -00086 and -00087.
`
`EMC/VMware v. PersonalWeb
`IPR2013-00083
`EMCVMW 1048
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 6,415,280
`
`INVENTOR: DAVID A. FARBER
`AND RONALD D. LACHMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: APRIL 1, 1999
`
` ISSUED: JULY 2, 2002
`
`
`
`TITLE: IDENTIFYING AND
`REQUESTING DATA IN A
`NETWORK USING IDENTIFIERS
`WHICH ARE BASED ON THE
`CONTENT OF THE DATA
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEITH MOORE
`
`I, Keith Moore, declare as follows:
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to provide this Declaration regarding
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`certain factual issues that are common to six Inter Partes Review proceedings, Case
`
`Nos. IPR2013-00082, -00083, -00084, -00085, -00086 and -00087.
`
`EMC/VMware v. PersonalWeb
`IPR2013-00083
`EMCVMW 1048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Tennessee Technological University in 1984, and a Master of Science degree
`
`in Computer Science from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 1996. My
`
`Master’s thesis was entitled “Design and Evaluation of a Multiprotocol Electronic
`
`Mail Switching System,” and related to the switching of electronic mail between
`
`dissimilar environments.
`
`4.
`
`From October 1985 to December 1986, I was employed as a Senior
`
`Engineer at Philips Subsystems and Peripherals, Knoxville, Tennessee, working on
`
`the implementation of firmware, device drivers, and diagnostic software for SCSI
`
`CD-ROM drives.
`
`5.
`
`From April 1987 to December 1990, I was a Graduate Research
`
`Assistant in the Computer Science Department, University of Tennessee,
`
`Knoxville, and from September 1991 to February 2007, I was a Research
`
`Associate in the Innovative Computing Laboratory, Computer Science
`
`Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. While at the University of
`
`Tennessee, I worked on a number of projects in different fields, including
`
`computer networking, distributed storage, management of distributed software
`
`repositories, cataloging of Internet resources, and parallel computing.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`6.
`
`Since March 2007, I have been self-employed, consulting in technical
`
`fields including computer networking, security, and system administration.
`
`7.
`
`I have been involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
`
`since 1990. Specifically, I participated in several IETF standardization working
`
`groups, including efforts to define the MIME format for electronic mail messages,
`
`extensions to the SMTP protocol for negotiation of the message size and for
`
`delivery reporting options, definition of a standard format for reporting electronic
`
`mail delivery successes and failures (delivery status notifications or DSNs),
`
`definition and resolution mechanisms for Uniform Resource Names (URNs),
`
`transition mechanisms for Internet Protocol version 6, email authentication, and
`
`DNS internationalization.
`
`8. Within IETF, I served on the Internet Engineering Steering Group
`
`(IESG) for four years (1996-2000) as one of two Area Directors for the
`
`Applications Area. This included co-management of approximately twenty-six
`
`working groups; reviewing and commenting on drafts of IETF protocol standards
`
`and informational documents from all areas of IETF; assisting in the forming and
`
`chartering of new working groups; and arranging collaboration within IETF areas,
`
`between working groups, and between IETF and other standards-making
`
`organizations. I also served as IESG’s liaison to the Internet Architecture Board
`
`(IAB) for approximately three years. I contributed to several workshops on areas
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`of concern for Internet architecture, including security, routing, addressing, and
`
`mobility. Prior to serving on IESG, I served as Chair of the IETF DRUMS
`
`working group tasked with revising the Internet electronic mail protocol
`
`specifications. I was an invited panel speaker at the FTC/NIST Email
`
`Authentication Summit, November 2004, on the topic of the utility of email
`
`authentication as an anti-spam measure.
`
`9.
`
`A complete curriculum vitae, including a list of my publications, is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix B.
`
`10. The testimony I provide in this Declaration is based on my personal
`
`knowledge of the relevant facts. A list of the materials that I reviewed in
`
`preparation for this Declaration is attached hereto as Appendix A. In addition, I
`
`reviewed each of the materials cited or referred to in this Declaration, even if not
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`II. The Usenet References
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my understanding of certain facts
`
`relating to the following documents:
`
`(cid:120) Albert Langer, “Re: dl/describe (File descriptions)” (August 7, 1991)
`
`(the “Langer Reference,” EMCVMW 1003);
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`(cid:120) Ross Williams, “An algorithm for matching text (possibly original)”
`
`(January 27, 1992) (the “Williams Reference,” EMCVMW 1027);
`
`(cid:120) Brian Miller, “ziplab on bbses other” (Mar. 30, 1992) (the “Miller
`
`Reference,” EMCVMW 1045);
`
`(cid:120) Norman Hirsch, “Pirated software on server. Who’s liable?” (July 2,
`
`1994) (the “Hirsch Reference,” EMCVMW 1046) (collectively, the
`
`“Usenet References”).
`
`12.
`
`It is my belief that the each of the Usenet References is a true and
`
`correct copy of the document that Petitioner claims it is. It is also my belief that
`
`each of the Usenet References was publicly accessible prior to April 11, 1995.
`
`13. Both the Langer Reference and the Williams Reference are Usenet
`
`articles, and they are dated August 7, 1991 and January 27, 1992, respectively. In
`
`the 1991–1992 time frame, I was familiar with Usenet. Usenet was a network of
`
`computers, or “nodes,” that individuals could use to send and receive “articles”
`
`covering a variety of subjects. Articles were grouped into “newsgroups,” each
`
`newsgroup covering a specific topic (both technical and non-technical). Usenet
`
`nodes automatically communicated among themselves to propagate articles to the
`
`entire network, which included many thousands of nodes worldwide. As the name
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`“newsgroup” implies, news (i.e., articles) were delivered, or “pushed” to a group of
`
`interested users.
`
`14.
`
`In the 1991–1992 time frame, I subscribed to several newsgroups in
`
`technical areas close to my research interests (e.g., computer networking, operating
`
`systems, programming languages). I regularly read articles from those
`
`newsgroups. I also wrote and posted articles quite often. Many of those
`
`newsgroups and articles were in the same technical field as the Langer Reference
`
`and the Williams Reference, namely, the management and distributed storage of
`
`data archives. I relied on Usenet as a significant and timely source of information
`
`to follow development in that technical field. In that time frame, researchers
`
`regularly wrote Usenet articles to disseminate new ideas, and to comment on
`
`others’ articles. Since the Usenet community was heavily concentrated around
`
`computer science departments, Usenet was a natural forum to discuss topics such
`
`as computer networking and Internet technology.
`
`15.
`
`In the 1991–1992 time frame, I was also intimately familiar with the
`
`operation of Usenet nodes. While employed as a Graduate Research Assistant with
`
`the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Computer Science Department from
`
`1987–1990, I was one of a handful of people (initially only three) maintaining the
`
`department’s local Usenet node. In addition, during that same time period, I did
`
`software development work relating to Usenet. For example, I wrote a computer
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`program to recognize and remove early versions of “spam” that were then
`
`beginning to circulate within Usenet. The program automatically removed spam
`
`articles from a Usenet node, and propagated the removal to other nodes on the
`
`network. In order to write that program, I had to study in detail the standards
`
`governing the operation of the Usenet network, and the standards specifying the
`
`format of Usenet articles.
`
`16.
`
`It is my belief that each of the Usenet References is a true and correct
`
`copy of the document that Petitioner claims it is. Like all Usenet articles, the
`
`Langer Reference includes several “header fields” that provide essential
`
`information about the document. Each of those header fields has the format and
`
`content one would expect of an authentic Usenet article from the 1991 time frame.
`
`For example, the “From:” field identifies the article’s author (Albert Langer). The
`
`“Newsgroups:” field indicates that the article was posted to two newsgroups,
`
`“alt.sources.d” and “comp.archives.admin.” These newsgroups are listed in the
`
`well-known syntax one would expect. The “Subject:” field indicates the subject
`
`matter of the article, namely, a computer program relating to “File descriptions”
`
`that was posted to the “alt.sources” newsgroup. The “Message-ID:” field includes
`
`a unique identifier for the article. The “Date:” field indicates that the article was
`
`posted on August 7, 1991 at approximately 10:52pm GMT, and it would have been
`
`automatically generated when the article was posted to Usenet. The simple, plain-
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`text formatting and the use of email-like visual conventions (e.g., lines beginning
`
`with “>” to quote another article) are also consistent with the format of Usenet
`
`articles from the 1991 time frame. While a Usenet article has some similarities to
`
`an email, it also has distinctive characteristics which identify it as a Usenet article.
`
`For example, the use of the GMT timezone in the “Date:” field was unusual for
`
`email at the time, but recommended practice for Usenet. The presence of the
`
`“Newsgroups:”, “References:”, “Followup-To:”, “Organization:”, and “Lines:”
`
`fields all would have been normal for Usenet but unusual in email. Finally the
`
`address that appears in the “Sender:” field would have been unusual for an email
`
`but not unusual for Usenet.
`
`17. The copy of the Langer Reference provided as EMCVMW 1003 is
`
`missing the “Path:” header field which would normally appear in a Usenet article.
`
`However, a search of Google Groups1 for this article, followed by a request to
`
`display the article in the original format, returns an equivalent copy of the article
`
`(attached hereto as EMCVMW 1062) with the same header fields and contents as
`
`in EMCVMW 1003, but with the “Path:” header field also included. This “Path:”
`
`header field contains the particular list of Usenet nodes that the article traversed
`
`until it reached the point where it was archived. This list of nodes is consistent
`
`with the topology of Usenet at the time, as I remember it. Therefore I am
`
`1 Google Groups is discussed below.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`confident that the Langer Reference (EMCVMW 1003) was published to Usenet
`
`on the approximate date and time indicated, and that the header and contents of the
`
`article in EMCVMW 1003 are as originally posted.
`
`18. Similarly, the Williams Reference (EMCVMW 1027), Miller
`
`Reference (EMCVMW 1045) and Hirsch Reference (EMCVMW 1046) have the
`
`format and content one would expect of an authentic Usenet article from their
`
`respective time frames as indicated in their “Date:” header fields. Equivalent
`
`versions of those documents as obtained from Google Groups,2 including the
`
`article header fields, are attached hereto as EMCVMW 1049, 1066, and 1067,
`
`respectively. The computer-generated fields show that the Williams Reference
`
`was posted to the “comp.compression” newsgroup on Jan. 27, 1992 at
`
`approximately 3:10pm GMT, and it would have been automatically generated
`
`when the article was posted to Usenet. Likewise, the Miller Reference was posted
`
`to the “alt.bbs” newsgroup on March 30, 1992 at approximately 6:38am EST, and
`
`the Hirsch Reference was posted to the “comp.sys.novell” newsgroup on July 3,
`
`1994 at approximately 2:38pm EDT.3 All the other fields, as well as the body of
`
`2 Google Groups is discussed below.
`
`3 The archived copy of the Hirsch Reference does not include a time zone, but the
`
`author’s address and date suggests that Eastern Daylight Time would apply.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`the article, confirm that the Williams, Miller and Hirsch References are authentic
`
`Usenet articles from their respective time frames.
`
`19.
`
`In addition, I verified the authenticity of each of the Usenet
`
`References by comparing them with equivalent versions obtained from the
`
`“Google Groups” website, at address https://groups.google.com/. Google Groups
`
`contains a compilation of Usenet articles going back to the 1980s and is recognized
`
`as a key archive of Usenet articles. For example, running a Google Groups search
`
`on the term “albert langer unique identifier” returns the Langer Reference as one of
`
`the top results. Similarly, a search for “ross williams matching text” returns the
`
`Williams Reference as one of the top results. I compared each of the Usenet
`
`References to the corresponding version downloaded from Google Groups, and
`
`found no differences other than that the three characters preceding the ‘@’ sign of
`
`any character sequence resembling an email address, had been replaced by an
`
`ellipsis (‘…’) (likely for privacy reasons).
`
`20.
`
`It is also my belief that each of the Usenet References was publicly
`
`accessible prior to April 11, 1995. In the 1991–1992 time frame, Usenet was one
`
`of the preeminent Internet-based sources of information in a variety of technical
`
`fields. During that time, Usenet was widely available to University faculty,
`
`students, and staff, as well as to research and development employees of several
`
`commercial institutions that had Internet access. In addition, in the same time
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`frame, access to Usenet via a telephone modem was commercially available to
`
`anyone for a fee (and the cost of access network or telephone service). See G.
`
`Todino et al., Using UUCP and Usenet (1991), at 100-101 (EMCVMW 1054).
`
`21. Each Usenet newsgroup was essentially an electronic newsletter
`
`which was delivered in real time to interested readers. Anyone could subscribe to
`
`any newsgroup without restrictions. Users would log onto their local Usenet nodes
`
`and read articles from the newsgroups that they subscribed to, in much the same
`
`way that one would go to a newsstand and buy the daily newspaper.
`
`22. Each newsgroup was devoted to a specific topic. Thus, the readership
`
`of each newsgroup generally consisted of individuals with a specific interest in that
`
`topic. In addition, an article could be posted to multiple newsgroups, thus
`
`multiplying its readership. For example, the Langer Reference was posted to two
`
`newsgroups: “alt.sources.d,” which hosted technical discussions about source code
`
`posted to the “alt.sources” newsgroup; and “comp.archives.admin,” which focused
`
`on technical issues relating to the administration of computer archives. Similarly,
`
`the Williams Reference was posted to the “comp.compression” newsgroup, which
`
`related to data compression. Data compression is a family of techniques used to
`
`reduce the size of data files, and is closely related to the fields of storage
`
`technology and archive management.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`23.
`
`In the 1991–1992 time frame, total Usenet readership already
`
`numbered in the millions. For example, a contemporary article provides an
`
`estimate of about 1.7 million “netreaders” in August 1991. B. Reid, “USENET
`
`READERSHIP SUMMARY REPORT FOR AUG 91” (Sept. 1, 1991)
`
`(EMCVMW 1050). The readership for the “alt.sources.d” and
`
`“comp.archives.admin” newsgroups was also large, numbering 37,000 and 27,000
`
`users, respectively. B. Reid, “USENET Readership report for Aug 91” (Sept. 1,
`
`1991) (EMCVMW 1051). Similarly, as of January 1992, the “comp.compression”
`
`newsgroup had approximately 46,000 readers. B. Reid, “USENET Readership
`
`report for Jan 92” (Feb. 2, 1992) (EMCVMW 1052). These figures are consistent
`
`with my personal recollection of the facts at the time. Note that by default, each
`
`article was propagated to the entire Usenet network; neither the Langer Reference
`
`nor the Williams Reference includes any of the indicia (e.g., a “Distribution:”
`
`field) that would indicate that the intended recipients were limited to a specific
`
`geographical area or set of nodes. Whether to accept or retain articles from any
`
`particular newsgroup was a policy that was settable on a per-node and per-
`
`newsgroup basis. However, the vast majority of Usenet sites accepted articles
`
`from any newsgroup with a name beginning with “comp.”, as these were
`
`considered to be both valuable and low-volume. Also, the program that generated
`
`the statistics used to produce the above mentioned readership reports actually
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`examined each user’s records of which groups and articles had been read, so the
`
`readership statistics of each newsgroup reflect both node policy and actual
`
`readership. Each of the Usenet References was thus publicly available to a large
`
`audience of persons interested in the subject matter. Specifically, the Langer
`
`Reference and the Williams Reference were delivered to at least tens of thousands
`
`of users who had a specific technical interest in the administration of computer
`
`archives and data compression, respectively.
`
`24. The intended audience received each of the Usenet References within
`
`at most a day or two from the date on which it was posted. Since Usenet articles
`
`were small plain-text files, propagation to the entire Usenet network was rather
`
`fast, despite the low network speeds of the time. In fact, according to a
`
`contemporary source, more than 90% of all messages reached 90% of all nodes for
`
`which they were intended within one day. J.S. Quarterman, The Matrix (1990), at
`
`237 (EMCVMW 1053). This is consistent with my personal recollection of the
`
`facts at the time. Consequently, Usenet articles in general, and the Langer and
`
`Williams References in particular, were automatically pushed and distributed to a
`
`set of users who had registered interest in the relevant topics (administration of
`
`computer archives and data compression, respectively).
`
`25. Each of the individuals who received one of the Usenet References
`
`had the opportunity to read it on their computer screen and/or save it to disk for
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`future reference. That functionality was available through standard programs such
`
`as “rn” (for “read news”) with which I was familiar in the 1991–92 time frame.
`
`See G. Todino et al., Using UUCP and Usenet (1991), at 116–21 (EMCVMW
`
`1054). Similarly to a user’s ability to save an article, a system administrator could
`
`archive entire newsgroups, and it is my understanding that the copies of the Langer
`
`and Williams References in existence today are the result of such archival.
`
`III. The RFC References
`
`26.
`
`I have been asked to provide my understanding of certain facts
`
`relating to the following documents:
`
`(cid:120) R. Rivest, “The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm,” Internet RFC 1321
`
`(Apr. 1992) (EMCVMW 1012);
`
`(cid:120) T. Berners-Lee et al., “Uniform Resource Locators (URL),” Internet
`
`RFC 1738 (Dec. 1994) (EMCVMW 1018);
`
`(cid:120) P. Deutsch et al., “How to Use Anonymous FTP,” Internet RFC 1635
`
`(EMCVMW 1068);
`
`(cid:120) EARN Staff, “Guide to Network Resource Tools,” Internet RFC 1580
`
`(March 1994) (EMCVMW 1069);
`
`(cid:120) C. Adie, “Network Access to Multimedia Information,” Internet RFC
`
`1614 (May 1994) (EMCVMW 1070);
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`(cid:120) G. Kessler et al., “A Primer On Internet and TCP/IP Tools,” Internet
`
`RFC 1739 (Dec. 1994) (EMCVMW 1071) (collectively, the “RFC
`
`References”).
`
`27.
`
` It is my belief that each of the RFC References is a true and correct
`
`copy of the document that Petitioner claims it is. It is also my belief that each of
`
`the RFC References was publicly accessible prior to April 11, 1995.
`
`28. Each of the RFC References is an Internet Request for Comments
`
`(RFC). In the 1995 time frame, I was familiar with RFCs because, as explained in
`
`the Background section of this Declaration, I have been closely involved with the
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1990. Though the RFC series was
`
`(and still is) curated and published by the RFC Editor, an administrative function
`
`which operates independently of IETF, IETF was (and still is) the organization
`
`responsible for approving the vast majority of RFCs.
`
`29.
`
`I personally authored or co-authored several RFCs, for example in the
`
`field of electronic mail protocol specifications. In addition, I personally assisted
`
`with the specification of numerous other protocols that were published as RFCs.
`
`In October 1995, I hosted a “URN Implementors’ Meeting” which resulted in the
`
`later standardization of Uniform Resource Names (URNs) by IETF. During my
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`career I relied on many RFCs, for example for the purpose of developing software
`
`programs in compliance with networking protocols.
`
`30.
`
`It is my belief that each of the RFC References is a true and correct
`
`copy of the document that Petitioner claims it is. As discussed above, I am
`
`familiar with the general appearance of an RFC, and each of the RFC References
`
`bears all the indicia that one would expect to find in an authentic document. For
`
`example, each of the documents bears the legend “Network Working Group” at the
`
`top left (typical of RFCs of the time), followed by the RFC number assigned to it.
`
`The simple plain-text formatting , pagination, style of section headings and
`
`references, and the inclusion of certain required sections such as “Status of this
`
`Memo” and “Security Considerations,” are also typical of RFCs.
`
`31.
`
` In the 1994–1995 timeframe I was also personally familiar with
`
`several of these RFCs. I referred to RFC 1321 (MD5, EMCVMW 1012) and RFC
`
`1738 (URLs, EMCVMW 1018) on multiple occasions in my work. I was aware of
`
`the existence of and general contents of RFCs 1635, 1580, 1614, and 1739
`
`(EMCVMW 1068–1071), though I did not need to use them as I was already
`
`generally familiar with the subject matter included in these documents.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, I verified the authenticity of each of the RFC References
`
`by comparing them with equivalent versions obtained directly from the RFC
`
`Editor, at the address http://www.rfc-editor.org. The RFC Editor has been
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`continuously maintaining an archive of approved RFC’s since at least the mid
`
`1980s. In general, once approved, an RFC is not modified; it can be
`
`complemented by an errata (published as a separate document), or it can be
`
`superseded by another RFC with a different assigned number, but it cannot be
`
`changed. As stated on the RFC Editor’s website, “[o]nce an RFC is published, it
`
`cannot be changed.” RFC Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfcfaq.html (EMCVMW 1055). Therefore, an RFC as obtained in its
`
`original publication format from the RFC Editor today is exactly the same RFC as
`
`it appeared on the date on which it was published. Because the RFC References
`
`were originally created as “plain text” files which do not display or print properly
`
`on many modern computer systems, they were converted to the PDF format after
`
`their original publication. I compared each of the (PDF format) RFC References
`
`to the corresponding “plain text” version downloaded from the RFC Editor’s
`
`website, and found no differences.
`
`33.
`
`I further tested the authenticity of the RFC References by examining
`
`the modification dates for the corresponding “plain text” files stored on the RFC
`
`Editor’s file server. The modification dates are computer-generated, and provide
`
`an objective indication that the RFC References have not been modified over time.
`
`The RFC Editor’s file server is accessible via the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), a
`
`text-based interface that allows a user to examine file metadata, including
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`modification dates. A transcript of the corresponding FTP session, showing the
`
`modification dates of the files corresponding to the RFC References, is attached
`
`hereto as EMCVMW 1056. As the transcript shows, none of the plain-text RFC
`
`References were created or modified after December 20, 1994.
`
`34.
`
`It is also my belief that each of the RFC References was publicly
`
`accessible prior to April 11, 1995. For example, before an RFC could be
`
`approved, the entire “IETF-Announce” electronic mailing list was sent a “last call”
`
`message including the name of the draft RFC and its location on the Internet,
`
`where it remained available for about six months. Such location was a File
`
`Transfer Protocol (FTP) site. By 1995, this electronic mailing list had several
`
`thousand subscribers, all of whom were involved in the development of
`
`technologies relating to computer networking. Each of those subscribers received
`
`the “last call” message and had an opportunity to access and review the pending
`
`draft and provide feedback prior to its approval for publication. Therefore, even
`
`before being approved, each of the RFC References was publicly accessible by
`
`thousands of people working in the field of computer networking. In addition,
`
`upon publication of each new RFC, an announcement was sent to the same IETF-
`
`Announce mailing list, indicating that the new RFC had been published, and
`
`containing instructions for the retrieval of that RFC from the FTP site ftp.isi.edu.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`35. After approval, both IETF and the RFC Editor made all RFCs
`
`available to the general public without restrictions. In fact, many RFCs were
`
`intended as standards to be followed by the industry, and therefore public
`
`accessibility was of great importance to IETF. It was well known in the 1995 time
`
`frame that the FTP site ftp.isi.edu was the authoritative source (from the RFC
`
`Editor) for electronic copies of RFCs. IETF also made copies of those RFCs
`
`available from ftp.ietf.org. Both sites were widely “mirrored” to various sites
`
`around the world. Interested researchers and implementors generally monitored
`
`one of these sites for new RFCs being posted. In addition, the RFC Editor, through
`
`the ftp.isi.edu site, provided a master index in the form of a text file called “rfc-
`
`index.txt” which included the full title, author(s) and date of each RFC published
`
`to date, and which was generally mirrored along with the RFCs. Since RFC titles
`
`were generally descriptive of their subject matter, downloading and searching the
`
`index would have allowed any interested person to simply and efficiently locate
`
`any RFC that related to a given subject. Once the RFC number was identified, a
`
`user would have been able to download a copy of the corresponding document
`
`from the same FTP site.
`
`IV. The LIFN References
`
`36.
`
`I have been asked to provide my understanding of certain facts
`
`relating to the following documents:
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`(cid:120)
`
` S. Browne et al., “Location-Independent Naming for Virtual
`
`Distributed Software Repositories,” University of Tennessee
`
`Technical Report CS-95-278 (Feb. 1995) (EMCVMW 1002);
`
`(cid:120)
`
` S. Browne et al., “Location-Independent Naming for Virtual
`
`Distributed Software Repositories,”
`
`http://www.netlib.org/utk/papers/lifn/main.html (Nov. 11, 1994)
`
`(EMCVMW 1006); and
`
`(cid:120)
`
` K. Moore et al., “An Architecture for Bulk File Distribution,”
`
`Network Working Group Internet Draft (July 27, 1994) (EMCVMW
`
`1007) (collectively, the “LIFN References”).
`
`37.
`
`It is my belief that each of the LIFN References is a true and correct
`
`copy of the document that Petitioner claims it is. It is also my belief that each of
`
`the LIFN References was publicly accessible prior to April 11, 1995.
`
`38.
`
`I have personal knowledge of each of the LIFN References because I
`
`was a co-author on each of them. The earliest of the LIFN References
`
`(EMCVMW 1007) lists myself as the lead author, and is a “Network Working
`
`Group Internet Draft,” that is, an informal document meant to be freely
`
`disseminated for purposes of discussion. The date it bears (July 27, 1994) is the
`
`date on which my coworkers and I completed the preparation of the document,
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`which would have been also on or about the date on which we submitted it to IETF
`
`for public distribution. The Internet Draft (EMCVMW 1007) was also referenced
`
`in an email dated August 8, 1994 by one of my coworkers, Reed Wade (attached
`
`hereto as EMCVMW 1057). The email was sent to a mailing list, called “WWW-
`
`Talk,” which at the time had a broad distribution; virtually anybody with an
`
`interest in the early Web technology subscribed to it. Mr. Wade’s email confirms
`
`that the Internet Draft (EMCVMW 1007) was made public prior to August 8, 1994.
`
`39. The two other LIFN References were versions of a paper intended for
`
`submission to the ACM-SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR’95)
`
`to be held on April 28–30, 1995 in Seattle, Washington. The earlier of the two
`
`references (EMCVMW 1006) bears the date of Nov. 11, 1994 and was an early
`
`draft of the paper, for initial submission to the symposium organizers. The later
`
`version (EMCVMW 1002) was completed in February 1995, and was the final
`
`version of the paper that my coworkers and I submitted for inclusion in the
`
`symposium proceedings.
`
`40. The dates of these documents (EMCVMW 1006 and 1002) are
`
`consistent with the timeline of paper submission to SSR’95. For example, the
`
`Final Call for Papers (CFP) for SSR’95 (attached hereto as EMCVMW 1058) sets
`
`out the dates of November 14, 1994 for paper submission, and February 27, 1995
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00083
`Declaration of Keith Moore
`
`for submission of the final version of the paper. Therefore, the SSR’95 Final CFP
`
`corroborates my recollection of the facts regarding the LIFN References.
`
`41.
`
`I could further verify the February 1995 date of EMCVMW 1002 by
`
`comparing it with an identical version downloaded from the EECS Computer
`
`Science Library at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The library’s online
`
`catalog of 1995 technical reports, at address
`
`http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~library/1995.html, lists the document as “ut-cs-95-278 --
`
`Location-Independent Naming for Virtual Distributed Software Repositories.
`
`Shirley Browne, Jack Dongarra, Stan Green, Keith Moore, Theresa Pepin, Tom
`
`Rowan, Reed Wade, and Eric Grosse, February 1995.” A copy of the library
`
`webpage is attached hereto as EMCVMW 1059. I compared EMCVMW 1002 to
`
`the corresponding version downloaded from the library, and found no differences.
`
`As discussed below, such technical reports were made publicly available without
`
`restrictions.
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Owner contends that the
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
