`
`PATENT: 8,135,398
`
`INVENTORS: TIEHONG WANG,
`NING WANG, XIMING WANG,
`TIEJUN WANG, WILLIAM E.
`HALAL
`
`FILED: MAY 6, 2011
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND
`APPARATUS FOR MULTIMEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS WITH
`DIFFERENT USER TERMINALS
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN C. ALMEROTH
`CONCERNING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,135,398
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCKET NO: 5932-5
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: March 13, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth. I have been asked to submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Samsung”) in connection with a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,135,398 (“the ‘398 patent”) that I understand is being submitted to the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO” or “USPTO”) by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”).1
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Petitioner to study and
`
`provide my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability or non-
`
`patentability of, claims 15, 57, 58 and 60-63 in the ‘398 patent (“the challenged
`
`claims”). The ‘398 patent is related to U.S. Patent No. 7,899,492 (“the ’492
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,050,711 (“the ’711 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,145,268
`
`(“the ‘268 patent”) and 8,224,381 (“the ‘381 patent”), sometimes referred to “the
`
`’492 Patent Family.” I understand that the ‘398 patent is owned by Virginia
`
`Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“VIS” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`3.
`
`In addition, I have been retained by Samsung in connection with a
`
`litigation involving the ‘398 patent. The caption of the litigation is Virginia
`
`1 I understand that the ‘398 patent is Exhibit 1001 to the petition for inter partes
`
`review of the ‘398 patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (Civil Action No.
`
`2:12-cv-00548-MSD-DEM) (E.D. Va.) (“the litigation”). In connection with the
`
`litigation, I have thus far prepared an expert report regarding the invalidity the ‘398
`
`patent (as well as the patents in the ‘492 Patent Family).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`4.
`
`This declaration is directed to claims 15, 57, 58 and 60-63 of the ‘398
`
`patent and sets forth certain opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have
`
`reached, and the bases for each. However, because claims 57 and 55 depend from
`
`claim 55 of the ‘398 patent (which, in turn, depends from claim 15), this
`
`declaration also addresses claim 55 in order to address all limitations of claims 57
`
`and 58.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art at the time of the patent
`
`application, analysis of prior art references, and the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claims in light of the specification, it is my opinion that all of
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘398 patent are unpatentable as being anticipated or
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art references discussed below and shown in the
`
`claim charts attached as Appendices C-F, which are part of my declaration and
`
`part of my sworn testimony.
`
`6. More particularly, it is my opinion that:
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,580,005 (“Palin”) Palin anticipates claims 15, 57
`
`and 60-62 of the ‘398 patent, as explained in detail in Appendix
`
`C;2
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,028,093 (“Karaoguz”) anticipates claims 15, 57,
`
`61 and 62, as explained in detail in Appendix D;3
`
` The combination of Palin and Karaoguz renders claims 15, 57 and
`
`60-62 obvious, as explained in detail in Appendix E; and
`
` The combination of Palin and U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2004/0223614 (“Seaman”) renders claims 58 and 63 obvious,
`
`as explained in detail in Appendix F.4
`
`7.
`
`For example, the ‘398 patent purports to solve “problems with the
`
`delivery of Internet content through cellular phones. For example, even with the
`
`high bandwidth connection provided by advanced cellular Systems, there remains a
`
`bottleneck between the Internet and the cellular network (CN), as well as delays
`
`2 I understand that Palin is Exhibit 1002 to the petition for inter partes review of
`
`the ‘398 patent.
`
`3 I understand that Karaoguz is Exhibit 1003 to the petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ‘398 patent.
`
`4 I understand that Seaman is Exhibit 1004 to the petition for inter partes review of
`
`the ‘398 patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`caused by the Internet itself.” ‘398 patent at 1:56-61. According to the ‘398
`
`patent, “[w]hat is needed is a solution to the problem of diminished user enjoyment
`
`of the various devices and corresponding content that a user may enjoy due to the
`
`complications of trying to manage content and interface with a variety of different
`
`devices that are not necessarily compatible.” ‘398 patent at 3:9-13. The solution
`
`proposed by the ‘398 patent, however, had already been recognized in the prior art.
`
`8.
`
`Palin, for example, discloses that “currently available mobile
`
`terminals are limited because of the size, … users would not enjoy watching …
`
`video on such a display” Palin at 1:21-26. Indeed, the overlap in the solutions
`
`proposed by the two patents is reflected in their figures:
`
`Palin
`
`‘398 Patent
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Although the ’398 patent purports to solve the limited screen size
`
`problem by converting and providing the video signal to an alternative (e.g.,
`
`external) display system, (‘398 patent at 15:36-64, 16:59 to 17:13), Palin had
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`already arrived at the same solution. Palin teaches transmitting a video received by
`
`a “mobile device, such as a mobile phone, laptop computer, or personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA)” with certain display capabilities to “another display device, like a
`
`television apparatus,” with different display capabilities. Palin at 2:16-25. The
`
`’398 patent further discloses receiving and converting the multimedia content item
`
`and routing it to the destination device; sending the content to the destination
`
`device by establishing a predetermined channel; transporting the multimedia
`
`content item to the destination device via the predetermined channel; and directing
`
`the destination device to display the multimedia content. Here, too, however, Palin
`
`had already taught transporting the multimedia content item to the destination
`
`device via the predetermined channel (e.g., Bluetooth); and directing the
`
`destination device to display the multimedia content. See, e.g., Palin at Fig 5 and
`
`associated text. Additional overlap between Palin and the ‘398 patent is discussed
`
`below. Further, as discussed below, Palin is not alone in its overlap with the ‘398
`
`patent.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, U.S. Patent No. 8,028,093 (“Karaoguz”) discloses “a
`
`media exchange network comprising an architecture to support adaptive digital
`
`media parameters” including, “for example, resolution content, display size, and
`
`color/grey-scale content.” Karaoguz, 3:53-4:10. As shown below in Figure 1, the
`
`media exchange network may include two communication devices in which the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`“second communications device may receive a device profile relating to the first
`
`communications device, adapt media content based upon the device profile of the
`
`first communications device, and send the adapted media content to the first
`
`communications device.” Karaoguz, Abstract. Karaoguz also discusses the use of
`
`specialized channels for communicating multimedia content among devices. See,
`
`e.g., Karaoguz at 8:8-14.
`
`
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Background
`11.
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at
`
`the University of California, Santa Barbara. At UCSB, I also hold faculty
`
`appointments and am a founding member of the Computer Engineering (CE)
`
`Program, Media Arts and Technology (MAT) Program, and the Technology
`
`Management Program (TMP). I have been a faculty member at UCSB since July
`
`1997.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology: (1) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with minors in
`
`Economics, Technical Communication, and American Literature) earned in June,
`
`1992; (2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with specialization in
`
`Networking and Systems) earned in June, 1994; and (3) a Doctor of Philosophy
`
`(Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title: Networking and System
`
`Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of Services in Interactive Multimedia
`
`System, minor in Telecommunications Public Policy) earned in June, 1997.
`
`13. One of the major concentrations of my research to date has been the
`
`delivery of multimedia content and data between computing devices. In my
`
`research, I have studied large-scale content delivery systems, and the use of servers
`
`located in a variety of geographic locations to provide scalable delivery to
`
`hundreds, even thousands of users simultaneously. I have also studied smaller-
`
`scale content delivery systems in which content is exchanged between individual
`
`computers and portable devices. My work has emphasized the exchange of content
`
`more efficiently across computer networks, including the scalable delivery of
`
`content to many users, mobile computing, satellite networking, delivering content
`
`to mobile devices, and network support for data delivery in wireless networks.
`
`14. Beginning in 1992, at the time I started graduate school, the initial
`
`focus of my research was on the provision of interactive functions (e.g., VCR-style
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`functions like pause, rewind, and fast-forward) for near video-on-demand systems
`
`in cable systems, in particular, how to aggregate requests for movies at a cable
`
`head-end and then how to satisfy a multitude of requests using one audio/video
`
`stream broadcast to multiple receivers simultaneously. Continued evolution of this
`
`research has resulted in the development of new techniques to scalably deliver on-
`
`demand content, including audio, video, web documents, and other types of data,
`
`through the Internet and over other types of networks, including over cable
`
`systems, broadband telephone lines, and satellite links (see, e.g., my curriculum
`
`vitae (“CV”), attached as Appendix A, at II.A.52, 54, 56, 58-59, and 61; Appdx. A
`
`at II.B.82-87; and Appdx. A at II.C.29, and 31-33).
`
`15. An important component of my research from the very beginning has
`
`been investigating the challenges of communicating multimedia content between
`
`computers and across networks. Although the early Internet was used mostly for
`
`text-based non-real time applications, the interest in sharing multimedia content
`
`quickly developed. Multimedia-based applications ranged from downloading
`
`content to a device to streaming multimedia content to be instantly used. One of
`
`the challenges was that multimedia content is typically larger than text-only
`
`content, but there are also opportunities to use different delivery techniques since
`
`multimedia content is more resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety of
`
`research problems and used a number of systems that were developed to deliver
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`multimedia content to users (see, e.g., Appdx. A at II.A.36, 52, 54, 56, 58-59, and
`
`61; Appdx. A at II.B.30, 64-66, and 82-87; and Appdx. A at II.C.29, and 31-33).
`
`16.
`
`In 1994, I began to research issues associated with the development
`
`and deployment of a one-to-many communication facility (called “multicast”) in
`
`the Internet (first deployed as the Multicast Backbone, a virtual overlay network
`
`supporting one-to-many communication). Some of my more recent research
`
`endeavors have looked at how to use the scalability offered by multicast to provide
`
`streaming media support for complex applications like distance learning,
`
`distributed collaboration, distributed games, and large-scale wireless
`
`communication. Multicast has also been used as the delivery mechanism in
`
`systems that perform local filtering i.e., sending the same content to a large number
`
`of users and allowing them to filter locally content in which they are not interested
`
`(see, e.g., Appdx. A at II.A.29, 33-35, 38-41, 47-48, 50, 53, 55-57, and 60-61;
`
`Appdx. A at II.B.4, 9, 59, 63, 70, 72, and 74-80; and Appdx. A at II.C.15, 17, 19-
`
`20, and 23-29).
`
`17. Starting in 1997, I worked on a project to integrate the streaming
`
`media capabilities of the Internet together with the interactivity of the web. I
`
`developed a project called the Interactive Multimedia Jukebox (IMJ). Users would
`
`visit a web page and select content to view. The content would then be scheduled
`
`on one of a number of logical content streams. Content was delivered using
`
`
`
`9
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`multicast communication. The capacity of the system varied depending on the
`
`capabilities of the server including the available bandwidth of its connection to the
`
`Internet. If idle capacity existed when a request was made, the requesting user
`
`would be able to watch its selection immediately. If the server was fully utilized in
`
`streaming previously selected content, the user’s selection would be queued. In the
`
`meantime, the user would see what content was already playing, and because of the
`
`use of multicast, would be able to join one of the existing streams and watch the
`
`content at the point it was currently being transmitted. This service combined the
`
`interactivity of the web with the streaming capabilities of the Internet to create a
`
`jukebox-like service. It supported true Video-on-Demand when capacity allowed,
`
`but scaled to any number of users based on queuing requested programs. As part
`
`of the project, we obtained permission from Turner Broadcasting to transmit
`
`cartoons and other short-subject content. We also attempted to connect the IMJ
`
`into the Georgia Tech campus cable television network so that students in their
`
`dorms could use the web to request content and then view that content on one of
`
`the campus’s public access TV channels (see, e.g., Appdx. A at II.A.59 and
`
`II.B.82).
`
`18. More recently, I have also studied issues concerning how users choose
`
`content, especially when considering the price of that content. My research has
`
`examined how dynamic content pricing can be used to control system load. By
`
`
`
`10
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`raising prices when systems start to become overloaded (i.e., when all available
`
`resources are fully utilized) and reducing prices when system capacity is readily
`
`available, users’ capacity to pay as well as their willingness can be used as factors
`
`in stabilizing the response time of a system. This capability is particularly useful in
`
`systems where content is downloaded or streamed to users on-demand (see, e.g.,
`
`Appdx. A at II.A.46, 49, and 51; Appdx. A at II.B.67-68, 71, and 73; and Appdx.
`
`A at II.C.21).
`
`19. As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began researching
`
`issues related to wireless devices. In particular, I was interested in showing how to
`
`provide greater communication capability to “lightweight devices,” i.e., small
`
`form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory, networking, and power)
`
`devices. Starting in 1998, I published several papers on my work to develop a
`
`flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol stack (see, e.g., Appdx. A at
`
`II.B.81 and II.D.7). From this initial work, I have made wireless networking and
`
`wireless devices one of the major themes of my research. One topic includes
`
`developing applications for mobile devices, for example, virally exchanging and
`
`tracking “coupons” through “opportunistic contact” (i.e., communication with
`
`other devices that a user comes into communication range of) (see, e.g., Appdx. A
`
`at II.A.23; Appdx. A at II.B.47 and 51). Other topics include building network
`
`communication among a set of mobile devices unaided by any other kind of
`
`
`
`11
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`network infrastructure. Yet another theme is monitoring wireless networks, in
`
`particular different variants of IEEE 802.11 compliant networks, to (1) understand
`
`the operation of the various protocols used in real-world deployments (see, e.g.,
`
`Appdx. A at II.A.6 and 8; Appdx. A at II.B.2-, 23, 43, and 50; Appdx. A at II.C.4,
`
`6, 13-14, 16, and 18), (2) use these measurements to characterize use of the
`
`networks and identify protocol limitations and weaknesses (see, e.g., Appdx. A at
`
`II.A.19 and 37; Appdx. A at II.B.15, 21, 22, 24, and 45; Appdx. A at II.C.1 and 7),
`
`and (3) propose and evaluate solutions to these problems (see, e.g., Appdx. A at
`
`II.A.1, 10-11, 16, 31, and 33; Appdx. A at II.B.1-2, 6, 19, 29, 33 and 56).
`
`20. As an important component of my research program, I have been
`
`involved in the development of academic research into available technology in the
`
`marketplace. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) including many content delivery-related working
`
`groups like the Audio Video Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment
`
`(MBONED) group, Source Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter- Domain
`
`Multicast Routing (IDMR) group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group,
`
`the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a
`
`member of the Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw the
`
`standardization of all things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the
`
`Chair of the Internet2 Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I am an author or co-author of nearly 200 technical papers, published
`
`software systems, IETF Internet Drafts, and IETF Request for Comments (RFCs).
`
`The titles and subject matter of these technical papers are listed in full on my CV,
`
`attached as Appendix A.
`
`22. My involvement in the research community extends to leadership
`
`positions for several academic journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the
`
`Steering Committee for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital Audio
`
`and Video (NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for the
`
`International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm
`
`Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet (GI)
`
`Symposium. I have served or am serving on the Editorial Boards of IEEE/ACM
`
`Transactions on Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE
`
`Network, ACM Computers in Entertainment, AACE Journal of Interactive
`
`Learning Research (JILR), and ACM Computer Communications Review. I have
`
`co-chaired a number of conferences and workshops including the IEEE
`
`International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), IEEE Conference on
`
`Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (SECON), International
`
`Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), IFIP/IEEE
`
`International Conference on Management of Multimedia Networks and Services
`
`(MMNS), the International Workshop On Wireless Network Measurement
`
`
`
`13
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`(WiNMee), ACM Sigcomm Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), the
`
`Network Group Communication (NGC) workshop, and the Global Internet
`
`Symposium; and I have served on the program committees for numerous
`
`conferences.
`
`23. Furthermore, in the courses I teach at UCSB, a significant portion of
`
`my curriculum covers aspects of the Internet and network communication
`
`including the physical and data link layers of the Open System Interconnect (OSI)
`
`protocol stack, including standardized protocols for communicating across a
`
`variety of physical media including cable systems, telephone lines, wireless, and
`
`high-speed Local Area Networks (LANs). The courses I have taught also cover
`
`most major topics in Internet communication, including data communication,
`
`multimedia encoding, and (mobile) application design. For a complete list of
`
`courses I have taught, see my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A to this
`
`declaration.
`
`24.
`
`In addition, I co-founded a technology company called Santa Barbara
`
`Labs that was working under a sub-contract from the U.S. Air Force to develop
`
`very accurate emulation systems for the military’s next generation internetwork.
`
`Santa Barbara Labs’ focus was in developing an emulation platform to test the
`
`performance characteristics of the network architecture in the variety of
`
`environments in which it was expected to operate, and in particular, for network
`
`
`
`14
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`services including IPv6, multicast, Quality of Service (QoS), satellite-based
`
`communication, and security. Applications for this emulation program included
`
`communication of a variety of multimedia-based services.
`
`25.
`
`I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM)
`
`and a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE).
`
`26. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further included in my curriculum vitae attached as Appendix
`
`A to this declaration.
`
`B.
`Previous Expert Witness Experience
`27. The following is a list of cases in which I have testified at trial,
`
`hearing, or by deposition within the preceding four years. In the below listed
`
`cases, I have represented both patent owners as well as accused infringers.
`
` A deposition in Re: Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation
`
`(MDL Docket No. 07-MD-1848, D. Del.);
`
` A deposition in Individual Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (2:07-CV-
`
`158-LED, E.D. Tex.);
`
` A deposition in Network Appliances, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
`
`(C-07-06053 EDL, N.D. Cal.);
`
`
`
`15
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
` A deposition in Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last.FM LTD et al. (09-CIV-
`
`20940-TORRES, S.D. Fl);
`
` Two depositions in Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc. et al.
`
`(2:07-CV-263(TJW/CE) and 2:07-CV-555 (TJW/CE), E.D. Tex.);
`
` Two depositions and trial testimony in Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc. (9:09-CV-00111-RC, E.D. Tex.);
`
` Two depositions in Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. Sony et al. (2:09-cv-274-
`
`DF-CE, E.D. Tex.);
`
` A deposition and trial testimony in Certain Wireless Communication
`
`Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers
`
`and Components (US ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-745);
`
` Two depositions in Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc. (07-
`
`272-SLR, D. Del.);
`
` A deposition in iHance, Inc. v. Eloqua Corp. (2:11-CV-257-MSD-
`
`TEM, E.D. Va.);
`
` A deposition and trial testimony in Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T
`
`Inc., et al. (SA-09-CA-476-OG, W.D. Tex.);
`
` A deposition in Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (11-CV-178
`
`(BBC), W.D. Wis.); and
`
`
`
`16
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
` A deposition in British Telecommunications PLC v. CoxCom, Inc.,
`
`Cox Communications, Inc., & Cable One, Inc. (10-658-SLR, D. Del.).
`
`C. Compensation
`28.
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`
`usual and customary rate of $500 per hour plus travel expenses. My compensation
`
`is not conditioned on the conclusions I reach as a result of my analysis or on the
`
`outcome of this matter. Similarly, my compensation is not dependent upon and in
`
`now affects the substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`29.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. Nor do I have any financial interest in Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. I also do not have any financial
`
`interest in Patent Owner Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. I do not have any
`
`financial interest in the ‘398 patent and have not had any contact with any of the
`
`named inventors of the ‘398 patent (Tiehong Wang, Ning Wang, Ximing Wang,
`
`Tiejun Wang, William E. Halal).
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`30. The materials I have considered in connection with this declaration
`
`are identified in Appendix B.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`31.
`I am not an attorney and have not been asked to offer my opinion on
`
`the law. However, as an expert offering an opinion on whether the claims in the
`
`‘398 patent are patentable, I understand that I am obliged to follow existing law. I
`
`understand the following legal principles apply to analysis of patentability pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.5
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that, in an inter partes review proceeding, patent
`
`claims may be deemed unpatentable if it is shown that they were anticipated and/or
`
`rendered obvious by one or more prior art patents or publications.
`
`A. Anticipation
`33. For a claim to be anticipated under § 102, every limitation of the
`
`claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, either expressly or
`
`inherently.
`
`34. A claim element is inherently present in a prior art reference if the
`
`element must necessarily be present and one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that the element must necessarily be present. However, I understand that
`
`
`5 I understand that Congress instituted certain changes to U.S. patent law in the
`
`American Invents Act, Pub.L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”) but that
`
`the ‘398 patent is governed by statutes as enacted prior to the AIA. Therefore,
`
`references in my declaration are to the pre-AIA statutes.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`inherent anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time would have recognized the inherent disclosure.
`
`35. A claim is unpatentable as anticipated under § 102(a) if the claimed
`
`invention was “known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in
`
`a printed publication in this or another country, before the invention thereof by the
`
`applicant for patent.”
`
`36. A claim is unpatentable as anticipated under § 102(b) if the claimed
`
`invention was “patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the
`
`date of the application for patent in the United States.”
`
`37. A claim is unpatentable as anticipated under § 102(e) if “the invention
`
`was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or
`
`(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United
`
`States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international
`
`application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for
`
`the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if
`
`the international application designated the United States and was published under
`
`Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness
`38.
`I understand that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, “[a] patent for a claimed
`
`invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
`
`identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention
`
`pertains.” When considering the issues of obviousness, I understand that I am to
`
`do the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`39. Obviousness is a determination of law based on underlying
`
`determinations of fact. These factual determinations include the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art, the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art, and secondary considerations of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
`40. With respect to secondary indicia of non-obviousness, I have been
`
`informed that such evidence may include the following:
`
`a. Commercial success: It is my understanding that a strong showing of
`
`commercial success that can be attributed to the merits of the
`
`invention should be considered an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`b. Copying: It is my understanding that evidence that an accused party
`
`copied the patented invention, as opposed to a prior art device, is an
`
`indication of non-obviousness.
`
`c. Long-standing problem or need: It is my understanding that evidence
`
`of a persistent problem or need in the art that was resolved by the
`
`patented invention is an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`d. Prior failure: It is my understanding that evidence that others have
`
`tried and failed to solve the problem or provide the need resolved by
`
`the claimed invention is an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`e. Commercial acquiescence of competitors: It is my understanding that
`
`the willingness of industry to license the patent at issue is an
`
`indication of non-obviousness, though consideration must be given to
`
`distinguishing respect for the invention from a desire to avoid
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398
`
`
`
`f. Skepticism: It is my understanding that evidence that those of
`
`ordinary skill were skeptical as to the merits of the invention, or even
`
`taught away from the invention, are indications of non-obviousness.
`
`g. Independent development: It is my understanding that evidence that
`
`others developed the claimed invention about the same time is an
`
`indication of obviousness. In contrast, their failure to do so, it
`
`follows, would be an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`h. Prior litigation: It is my understanding that prior litigation may
`
`support an inference of commercial success or copying.
`
`i. Unexpected results: It is my understanding that evidence that those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art were surprised by the capabilities of the
`
`claimed invention is an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`41.
`
`It is my understanding that any assertion of the above indicia must be
`
`accompanied by a nexus between the merits of the invention and the evidence
`
`offered.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that a reference may be combined with other references
`
`to disclose each element of the invention under § 103. I understand that a
`
`reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, and that this knowledge may be used to combine multiple references. I
`
`further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know the
`
`
`
`22
`
`Samsung Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`Almeroth Declaration Concerning U.S. Pa