Patent No. 8,050,652
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Black Hills Media, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,050,652
`Issue Date: November 1, 2011
`Title: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR AN
`INTERNET RADIO CAPABLE OF OBTAINING
`PLAYLIST CONTENT FROM A CONTENT SERVER
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF V. MICHAEL BOVE, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`

`

`I, V. Michael Bove, Jr., make this declaration in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Yamaha Corporation of
`
`America (“Yamaha”) as a technical expert in connection with the proceeding
`
`identified above. I submit this declaration in support of Yamaha’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,050,652 (“the '652 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being paid at an hourly rate for my work on this matter. I
`
`have no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am employed as a Principal Research Scientist at the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I am also currently head of the
`
`Object-Based Media group at the Media Laboratory, co-director of the Center for
`
`Future Storytelling, and co-director of the consumer electronics working group
`
`CE2.0. I was also co-founder of and technical advisor to WatchPoint Media, Inc.,
`
`an interactive television products and services company with offices in Lexington,
`
`Massachusetts and London, England, which is now part of Ericsson. I currently
`
`serve as technical advisor to One Laptop Per Child, creators of an inexpensive
`
`laptop computer for children in developing nations.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I hold an S.B. in Electrical Engineering, an S.M. in Visual
`
`Studies, and a Ph.D. in Media Technology, all from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology. I have authored over ninety journal and conference papers on
`
`distributed media, interactive media, and digital media. I have supervised over
`
`fifty graduate theses, and since 1990 have taught a graduate subject at MIT called
`
`Signals, Systems, and Information for Media Technology. I am a Fellow of the
`
`Society of Photo-Instrumentation Engineers, a member of the Board of Editors of
`
`the Journal of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, and a
`
`member of a number of other professional organizations including the Optical
`
`Society of America, the Association for Computing Machinery, and the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronic Engineers. I am a named inventor on seventeen U.S.
`
`patents. I served as General Chair of the 1996 ACM Multimedia Conference and
`
`of the 2006 IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference
`
`(CCNC’06). Attached as Appendix A is a copy of my curriculum vitae.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things,
`
`the following materials: (a) the '652 patent and its prosecution history;
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 6,587,127 (“Leeke”); (c) PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US99/01001 (“Qureshey”); (d) U.S. Patent No. 6,502,194 (“Berman”); (e)
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`

`

`reference material relating to the Lansonic DAS-750 (“Lansonic”); and (f) the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the '652 patent to which my declaration relates.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`6.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed
`
`from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and that during inter partes review, claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
`
`7.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter
`
`of a patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the
`
`claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that the
`
`framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness. I understand that the claimed
`
`subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for
`
`example, it results from the combination of known elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to improve
`
`
`
`3
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`

`

`similar devices in the same way or applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results. I have also been informed that
`
`the analysis of obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment and common
`
`sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the art that does not necessarily
`
`require explication in any reference.
`
`8.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to
`
`the '652 patent would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or
`
`electrical engineering, and at least one year of practical experience with networked
`
`multimedia.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed that the relevant date for considering the
`
`patentability of the claims of the '652 patent is November of 2000. Based on my
`
`education and experience in the fields of networked digital media and consumer
`
`electronics, I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in 2000 would have interpreted and understood the '652 patent and
`
`the prior art discussed below.
`
`V. THE '652 PATENT
`
`10.
`
`The claims of the '652 patent are directed to a system and method
`
`for a networked electronic device that receives and plays digital audio from
`
`sources including Internet radio and a content source with a playlist. The device
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`

`

`receives information enabling the device to obtain the songs in the playlist from a
`
`remote source and then plays the songs.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on two claim terms:
`
`“playlist assigned to the electronic device” and “wherein ones of the plurality of
`
`songs are not stored on the electronic device,” by discussing what one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the patent filing would regard as their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In each case my
`
`opinion agrees with the position taken in Yamaha’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review.
`
`A.
`
`12.
`
`“playlist assigned to the electronic device”
`
`The term “playlist assigned to the electronic device” appears in
`
`independent claims 1, 21, and 42.
`
`13.
`
`My opinion is that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand “playlist assigned to the electronic device” to be a list of songs that is to
`
`be transferred to a particular device selected by the user.
`
`14.
`
`First, the normal grammatical reading of “assigned to” in my
`
`opinion refers to a designation of something to a particular entity, such as for
`
`example assignment of a project to a particular person. This normal understanding
`
`is consistent with the written description contained in the '652 patent. Discussion
`
`
`
`5
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`

`

`of the assignment of playlists to devices occurs in a number of places, including,
`
`but not limited to, 4:50-5:3, 21:40-23:5, 24:44-60, and 28:11-30:26. The process is
`
`also illustrated in FIG. 17C (specifically, elements 1761 and 1762), and FIGS. 19B
`
`and 19C1 (element 1906). In each of these places, the assignment is initiated by
`
`the user, and is made to a specific user-selected device. It is notable that the menu
`
`selection in FIG. 17C and discussed in 24:50-53 is “Make Available On,”
`
`designating a particular device to which the playlist will become available, rather
`
`than simply “Make Available,” “Export,” or some equivalent non-directed
`
`language.
`
`B.
`
`15.
`
`“wherein ones of the plurality of songs are not stored on the
`electronic device”
`
`Independent claims 1, 21, and 42 contain the term “wherein ones
`
`of the plurality of songs are not stored on the electronic device.”
`
`16.
`
`It is my opinion that this claim limitation simply describes a
`
`situation in which the storage in the electronic device does not already contain all
`
`the songs in the playlist at the time that the playlist is received. It implies by its
`
`language that the device contains memory that can store songs and excludes a
`
`situation in which the device does not contain local storage for songs. Otherwise,
`
`the statement that ones of the songs are not stored on the device becomes a
`
`tautology. If the device has no memory for storing songs it is of course a fact that
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`

`

`not only “ones,” but rather all songs in every instance will not be stored on the
`
`device. In my opinion such reading does not make sense, when considered in
`
`connection with the '652 specification.
`
`17.
`
`While the “Summary of the Invention” section beginning at 3:57
`
`briefly describes two possible implementations that do not contain enough song
`
`storage to hold all the songs on the playlist, in my opinion these are not relevant to
`
`any assignment of a playlist to a device, as recited in claims 1, 21, and 42. More
`
`specifically, one implementation is storage-less: “the network-enabled audio
`
`device comprises speakers, an AC power line, and a network line,” (3:61-62)
`
`which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as a networked remote
`
`output for another music player, not itself a device to which a playlist could be
`
`assigned. The other implementation in that discussion (two sentences beginning at
`
`4:4-9) has a limited amount of memory: “In one embodiment, the network-enabled
`
`audio device does not have any storage space other than memory. This
`
`embodiment provides for a low-cost system that can play songs from playlists
`
`stored on the IPAN Manager or on the PC’s storage space without having to store
`
`the audio files locally.” I understand this implementation to be a variation of the
`
`previous one with the addition of a small amount of buffer memory; again, the
`
`playlist is not “assigned” to the device but instead resides on another device which
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`

`

`simply uses this device for output. Therefore, I believe that these isolated
`
`statements have nothing to do with assigning playlists.
`
`18.
`
`In contrast, other parts of the '652 patent specification include
`
`extensive discussion of assignment of playlists and, in those discussions, the
`
`devices to which playlists are assigned need to have enough memory to store the
`
`playlists and songs. Discussion in the specification of assigning playlists to
`
`“network-enabled audio devices” (21:40-22:15) describes devices to which
`
`playlists can be assigned as, “[e]ach network-enabled audio device 1510 has a
`
`storage space 1512 for network-enabled audio device IPAN software 1526, a
`
`playlist 1528, and associated URL’s and songs within the playlist. Similarly, each
`
`network-enabled audio device 1520 has a storage space 1522 for network-enabled
`
`audio device IPAN software 1526, a playlist 1528, and associated URL’s and
`
`songs within the playlist.” The detailed discussion at 22:36-58, 24:44-25:2 and
`
`28:11-30:26 is similar. Thus devices to which playlists are assigned need to have
`
`enough memory to store the playlists and songs.
`
`VII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`
`A. Leeke
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked as to my opinion as to whether claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
`
`7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 53, 55,
`
`and 56 of the '652 patent would have been obvious to one of skill in the art in light
`
`
`
`8
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`

`

`of the Leeke reference, if the claim term “playlist assigned to the electronic device”
`
`is construed as requiring user selection of a specific device (as discussed in Section
`
`VI above). Initially, it is my opinion that each of the elements of these claims are
`
`disclosed in Leeke as set forth in the claim chart contained in the '652 petition
`
`under a broad construction of this term and the claims are anticipated under such
`
`construction. Under the narrower construction, it is my opinion that the claims
`
`would have been obvious in view of Leeke.
`
`20.
`
`In conjunction with this issue, I note that the Leeke reference
`
`states at 20:35-42 that playlists can be transferred between users and to plural
`
`access points of one user. In my opinion, in view of this disclosure it would have
`
`been obvious that a playlist can be assigned to a device by making a selection of a
`
`specific device. This is especially so in view of the disclosure of virtual smart
`
`cards and the statement that playlists can reside on the storage device of the server
`
`as indicated at 17:23-33.
`
`B. Qureshey In Combination With Berman
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked as to my opinion regarding whether it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the audio-on-
`
`demand aspect of the Berman reference with the system disclosed in the Qureshey
`
`reference. I do so find.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`

`

`22.
`
`Both these references relate to the field of consumer electronics
`
`products, and both describe networked home audio devices that obtain audio from
`
`remote sources via the Internet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that the same network interface could be used for connecting to audio-
`
`on-demand as well as Internet radio services (this would indeed be the case around
`
`the time of the alleged invention whereby a PC could access both services through
`
`a Web browser) and that the changes needed to add audio-on-demand to an
`
`Internet radio receiver (or Internet radio functionality to an audio-on-demand
`
`player) would, for the most part, only involve modifying the user interface
`
`software to allow selecting between the functions, and programming additional
`
`server addresses into the system.
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed the claim charts in the '652 petition and it is my
`
`opinion that each of the elements of the claims are disclosed in Qureshey and
`
`Berman as set forth in the charts. In view of this and my opinion in paragraph 21
`
`regarding the obviousness of combining the features of Qureshey and Berman, it is
`
`my opinion that claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 21, 22, 24-29, 31, 42-45, 47-50, and 52
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`C. Qureshey In Combination With Berman And Leeke
`
`24.
`
`I have reviewed the claim charts in the '652 petition with respect
`
`to claims 11, 32, and 53 and it is my opinion that each of the elements of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`

`

`claims are disclosed in Qureshey and Berman as set forth in the charts. In view of
`
`this and my opinion in paragraph 21 regarding the obviousness of combining the
`
`features of Qureshey and Berman, it is my opinion that claims 11, 32, and 53
`
`would have been obvious in view Qureshey and Berman in view of Leeke. Leeke
`
`discloses the provision of supplemental information in response to a request. In
`
`my opinion it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
`
`supplemental information in Berman in response to a request, as such is simply
`
`applying a known technique to a known device.
`
`D. Lansonic
`
`25.
`
`I have been asked as to my opinion on whether claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
`
`7, 10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, and 52 of the '652 patent
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Lansonic if
`
`each Web page constitutes a single reference. As a preliminary matter, it is my
`
`opinion that all of the elements of the claims are disclosed in the Web pages as set
`
`forth in the claim charts in the '652 petition. If the multiple Web pages making up
`
`the Lansonic disclosure do not constitute a single reference, it is my opinion that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately understood that all the
`
`pages were describing features of a single device, and would have found it obvious
`
`to consider the multiple disclosed features as part of a single device that would
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`

`

`render claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47,
`
`48, and 52 obvious.
`
`26.
`
`I note that claims 1, 21, and 42 recite “receiv[ing] information
`
`from the central system enabling the electronic device to obtain the ones of the
`
`plurality of songs from at least one remote source.” I have been asked as to my
`
`opinion as to Lansonic on whether, when playing songs stored on a remote device
`
`by selecting a playlist, the selected playlist contains information enabling the
`
`device to obtain the songs from the remote source. It is my opinion that in order
`
`for the device to play songs on a playlist that are stored on a remote device, the
`
`playlist necessarily has information enabling the device to obtain the songs from
`
`the remote source. If such information were not there, the device would not be
`
`able to obtain the remotely stored songs. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that such information would be present in Lansonic.
`
`27.
`
`I have further been asked to address the wireless remote control of
`
`claims 8, 26, and 49. Claims 8 and 26 depend from claims 1 and 21, respectively,
`
`and require that the networked audio device “receive input from a wireless remote
`
`control having a navigation shuttle,” while claim 49 depends from claim 42 and
`
`requires “receiving input from a wireless remote control that enables navigating the
`
`playlist.” I note first that the idea of using a remote control to navigate through a
`
`list of songs was well-known at the time of the alleged invention, having been in
`
`
`
`12
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`

`

`use for many years in compact disc players. Moreover, it would be logical that the
`
`remote control would provide the same operability as the QuickSpin dial that is on
`
`the unit itself. Such operability includes navigation of playlists. It is therefore my
`
`opinion that claims 8, 26, and 49 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`E. White
`
`28.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1-4,
`
`6, 7, 13, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 34, 42-45, 47, and 48 would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 to White et al.
`
`(“White”). White discloses numerous embodiments that include various features.
`
`It is my opinion that each of the elements of the claims is disclosed in White as set
`
`forth in the claim chart contained in the '652 Petition. It is also my opinion that it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the features of the
`
`various embodiments could be implemented in a single device, as it is apparent
`
`that such features could be combined as deemed necessary or desirable. In view of
`
`this, it is my opinion that the above-identified claims would have been obvious in
`
`view of White.
`
`
`
`
`* * *
`
`13
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`

`

`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with knowledge that willful false statements and the
`
`like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001
`
`of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
` Dated: September 18, 2013
`
`V. Michael Bove, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Page 15
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`

`

`Last updated June 2013
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`School of Architecture and Planning Personnel Record
`Victor Michael Bove, Jr.
`Media Arts and Sciences Program
`
`Date of Birth
`23 December 1960
`
`Citizenship
`United States of America
`
`Education
`M.I.T., S.B. Electrical Engineering, June 1983
`M.I.T, S.M. Visual Studies, September 1985
`M.I.T., Ph.D. Media Technology, June 1989
`
`Title of Thesis for Most Advanced Degree
`V. M. Bove, Jr., Synthetic Movies Derived from Multi-Dimensional Image Sen-
`sors, Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T., June 1989.
`
`Principal Fields of Interest
`Applications of machine analysis to media-related applications (adding intel-
`ligence to live interpersonal communications and authored content), advanced
`user interfaces for consumer electronics, novel imaging hardware (in particular
`holographic television)
`
`Non-M.I.T. Experience
`R.C.A. Microcomputer Products Division, Summer Student Employee, May
`1980-Aug. 1980
`Co-Founder and Technical Advisor, WatchPoint Media, Inc., 1999-2003
`
`History of M.I.T. Appointments
`Technical Assistant, May 1983-Sept. 1983
`Graduate Research Assistant, Sept. 1983-April 1989
`Postdoctoral Research Associate, April 1989-July 1989
`Assistant Professor of Media Technology, July 1989-July 1993
`Associate Professor of Media Technology, July 1993-July 1997
`
`1
`
`Declaration of V.M. Bove Appendix A Page 1
`
`

`

`Principal Research Scientist, MIT Media Laboratory, July 1997-present
`
`Consulting Record
`Aware, Inc., July-Sept. 1991
`Bell Northern Research, August 1991, August-Sept. 1995
`Plaza Investment Managers, Inc., July-August 1992
`World Book Publishing (encyclopedia revisions), March 1993
`Van Nostrand Reinhold (book manuscript reviewing), April 1994-present
`Analog Devices, Inc., July-August 1994
`Blackside Productions, Inc. (consultant for the TV series “Breakthrough: Peo-
`ple of Color in American Science”), October-December 1994
`Axiom Venture Partners, Nov. 1995-March 1996
`Data Translation Inc./Kenyon and Kenyon (consultant on patent case), March
`1996
`Naval Undersea Warfare Center, June 1996
`Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Sept. 1996-Sept. 1997
`Artech House Publishers (book manuscript reviewing), 1996-2002
`Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (proposal evaluator), Feb. 1997-present
`Hughes Electronics (expert witness before International Trade Commission),
`Feb. 1997-July 1997
`Mercury Computer, May 1997
`Thomson Consumer Electronics (expert witness before International Trade Com-
`mission), June 1997-August 1998
`Swedish Research Council for Engineering Sciences (proposal evaluator), Au-
`gust 1997
`Texas Instruments, 1998-2003
`Cirrus Logic, Inc., Dec. 1998-Jan. 2000
`Ezenia!, Inc., Jan. 1999-Aug. 2000
`Thomson Consumer Electronics (expert witness), Nov. 2000-Feb. 2002; 2007-
`2008.
`Intel, Jan. 2001-April 2001
`Bain and Co., Jan. 2001-April 2001
`DirecTV, Inc. (expert witness), 2002-2009
`DRTV Systems Ltd., April 2002
`Pause Technology (expert witness), 2003
`Polycom (expert witness), 2003
`Forney Corporation (expert witness), 2003-2005
`
`2
`
`Declaration of V.M. Bove Appendix A Page 2
`
`

`

`IPIX Corp. (expert witness), 2005
`Motorola, Inc. (expert witness), 2006-2008, 2011-present
`Scientific Atlanta (expert witness), 2006-2008
`Technical Advisor, One Laptop Per Child, 2006-present
`Technical Advisor, TDVision Systems, 2006-present
`Eastman Kodak (expert witness), February 2007-January 2008
`EchoStar (expert witness), 2007-2008
`Funai (expert witness), 2007-2010
`Kyocera Sanyo Telecom and Palm, Inc. (expert witness) 2009-2010
`Thomson Licensing, 2010
`Research in Motion, Ltd. (expert witness), 2011-present
`Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment (expert witness), 2011-2012
`HTC, (expert witness), 2011-present
`
`Department and Institute Committees, Other Assigned Duties
`School of Architecture and Planning Committee on Academic Computing Needs,
`1989-1990
`Freshman advisor and seminar leader, 1990-present
`The Tech advisory board, 1991-present
`Independent Activities Period Policy Committee, 1991-1994, 1995-1997
`Media Arts & Sciences Program IAP Coordinator, 1992-present
`Media Arts & Sciences Departmental Committee on Graduate Students, 1994-
`1997, 2005-2006 (acting head, spring semester 1996)
`Committee on the Undergraduate Program Subcommittee on Freshman Advis-
`ing, 1998-1999
`Media Arts & Sciences Undergraduate Officer, 1996-present
`Founder and Director, Media Arts& Sciences Freshman Program, 1999-present
`
`Government and Other Committees, Service, etc.
`Committee on Open High-Resolution Systems, 1990-1991
`Federal Communications Commission Advisory Committee on Advanced Tele-
`vision Service, Planning Subcommittee Working Party 4, 1992
`Local Arrangements Chair, IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Com-
`puting and Systems, 1994
`Conference Co-Chair, SPIE Conference on Integration Issues in Large Commer-
`cial Media Delivery Systems, 1995, 1996
`Board of Editors, SMPTE Journal, 1995-present
`
`3
`
`Declaration of V.M. Bove Appendix A Page 3
`
`

`

`Conference Co-Chair, SPIE Conference on Reconfigurable Technology for Rapid
`Product Development and Computing, 1996
`General Chair, ACM Multimedia Conference, 1996
`Organizer, Objects of Communication Symposium, 1996
`Conference Co-Chair, SPIE Conference on Multimedia Networks and Applica-
`tions, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
`Conference Co-Chair, SPIE Conference on Media Processors, 1999, 2000, 2001,
`2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
`Manuscript reviewer for six journals and three book publishers
`Associate Editor, Optical Engineering, 2004-present
`ARDA Exploratory Program Executive Committee member, 2004-2006
`Technical Advisory Panel, Council for Research Excellence, 2005-present
`General Chair, IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference
`2006
`Emmy Advanced Media Committee, National Academy of Television Arts and
`Sciences, 2006-present
`Board of Governors, National Academy of Media Arts and Sciences, 2007-
`present
`Conference co-chair, SPIE Practical Holography conference, 2011, 2012, 2013
`Conference co-chair, International Symposium on Display Holography, 2012
`Co-Chair, Optical Society of America 3D Display Technology, Perception, and
`Application Incubator Meeting, 2012
`
`Awards Received
`I.B.M. Communications Doctoral Fellowship, 1986 and 1987
`Sony Corporation Career Development Professorship, 1991-1995
`IEEE ASIC ’93 (Conference on Application Specific Integrated Circuits) Speaker’s
`Award, 1993
`IEEE Computer Society Certificate of Appreciation, 1994
`Alex W. Dreyfoos, Jr. Career Development Professorship, 1995-1997
`Marquis Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, 1996-1997; Who’s Who in the
`East, 1997, 1998; Who’s Who in Entertainment, 1997; Who’s Who in America,
`2001
`ACM Recognition of Service Award, 1997
`Distinguished Alumnus Award, John Piersol McCaskey High School, Lancaster
`PA, 1997
`Fellow, IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Austin, 2001
`Fellow, SPIE, 2002
`
`4
`
`Declaration of V.M. Bove Appendix A Page 4
`
`

`

`INDEX: Design to Improve Life Award (as member of team that designed OLPC
`XO laptop), 2007
`Effie Award (bronze) for work on Sprite Slam Dunk Competition, 2013
`
`Current Organization Membership
`American Institute of Physics
`Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
`Optical Society of America (OSA)
`Society of Photo-Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) (Fellow, 2002-present; As-
`sociate Editor, Optical Engineering, 2004-2011)
`Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) (Manager, New
`England Section, 1993-1995; Board of Editors, 1995-present)
`
`Patents
`1. U.S. Patent 4,673,981, “Unrecordable Video Signals,” (co-inventors Andrew
`Lippman and Jerome Wiesner)
`2. U.S. Patent 5,185,852, “Antialiasing Apparatus and Method for Computer
`Printers,” (co-inventor Christopher Mayer)
`3. U.S. Patent 5,946,425, “Method and Apparatus for Automatic Alignment of
`Volumetric Images Containing Common Subject Matter,” (co-inventor Tamas
`Sandor)
`4. U.S. Patent 6,022,648, “Bistable, Thermochromic Recording Materials for
`Rendering Color and Gray Scale,” (co-inventor Joseph Jacobson).
`5. U.S. Patent 6,642,940, “Management of Properties for Hyperlinked Video,”
`(co-inventors Edmond Chalom, Jonathan Dakss, and Nuno Vasconcelos).
`6. U.S. Patent 6,816,628, “Methods for Outlining and Filling Regions in Multi-
`Dimensional Arrays,” (co-inventors Karen Sarachik, Jonathan Dakss, and Joshua
`Wachman).
`7. U.S. Patent 6,879,720, “Methods for Outlining and Filling Regions in Multi-
`Dimensional Arrays,” (co-inventors Karen Sarachik, Jonathan Dakss, and Joshua
`Wachman).
`8. U.S. Patent 6,944,228, “Method and Apparatus for Encoding Video Hyper-
`links,” (co-inventors Jonathan Dakss and Daniel Katcher).
`9. U.S. Patent 6,978,053, “Single-Pass Multilevel Methods for Applying Mor-
`phological Operators in Multiple Dimensions,” (2 co-inventors).
`10. U.S. Patent 7,117,517, “Method and Apparatus for Generating Data Struc-
`tures for a Hyperlinked Television Broadcast,” (4 co-inventors).
`11. U.S. Patent 7,120,924, “Method and Apparatus for Receiving a Hyperlinked
`
`5
`
`Declaration of V.M. Bove Appendix A Page 5
`
`

`

`Television Broadcast,” (5 co-inventors).
`12. U.S. Patent 7,249,367, “Method and Apparatus for Switching Between
`Multiple Programs by Interacting with a Hyperlinked Television Broadcast,” (3
`co-inventors).
`13. U.S. Patent 7,367,042, “Method and Apparatus for Hyperlinking in a Tele-
`vision Broadcast,” (6 co-inventors).
`14. U.S. Patent 7,636,365, “Smart Digital Modules and Smart Digital Wall Sur-
`faces Combining the Same,” (3 co-inventors).
`15. U.S. Patent 8,010,986, “Synchronization and Automation in an ITV Envi-
`ronment,” (4 co-inventors).
`16. U.S. Patent 8,149,265, “Holographic Video Display System,” (3 co-inventors).
`17. U.S. Patent 8,356,329, “Method and Apparatus for Interaction with Hyper-
`links in a Television Broadcast,” (8 co-inventors).
`18. U.S. Patent applied for 2001, “Program Stream Switching in a Hyperlinked
`Video Broadcast,” (2 co-inventors).
`19. U.S. Patent applied for 2007, “Self-Refreshing Display Controller for a Dis-
`play Device in a Computational Unit,” (3 co-inventors).
`20. U.S. Patent applied for 2009, “Tangible Social Network,” (1 co-inventor).
`21. U.S. Patent applied for 2010, “Methods and Apparatus for Holographic
`Animation,” (2 co-inventors).
`22. U.S. Patent applied for 2012, “Methods and Apparatus for Accessing Pe-
`ripheral Content,” (2 co-inventors).
`23. U.S. Patent applied for 2013, “Force-Sensing Net,” (3 co-inventors).
`24. U.S. Patent applied for 2013, “Context-Aware Omnidirectional Projector,”
`(4 co-inventors).
`
`6
`
`Declaration of V.M. Bove Appendix A Page 6
`
`

`

`Teaching Experience of V. Michael Bove, Jr.
`
`FT89, 4.994, Media Arts and Sciences Doctoral Proseminar, taught unit on sig-
`nals and systems (3 weeks), 10 students
`ST90, 4.998, Digital Image Processing for Hard Copy, 12 students
`FT90, 4.890, Signals and Systems for Media Technology, one of four instructors,
`12 students
`FT90, 4A05 (freshman advising seminar), Case Studies in Visual Communica-
`tions, 9 students
`ST91, 4.964, Digital Image Processing for Hard Copy, 6 students
`FT91, 4.890, Signals and Systems for Media Technology, one of four instructors,
`12 students
`FT91, 4A05 (freshman advising seminar), Case Studies in Visual Communica-
`tions, 9 students
`ST92, 4.964, Digital Image Processing for Hard Copy, 9 students
`FT92, 4.890, Signals and Systems for Media Technology, one of two instructors,
`13 students
`FT92, 4A05 (freshman advising seminar), Case Studies in Visual Communica-
`tions, 8 students
`IAP93, “Ernie Kovacs”
`ST93, 4.964, Digital Image Processing for Hard Copy, 8 students
`FT93, MAS101/MAS510, Signals, Systems, and Information for Media Tech-
`nology, one of two instructors, 20 students
`FT93, MASA05 (freshman advising seminar), Case Studies in Visual Commu-
`nications, 8 students
`IAP94, “A Look Back at Colorization”
`ST94, MAS814, Digital Image Processing for Hard Copy, 8 students
`FT94, MASA05 (freshman advising seminar), Case Studies in Visual Commu-
`nications, 8 students
`FT94, MAS160