`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00031
`Patent 6,771,290
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CORY PLOCK IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Cory Plock, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`PERSONAL BACKGROUND
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration,
`
`am of legal age, and am otherwise competent to testify.
`
`2. My name is Cory Plock. I have been retained as a consultant by
`
`Freitas Angell and Weinberg LLP on behalf of B.E. Technology, L.L.C. to provide
`
`professional opinions in the Inter Partes Review of United States Patent 6,771,290
`
`(“the ’290 patent”) initiated by petitioner Google Inc. Specifically, I have been
`
`asked to provide my opinion on whether U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (the “’290
`
`patent”) is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by WO 97/09682
`
`to Kikinis (“Kikinis”).
`
`3.
`
`I have approximately nineteen (19) years of software engineering and
`
`software development background in both academic and commercial settings.
`
`Over the years, I have participated in the design, development, testing,
`
`deployment, support, and ongoing maintenance of software projects of various
`
`sizes across several industries.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of my extensive experience and work in both academia and
`
`industry, I have personal knowledge concerning certain technologies and art
`
`relevant to this case. I currently serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of
`
`Prolifogy Inc., a software technology firm based in Danbury, Connecticut. The
`
`- 2 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`primary functions of the business are software consulting and software
`
`development. Most of my current software development work has involved my
`
`personal hands-on involvement with web based software technology.
`
`5. My academic background is primarily in the field of computer
`
`science. I hold a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in computer science from Western
`
`Connecticut State University, where I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I also hold a
`
`Master of Science (MS) degree in computer science from Rensselaer Polytechnic
`
`Institute. I also hold a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in computer science
`
`from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. My
`
`area of research study includes formal requirements languages, embedded systems,
`
`and synthesis of executable code from requirements.
`
`6. My academic background in computer science includes, among other
`
`things, coursework and hands-on experience with programming languages,
`
`computer architecture, software engineering, assembly programming, operating
`
`systems, compilers, and programming languages such as Java, PHP, and C#.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor at New York University
`
`where I teach graduate courses in programming languages and web application
`
`development.
`
`8.
`
`I served as a full-time consultant to Microsoft Research Ltd. for
`
`approximately two (2) years, where I worked with researchers and programmers to
`
`- 3 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`design and implement a software framework known as an execution engine for a
`
`publically available research tool used in biological modeling.
`
`9.
`
`I was employed as a Specialist and then later as a consultant for the
`
`Information Technology (IT) department of PepsiCo Inc. I was also employed at
`
`various times by Boehringer Ingelheim and Yoh Scientific in the capacities of
`
`intern, employee, and consultant, where I worked with web technology.
`
`10.
`
`I have also served as a Teaching Assistant for several undergraduate
`
`and graduate courses including Programming Languages, UNIX Tools, and
`
`Machine Learning at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and New York University. I
`
`have received recognition by the New York University Computer Science
`
`department for my work as a teaching assistant.
`
`11.
`
`I have additionally served as a Research Assistant at various times
`
`throughout my course of study at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and New York
`
`University. Topics of research have included a programming concept known as
`
`garbage collection, machine learning, software modeling, verification, and
`
`synthesis.
`
`12. My education, history of employment, listing of all publications,
`
`listing of all prior testimony, and additional qualifications are set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached to this report. Filed herewith as Exhibit 2002 is a true
`
`and correct copy of my curriculum vitae.
`
`- 4 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $495.00 per hour for
`
`all work I perform in the current matter, including reasonable out-of-pocket
`
`expenses. The compensation is not dependent on the outcome of the matter.
`
`14. The opinions I provide herein are my own, and are based on my
`
`research in this matter and on the education, experience, training, and skill that I
`
`have accumulated in the course of my approximately nineteen (19) years working
`
`in this field. In connection with my analysis, I have reviewed the following: (1)
`
`the ’290 patent (Ex. 1001), (2) Google’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper
`
`1), (3) the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 9), and (4) Kikinis (Ex. 1002). I
`
`have also read the declaration and deposition testimony of Mr. Stephen Gray. (Exs.
`
`1004 and 2003.)
`
`15. All of the opinions I express in this declaration have been made from
`
`the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the
`
`’290 patent. It is my opinion that at the time the ’290 patent application was filed,
`
`July 16, 1999, a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereafter, “POSITA”) in the
`
`subject matter of the ’290 patent would have education and/or experience with the
`
`World Wide Web, Common Gateway Interface (CGI), server side programming
`
`languages, databases, networking, and client/server architecture. The education
`
`component could be satisfied with a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or
`
`related field such as computer engineering) or at least two (2) years of industry
`
`- 5 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`experience in web development.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that, from a patentability perspective, a proper analysis
`
`compares the claims of the patent to the teachings of the alleged prior art reference.
`
`A discussion of the relevant sections of the references based on my analysis
`
`appears below.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless the
`
`inventor sets forth special meaning to a term.
`
`II. OPINIONS
`18.
`I have been asked by counsel to provide expert opinions on certain
`
`topics and questions presented below.
`
`A. Claim 2 of ’290 patent.
`1.
`“A program stored on said non-volatile data storage
`device;” wherein “said program further being operable in
`response to selection by a user of one of the user links to
`access the file associated with the selected user link.”
`
`19.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’290 patent claims, in part, “a non-volatile data storage
`
`device;” “a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device in a computer-
`
`readable format;” “said program being operable upon execution to receive from
`
`server one of the user profiles and to display a user-selectable item for user links
`
`contained within the user profile, said program further being operable in response
`
`to selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file associated with the
`
`- 6 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`selected user link from the user library associated with the received user profile.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`20.
`
`A POSITA would not understand that Kikinis discloses “a program
`
`stored on said non-volatile data storage device” that is “operable in response to
`
`selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file associated with the
`
`selected user link from the user library.” Kikinis utilizes remotely stored programs
`
`to access data bases—not the program stored on “said non-volatile data storage
`
`device.” Ex. 1002, Col. 7:11-16 (“A path is provided from Web server 67 to data
`
`bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 by means of software links programmed into a client’s
`
`home page. Each link uses a common gateway interface (CGI) to translate HTML
`
`into a particular data base language. Shown in Fig. 2 are CGIs 77, 78, 80, and 82
`
`leading to programs 79, 81, 85, and 87, which in turn access data bases 89, 91, 93,
`
`and 95 respectively.”).
`
`21. My opinion is confirmed by Google’s contention that “the program”
`
`claimed in claim 2 is a web browser. See Petition at 18 (“Kikinis describes a web
`
`browser 109 that provides access to web server 67.”). A POSITA would not
`
`understand the “program” disclosed in the ’290 patent to be a “web browser and
`
`PPP or SLIP communication software” because a web browser and PPP or SLIP
`
`communication software cannot access files without the additional programs on the
`
`web server described in Kikinis. A POSITA would understand that a web browser
`
`- 7 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`makes requests to a web server and receives responses from the web server, the
`
`contents of which are subsequently displayed in the browser window to the user.
`
`A POSITA would also understand that a web browser cannot “access [a] file”
`
`without the web server, since the web server must execute programs to download
`
`the file to the browser, or otherwise format and render the file in a format suitable
`
`for display on the web browser.
`
`22.
`
`As depicted in Figure 2 of Kikinis, the web server communicates with
`
`various programs using a technology known as the Common Gateway Interface
`
`(“CGI”). With CGI, the web browser sends a request for a resource, to which the
`
`web server responds by executing a program. The program, once executing, may
`
`perform various computations and access system resources, such as databases. The
`
`program then sends output, which the web server forwards back to the browser in
`
`the response. This cycle repeats for each individual request. A POSITA would
`
`therefore know that CGI is a server-side technology in which programs reside and
`
`execute on the web server—not the client computer.
`
`2.
`
`“[S]aid program further being operable in response to
`selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file
`associated with the selected user link from the user library
`associated with the received user profile.”
`
`23.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’290 patent claims “said program being operable upon
`
`execution to receive from server one of the user profiles and to display a user-
`
`selectable item for user links contained within the user profiles, said program
`
`- 8 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`further being operable in response to selection by a user of one of the user links to
`
`access the file associated with the selected user link from the user library
`
`associated with the received user profile.” Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`24.
`
`Google contends that Kikinis teaches this claim limitation. I disagree.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would not understand Kikinis to teach these claim
`
`elements of claim 2 because the claim requires a “file associated with [a] selected
`
`user link.” Ex. 1001, Col. 40:8. Kikinis discloses, at most, user links associated
`
`with databases. Ex. 1002, Col. 6:35-7:4 (A single data base of set 71 includes a
`
`home page 73, individualized to a specific client, that provides software links to
`
`various lower-order data bases maintained by electronic document server 69.
`
`Examples of such lower-order data bases are an e-mail data base 89, a fax data
`
`base 91, a voice mail data base 93, and other electronic documents in data base
`
`95.”).
`
`25.
`
`A POSITA would understand that “data bases” are not synonymous
`
`with “files.” A “file” is defined in the ’290 patent as “[a]ny digital item, including
`
`information, documents, applications, audio/video components, and the like, that
`
`are stored in memory and are accessible via a file allocation table or other pointing
`
`or indexing structure.” Ex. 1001, Col. 4:25-28. A database, on the other hand, is
`
`understood by a POSITA as a storage system with a means of organizing data and
`
`a means of inserting, removing, or updating data, typically with a query language
`
`- 9 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`such as SQL. In the context of the Kikinis invention, which could potentially serve
`
`tens of thousands of simultaneous users, such a database would also likely have
`
`standard features such as transaction processing, which permit multiple clients to
`
`query the database simultaneously in an isolated and consistent manner. Files have
`
`no such mechanisms.
`
`26.
`
`Although “files” can be programs, the programs disclosed in Kikinis
`
`are not stored in a user library. In addition, the Kikinis programs are not a
`
`specified individual user’s program. The Kikinis programs operate to the benefit
`
`of all users.
`
`“User profile.”
`
`3.
`Claim 2 of the ’290 patent claims a “user profile.” Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`27.
`
`The ’290 patent defines “profile” as “[u]ser-specific information relating to an
`
`individual using a computer.” Ex. 1001, Col. 4:52-53. Google contends that the
`
`home page shown in Kikinis discloses a “user profile.” I disagree. In my opinion,
`
`a POSITA would not understand that the home page disclosed in Kikinis is a “user
`
`profile.”
`
`28.
`
`There is no indication of “user specific information” within the
`
`Kikinis home page. Figure 3 shows an embodiment of the home page.
`
`- 10 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002, Fig. 3. Figure 3 contains the phrases “Web Browser,” “Home Page,”
`
`“ABC,” “XYZ,” “V-Mail,” “E-Mail,” “FAX-Mail,” and “Other E-DOX.” None of
`
`these terms indicate to a POSITA that the home page itself contains “user-specific
`
`information relating to an individual using a computer.” Kikinis does not describe
`
`the home page in a manner that would provide any information to a POSITA about
`
`the content of the home page or the presence of any user-specific information.
`
`And while Kikinis states that the home page is “individualized to a specific client,”
`
`there is not disclosure sufficient to inform a POSITA that information contained
`
`within the home page is “user-specific information relating to an individual using a
`
`computer.”
`
`29.
`
`I understand that it may be asserted that because the home page
`
`contains buttons that link through CGI and software programs to the lower-order
`
`data bases that contain electronic documents “‘specifically-addressed’ to the user,”
`
`- 11 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 11
`
`
`
`the home page is a user profile. It is my opinion that a POSITA would not
`
`consider these software links to be “user-specific information relating to an
`
`individual using a computer,” because they are links to software that are utilized by
`
`all users of the Kikinis system. The software applications that permit access to
`
`lower-order databases do not exist for only one user, nor are they used exclusively
`
`by any one particular user. These programs are server-side software that may be
`
`accessed by any number of users of the Kikinis system who seek to obtain access
`
`to the lower-order data bases. For this reasons, a POSITA would not understand
`
`the home page disclosed in Kikinis as containing “user-specific information
`
`relating to an individual using a computer.”
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 9, 2014 in
`
`Danbury, CT.
`
`
`
`Cory Plock
`
`-12-
`BE. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 12
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that copies of the DECLARATION OF DR. CORY PLOCK
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION have
`
`been served on Petitioner as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) via electronic mail
`
`transmission addressed to the persons at the address below:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott M. Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`Date: July 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 13
`
`
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
