`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00044
`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 Samsung Electronics America, 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) Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper
`
`1), (3) the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 11), and (4) Kikinis (Ex. 1007). I
`
`have also read the declaration and deposition testimony of Dr. John M. Strawn.
`
`(Exs. 1005 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. 1007, 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 Samsung’s contention that “the program”
`
`claimed in claim 2 is a web browser. See Petition at 13 (“The browser (e.g. 65 and
`
`109) is the program.”). A POSITA would not understand the “program” disclosed
`
`in the ’290 patent to be a “web browser” because a web browser cannot access files
`
`without the additional programs on the web server described in Kikinis. A
`
`POSITA would understand that a web browser makes requests to a web server and
`
`receives responses from the web server, the contents of which are subsequently
`
`- 7 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`- 8 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the received user profile.” Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`24.
`
`Samsung 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. 1007, 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
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Samsung 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. 1007, 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 Samsung contends 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. Ex. 2003 at 72: 15-7324.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`-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
`
`