`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,702,682
`Issued: April 20, 2010
`Filed: November 14, 2005
`Inventor: Michael De Angelo
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00080
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p.
`
`

`

`1, Henry Houh, do hereby declare and state, 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 further that these statements were made with the
`
`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: October 23, 2013
`Henry Houh
`
`H60”?
`
`[LL 4
`
`Page ii
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. ii
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement .......................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ..................................................... 4
`D.
`Information Considered ........................................................................ 5
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ......................................... 6
`A. Anticipation .......................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8
`III. THE ’682 PATENT ...................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 15
`B.
`Terms Used in the Claims .................................................................. 15
`1.
`“container” ............................................................................... 16
`2.
`“register” and “container register” ........................................... 17
`3.
`“gateway” ................................................................................. 18
`IV. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-23 OF THE ’682
`PATENT ....................................................................................................... 19
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,195,654 (“Wachtel”) ........................ 19
`Comparison of Claims 1-23 of the ’682 Patent to Culliss ................. 39
`B.
`1.
`Overview of Culliss ................................................................. 39
`Comparison of Culliss to Claims 1-23 of the ’682 Patent ....... 56
`2.
`a.
`Claim 1, 19, 21 and 23. .................................................. 56
`b.
`Claims 18, 20, 22 ........................................................... 65
`c.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 72
`d.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 73
`e.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 75
`f.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 77
`g.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 78
`h.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 79
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p.
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Claim 8 ........................................................................... 79
`i.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 80
`j.
`Claim 10 ......................................................................... 81
`k.
`Claim 11 ......................................................................... 82
`l.
`Claim 12 ......................................................................... 83
`m.
`Claim 13 ......................................................................... 83
`n.
`Claim 14 ......................................................................... 84
`o.
`Claim 15 ......................................................................... 85
`p.
`Claim 16 ......................................................................... 86
`q.
`Claim 17 ......................................................................... 87
`r.
`Comparison of Claims 1-23 of the ’682 Patent to SavvySearch ........ 87
`1.
`Overview of SavvySearch ........................................................ 87
`2.
`Comparison of SavvySearch to Claims 1-23 of the ’682
`Patent ...................................................................................... 102
`a.
`Claim 1, 19, 21 and 23. ................................................ 102
`b.
`Claims 18, 20, 22 ......................................................... 112
`c.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 117
`d.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................... 119
`e.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................... 122
`f.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................... 123
`g.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................... 124
`h.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................... 125
`i.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................... 126
`j.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 128
`k.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................... 129
`l.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................... 129
`m.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 131
`n.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 132
`o.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................... 133
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p.
`
`

`

`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 135
`p.
`Claim 16 ....................................................................... 135
`q.
`Claim 17 ....................................................................... 137
`r.
`V. APPENDIX A: MATERIALS CONSIDERED BY HENRY HOUH ....... 138
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A:
`
`
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as an expert
`1.
`
`witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion about the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,702,682 (“the ’682 patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-23 of the ’682
`
`patent. The following is my written report on these topics.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`B.
`2. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1004.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1990, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1989.
`
`4.
`
`As further indicated in my C.V., I have worked in the electrical
`
`engineering and computer science fields, including web search and web server
`
`development, on several occasions. As part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`
`1991-1998, I worked as a research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems
`
`(TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high
`
`speed gigabit network and applications which ran over the network, such as remote
`
`video capture, processing, segmentation and search on computer terminals. In
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 1
`
`

`

`addition to helping design the core network components, designing and building
`
`the high speed links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface
`
`cards, I also set up the group’s web server, which at the time was one of the first
`
`several hundred web servers in existence.
`
`5.
`
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`6.
`
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server
`
`for the MIT Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It
`
`was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence, and went on to
`
`provide what was one of the first live Internet video initiated from a web site. I
`
`authored papers on our web server video system and on database-backed web sites
`
`for which I attended the first World Wide Web conference to present.
`
`7.
`
`From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 2
`
`

`

`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`
`No. 6,697,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`
`packets containing time sensitive data,” for some of the work I did there.
`
`8.
`
`Starting in 2001, I was architect for the next generation of web testing
`
`product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by Oracle
`
`Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-Test
`
`emulated a user's interaction with a web site and provided web developers with a
`
`method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing (e.g., did
`
`the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the web site
`
`handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix's customers
`
`was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing functionality of their
`
`web site as whether the web site could handle a large expected load prior to the
`
`filing deadline.
`
`9.
`
`Around 2006, I helped create a search engine for audio and video
`
`which could be searched based on spoken word content. Our system used speech
`
`recognition and natural language processing to create a search index of audio and
`
`video files posted publicly on the Internet. Today, at RAMP Inc., the project has
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 3
`
`

`

`grown to a product that is used by media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox,
`
`and Reuters.
`
`10. Around 2008-2009, while I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a
`
`venture backed company founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web
`
`site Monster.com, Eons launched an advertising network. Eons built a network of
`
`sites on which advertisements could be placed, fulfilled client advertisement
`
`purchases, and tracked delivery of clients’ advertisements. In addition, we utilized
`
`the Solr search platform in order to index the millions of items of content added by
`
`Eons members, in order to make them searchable.
`
`11.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business
`
`projects, as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that
`
`I am associated with.
`
`12.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`
`publications are listed on my C.V. (Ex. 1004).
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`I am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour for my study and
`13.
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 4
`
`

`

`testimony.
`
`14.
`
`I have testified in Federal District Court three times. Most recently, I
`
`testified in the Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T Inc. matter in the Western District of
`
`Texas. I have also testified in the Verizon v. Vonage and Verizon v. Cox matters,
`
`both in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`Information Considered
`
`D.
`15. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`16.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`17. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 5
`
`

`

`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`18.
`
`claims of the ’682 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`19. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`20.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Apple has the burden of proving
`
`that the claims of the ’682 patent are anticipated by or obvious from the prior art
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 6
`
`

`

`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`25.
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether claims 2-
`
`14 and 16 of the ’682 patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 7
`
`

`

`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`30.
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 said subject matter pertains.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 8
`
`

`

`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether claims 1-23 of the ’682 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious in January of 1998.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`• Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`34.
`
` In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`35.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 9
`
`

`

`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that
`
`any of this evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than
`
`being associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`36.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`37.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 10
`
`

`

`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 11
`
`

`

`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have
`
`been combined.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`in January of 1998 and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the
`
`prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need to be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent. Further,
`
`the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 12
`
`

`

`solving the same problem.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`44.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 13
`
`

`

`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE ’682 PATENT
`45. Prosecution History Of The ’682 Patent and Effective Filing Date of
`
`the ’682 Patent. I understand that the ’682 patent was issued from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/280,700, filed November 14, 2005.
`
`46.
`
`I also understand that the ’700 application is designated a continuation
`
`of 09/284,113, filed as PCT/US99/01988 on January 29, 1999.
`
`47.
`
`I further understand that the ’113 application claims priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/073,209, filed on January 30, 1998.
`
`48.
`
`I note that the contents of the disclosure of the ’209 provisional
`
`application are not identical to the contents of the ’682 patent. For example,
`
`certain passages are written differently in the ’209 provisional relative to the ’682
`
`patent.
`
`49.
`
`I have used the date of January 30, 1998 as the earliest effective filing
`
`date of claims 1-23 of the ’682 patent, but have not determined that the disclosure
`
`of the ’209 provisional fully supports these claims.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 14
`
`

`

`50. For example, as I explain in more detail below, certain of the claims
`
`uses the term “polling” in connection with actions being taken by the computer
`
`system. There is no mention of that term in the ’682 patent disclosure, other than
`
`in the claims of the patent. I do not believe a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading the ’209 provisional or the ’682 patent disclosure would have concluded a
`
`method involving polling was being described in these documents.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A.
`51. A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’536 patent
`
`would have been someone with a good working knowledge of computer
`
`programing, data structures, and object oriented programming. The person would
`
`have gained this knowledge either through an undergraduate education in computer
`
`science or comparable field, in combination with training or several years of
`
`practical working experience.
`
`B.
`52.
`
`Terms Used in the Claims
`
`I understand in this proceeding before the PTO that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification is to be used to
`
`determine what the claims encompass. I have used that standard in evaluating
`
`what the claims define, as well as terms used in the claims. There are several
`
`terms used in the patent claims that deserve mention.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 15
`
`

`

`“container”
`
`1.
`53. The ’682 specification defines a “container” as being “a logically
`
`defined data enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment (text,
`
`graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments, or referring
`
`now to FIG. 3C, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`containers.” Ex. 1001 at 9:2-7.
`
`54. The ’682 patent also states that “[a] container 100 at minimum
`
`includes in its construction a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register and a gateway” and “…at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a
`
`single natural number or the logical description of another container, and at
`
`maximum all defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered,
`
`including but not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in
`
`cyberspace.” Ex. 1001 at 9:7-14.
`
`55. The ’682 patent also states a container “contains the code to enable it
`
`to interact with the components enumerated in 2A, and to reconstruct itself
`
`internally and manage itself on the network 201.” Ex. 1001 at 9:14-17.
`
`56.
`
`I believe the broadest reasonable construction of “container” therefore
`
`includes a logically defined data structure that contains a whole or partial digital
`
`element (e.g., text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital
`
`segments, or any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 16
`
`

`

`containers. In addition, in its broadest reasonable construction, a “container” can
`
`exist as a single discrete file or as a collection of multiple discrete files that are
`
`associated in a way that represent a single, logical container.
`
`“register” and “container register”
`
`2.
`57. The ’682 patent states that “registers 120” are “user or user-base
`
`created or system-created values or ranges made available by the system 10 to
`
`attach to a unique container, and hold system-set, user-set, or system-evolved
`
`values.” Ex. 1001 at 14:24-26.
`
`58. The ’682 patent also states that “[v]alues may be numeric, may
`
`describe domains of time or space, or may provide information about the container
`
`100, the user, or the system 10” and that “[r]egisters 120 may be active, passive or
`
`interactive and may evolve with system use.” Ex. 1001 at 14:24-29.
`
`59. The ’682 patent explains that “container registers 120” are
`
`“interactive dynamic values appended to the logical enclosure of an information
`
`container 100, and serve to govern the interaction of that container 100 with other
`
`containers 100, container gateways 200 and the system 10, and to record the
`
`historical interaction of that container 100 on the system 10.” Ex. 1001 at 9:19-22.
`
`It also explains that “[c]ontainer registers 120 may be values alone or contain code
`
`to establish certain parameters in interaction with other containers 100 or gateways
`
`200.” Ex. 1001 at 9:22-23.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1003, p. 17
`
`

`

`60.
`
`I believe the broadest reasonable construc