throbber
Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`RPX Corporation
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`Issued: Dec. 31, 2002
`Filed: Feb. 15, 2000
`Inventors: Edmund C. Munger, et al
`Title: Agile Network Protocol For Secure Communications With Assured System
`Availability
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00171
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL FRATTO
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`i
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration ofMichael Fratto Regarding US. Patent No. 6,502, I 35
`
`1, Michael Fratto, 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: November20,2013 WA
`
`Mike Fratto
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner RPX — EX. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1.
`
`II.
`
`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 ’135 PATENT ..................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’135 Patent ............................................. 14
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’135 Patent ............................................... 17
`C.
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................. 18
`D. Overview of the Claims of the ’135 Patent ......................................... 19
`E.
`Description of the Background Technology Relevant to the
`’135 Patent ........................................................................................... 19
`1. The Open Internet .........................................................................19
`2. Domain Names and the Domain Name System (DNS) ................21
`a) The DNS System ....................................................................22
`b) Domain Names and URIs .......................................................24
`c) Domain Name Resolution ......................................................26
`3. Encryption, Tunnels, and Data Security .......................................32
`1. Encryption ..............................................................................33
`d) Authentication ........................................................................35
`e) IPSec – RFC 2401 ..................................................................38
`f) Tunneling ................................................................................40
`4. VPNs .............................................................................................43
`
`IV. General Issues Related to My Patentability Analysis .............................. 49
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Claims of the ’135 Patent I Am Addressing in this Report ......... 49
`Interpretation of Certain Claim Terms ................................................ 54
`1. Virtual Private Network (VPN) ....................................................55
`2. Virtual Private Link.......................................................................58
`3. Domain Name ...............................................................................59
`4. Domain Name Service ..................................................................59
`5. DNS Server ...................................................................................60
`6. DNS Proxy Server .........................................................................62
`7. Web Site ........................................................................................65
`8. Secure Web Site / Secure Target Web Site ...................................66
`9. Secure Web Computer ..................................................................67
`10. Target Computer ...........................................................................68
`11. Between a Client Computer and [target computer/secure
`web computer] ...............................................................................69
`Prior Art References ............................................................................ 71
`1. Exhibit 1007 – Aventail Connect v3.01/2.51
`Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail”)..............................................71
`2. Exhibit 1008 - BinGO! User’s Guide incorporating by
`reference BinGO! Extended Feature Reference
`(collectively, “BinGO”). ...............................................................72
`3. Request for Comment (RFC) Publications ...................................74
`4. Exhibit 1014 – Reed et al., IEEE J. Sel. Areas Comm.,
`16(4): 482-494 (May 1998) (“Reed I”) .........................................77
`5. Exhibit 1015 - Reed et al., “Proxies for Anonymous
`Routing,” 12th Annual Computer Security Applications
`Conference, San Diego, CA (December 9-13, 1996) (“Reed
`II”) .................................................................................................78
`6. Exhibit 1022 – Aventail Connect v3.1/2.6 Administrator’s
`Guide (“Aventail Connect v3.1”)..................................................80
`7. Exhibit 1021 – Aventail AutoSOCKS v2.1 Administrator’s
`Guide (“Aventail AutoSOCKS”) ..................................................81
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`V.
`
`8. Exhibit 1024 – Ferguson, P. and Huston, G., “What Is a
`VPN”, The Internet Protocol Journal, Vol 1., No. 2 (Sept
`1998) (“Ferguson”) .......................................................................81
`
`Patentability Analysis of Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18 of the ’135
`Patent ............................................................................................................ 82
`A. Aventail Connect v3.01/2.5 Administrator’s Guide ........................... 82
`1. Overview of Aventail ....................................................................82
`2. Comparison of Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18 of the ’135
`Patent to Aventail ........................................................................125
`1. Claim 1 .................................................................................125
`g) Claim 2 .................................................................................130
`h) Claim 3 .................................................................................132
`i) Claim 4 .................................................................................133
`j) Claim 5 .................................................................................136
`k) Claim 6 .................................................................................138
`l) Claim 7 .................................................................................149
`m) Claim 8 .................................................................................150
`n) Claim 9 .................................................................................153
`o) Claim 10 ...............................................................................156
`p) Claim 12 ...............................................................................160
`q) Claim 13 ...............................................................................161
`r) Claim 14 ...............................................................................165
`s) Claim 15 ...............................................................................167
`t) Claim 18 ...............................................................................169
`BinGO! User Guide Incorporating By Reference the BinGO! ......... 177
`1. Overview of BinGO ....................................................................177
`2. BinGO Anticipates and/or Renders Obvious Claims 1-10,
`12-15 and 18 of the ’135 Patent ..................................................213
`1. Claim 1 .................................................................................213
`u) Claim 2 .................................................................................216
`
`B.
`
`
`
`v
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`v) Claim 3 .................................................................................217
`w) Claim 4 .................................................................................218
`x) Claim 5 .................................................................................219
`y) Claim 6 .................................................................................220
`z) Claim 7 .................................................................................223
`aa) Claim 8 .................................................................................223
`bb) Claim 9 .................................................................................225
`cc) Claim 10 ...............................................................................225
`dd) Claim 12 ...............................................................................227
`ee) Claim 13 ...............................................................................228
`ff) Claim 14 ...............................................................................231
`gg) Claim 15 ...............................................................................233
`hh) Claim 18 ...............................................................................235
`
`VI. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and
`18 OF THE ’135 PATENT RELATED TO KIUCHI ........................... 240
`A. Overview of Kiuchi ........................................................................... 241
`1. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 1 .........................................................251
`2. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 2 .........................................................256
`3. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 3 .........................................................257
`4. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 4 .........................................................258
`5. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 7 .........................................................259
`6. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 8 .........................................................261
`7. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 10 .......................................................263
`8. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 12 .......................................................267
`Kiuchi Renders Claims 5, 8, and 18 Obvious ................................... 267
`1. Kiuchi Renders Claim 5 Obvious ...............................................270
`2. Kiuchi Renders Claim 8 Obvious ...............................................271
`3. Kiuchi Renders Claim 18 Obvious .............................................273
`
`B.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 273
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`Appendix A:
`
` TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for RPX Inc. as an expert witness in
`1.
`
`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. 6,502,135 (“the
`
`’135 patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 of the ’135
`
`patent, which I do in this report. I previously submitted a written report in inter
`
`partes reviews of the ’135 patent on behalf of Apple Inc. The case numbers of
`
`those proceeding are IPR2013-00348 and IPR2013-00349. Sections I.B through V
`
`below are substantively the same as the corresponding sections of my report in the
`
`IPR2013-00349 proceeding. Section VI below contains my opinions relating to an
`
`additional prior art reference as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 18 of the
`
`’135 patent.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`B.
`2. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1007.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science Degree from Syracuse University in
`
`2001 in Information Science and Technology.
`
`4.
`
`I began working in the field of computer science in 1987. Between
`
`1987 and 1992, I was a consultant where I wrote software that would connect
`
`remote offices and collect/process data for input into other programs.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`5. Between 1994 and 1997, I was a freelance editor for Network
`
`Computing, where I covered remote access and telecommunications products and
`
`technologies. I held this position while earning my B.S. in Information Science
`
`and Technology from Syracuse University.
`
`6. Between June 1997 and June of 2004, I was a permanent employee of
`
`Network Computing, starting as an Associate Technology Editor and rising to
`
`Senior Technology Editor. In these capacities, I focused on network security
`
`solutions and products, which was a rapidly evolving field at that time. I have
`
`subsequently held a number of other positions with Network Computing, as well as
`
`affiliated publications. For example, from July 2004 to April 2006, I served as
`
`Editor of Secure Enterprise Magazine – which focused on security solutions
`
`specific to enterprise systems. After April 2006, I returned to Network Computing,
`
`where I served in a progression of senior positions, ultimately serving as Editor of
`
`Network Computing between August 2009 and October of 2012.
`
`7.
`
`I am presently a Senior Analyst with Current Analysis. In this respect I
`
`manage the Enterprise Networking practice within the business and technology and
`
`software group. I also provide competitive analysis on trends and changes in the
`
`enterprise networking markets as well as consult with network equipment vendors
`
`on product messaging, marketing, and outreach.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`8.
`
`I presently serve as an adjunct faculty member of School of Information
`
`Studies at Syracuse University.
`
`9.
`
`I have been studying, evaluating, testing and describing networking,
`
`networking security and related technologies for more than 15 years. Since well
`
`before 1999, I have had an extensive background and experience in network
`
`systems, software and related technologies, with a particular focus on network
`
`security.
`
`10. I also have extensive hands-on experience with wide range of
`
`networking and networking security products developed and sold in the 1993 to
`
`2002 time frame. This came from my various positions with Network Computing,
`
`where I reviewed, tested and described these products in a technical publication
`
`devoted to this field. I also wrote articles about network infrastructure, data center,
`
`and network access control items that were published by Network Computing. I
`
`also am very familiar with Internet standards governing networking and security,
`
`which I discuss below.
`
`11. A substantial amount of my extensive experience with networking and
`
`security systems used in the late 1990s came from my work in reviewing these
`
`products for Network Computing. When I performed a typical review of a new
`
`product, I would first define a “problem set” the product was designed to address.
`
`I would interview IT administrators and executives and speak with the developers
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`of the product. I also would study the standards relevant to the product or its
`
`implementation, and would evaluate the technical documentation accompanying
`
`the product. I would then create a set of comparative measures to assess the ability
`
`of the product to execute. I would then test the product under a variety of
`
`situations designed to evaluate these comparative measures. To do this, I would
`
`set up a test network, verify its operation, conduct the tests, and ensure the results
`
`were accurate. I would also often compare the product to other products in the
`
`same class or category.
`
`12. In the 1997 to 2000 time frame, I was particularly focused on remote
`
`access products including modems, ISDN, and virtual private networking products,
`
`technologies, and standards as well as network and host-based firewalls.
`
`13. I am the author of several books and publications devoted to secure
`
`networking technologies. I also have taught a number of courses on systems and
`
`technologies used in networking security, particularly focused on Internet security
`
`solutions. These books and courses are listed on my C.V. (Ex. 1004).
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`14. I am being compensated at a rate of $250 per hour for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`15. I have never testified in Federal District Court.
`
`16.
`
`I have provided declarations that were submitted in inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings involving the ’135 patent and other patents owned by
`
`Patent Owner. These proceedings include Control No. 95/001,682, 95/001,679 and
`
`95/001,269, as well as Inter Partes Review Nos. IPR2013-00348, IPR2013-00349,
`
`IPR2013-00354, IPR2013-00393, IPR2013-00394, IPR2013-00397, and IPR2013-
`
`00398.
`
`Information Considered
`
`D.
`17. 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.
`
`18. 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.
`
`19. 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`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.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`20. In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’135 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`21. 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.
`
`22. 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.).
`
`23. I understand in this proceeding RPX has the burden of proving the ’135
`
`patent is 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.
`
`24. I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`25. I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`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.
`
`26. 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
`27. I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`28. I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether claims 1-10,
`
`12-15, and 18 of the ’135 patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`29. 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`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.
`
`30. 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 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 that 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.
`
`31. I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other 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
`32. I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`33. I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`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.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`34. 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 1-10, 12-15, and 18 of the ’135 patent would have
`
`been considered obvious In February of 2000.
`
`35. 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;
`1.
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`2.
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`3.
`4. Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness may
`be present in any particular case.
`36. 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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`37. I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`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.
`
`38. 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.
`
`39. I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`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.
`
`40. 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.
`
`41. 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.
`
`42. 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`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.
`
`43. 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 February of 2000 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
`
`solving the same problem.
`
`44. 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`more prior art references discourages or leads 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.
`
`45. I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`46. 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner RPX– Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`leads to anticipated s

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket