`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owners
`
`Patent No. 8,051,181
`Issued: November 1, 2011
`Filed: February 27, 2007
`Inventors: Victor Larson, et al.
`Title: METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING SECURE COMMUNICATION LINK
`BETWEEN COMPUTERS OF VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00485 and IPR2014-00486
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, Cover
`
`

`

`I, 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: March 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mike Fratto
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`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 ’181 PATENT ...................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’181 Patent ............................................ 14
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’181 Patent .............................................. 16
`C.
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 16
`D. Overview of the Claims of the ’181 Patent ........................................ 17
`E.
`Description of the Background Technology Relevant to the
`’181 Patent .......................................................................................... 17
`1.
`The Open Internet .................................................................... 17
`2.
`Domain Names and the Domain Name System (DNS) ........... 19
`a.
`The DNS System ........................................................... 19
`b.
`Domain Names and URIs .............................................. 22
`c.
`Domain Name Resolution ............................................. 24
`d.
`DNS SRV Records ........................................................ 32
`Communications and Name Resolution on Windows-
`Based Networks ....................................................................... 32
`Encryption, Tunnels, and Data Security .................................. 40
`a.
`Encryption ...................................................................... 41
`b.
`Authentication ................................................................ 43
`c.
`IPsec – RFC 2401 .......................................................... 44
`d.
`Tunneling ....................................................................... 45
`VPNs ........................................................................................ 48
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. iii
`
`

`

`D.
`
`6. Multimedia Transmission over the Internet ............................. 51
`Common Design Perspectives in April 2000 ..................................... 54
`F.
`IV. GENERAL ISSUES RELATED TO MY PATENTABILITY
`ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 56
`A.
`The Claims of the ’181 Patent I Am Addressing in this Report ........ 57
`B.
`Comparison with Patent Family Members ......................................... 65
`C.
`Interpretation of Certain Claim Terms ............................................... 67
`1.
`Secure Name ............................................................................ 68
`2.
`Secure Name Service ............................................................... 71
`3.
`Secure Domain Name .............................................................. 78
`4.
`Unsecured Name ...................................................................... 81
`5.
`Secure Communication Link (Claims 1-23, 25, and 28)
`and Securely Communicate (Claims 24, 27, and 29) .............. 82
`Prior Art References ........................................................................... 86
`1.
`Exhibit 1031 – U.S. Patent 6,496,867 to Beser ....................... 86
`2.
`Exhibit 1003 – U.S. Patent 6,557,037 to Provino .................... 87
`3.
`Exhibit 1004 – Kiuchi et al., “C-HTTP - The
`Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network
`on the Internet” ......................................................................... 87
`Request for Comment (RFC) Publications .............................. 87
`4.
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-29 OF THE ’181
`PATENT ....................................................................................................... 90
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser .................................................... 90
`1.
`Overview of Beser ................................................................... 90
`2.
`Overview of RFC 2401 .......................................................... 122
`3.
`Comparison of Beser to Claims 1-29 of the ’181 Patent ....... 133
`a.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................... 133
`b.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 141
`c.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................... 149
`d.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................... 151
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. iv
`
`

`

`Claim 5 ......................................................................... 152
`e.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................... 153
`f.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................... 153
`g.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................... 154
`h.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 155
`i.
`Claims 10-11 ................................................................ 156
`j.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 156
`k.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 157
`l.
`Claims 14-17 ................................................................ 158
`m.
`Claim 18 ....................................................................... 160
`n.
`Claim 19 ....................................................................... 160
`o.
`Claim 20 ....................................................................... 161
`p.
`Claim 21 ....................................................................... 161
`q.
`Claim 22 ....................................................................... 163
`r.
`Claim 23 ....................................................................... 166
`s.
`Claim 24 ....................................................................... 166
`t.
`Claim 25 ....................................................................... 175
`u.
`Claim 26 ....................................................................... 177
`v.
`Claim 27 ....................................................................... 186
`w.
`Claim 28 ....................................................................... 189
`x.
`Claim 29 ....................................................................... 196
`y.
`RFC 2543 – Session Initiation Protocol ........................................... 202
`1.
`Overview of RFC 2543 .......................................................... 202
`2.
`Comparison of RFC 2543 to Claims 1-29 of the ’181
`Patent ...................................................................................... 234
`a.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................... 234
`b.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 242
`c.
`Claims 3-4 .................................................................... 250
`d.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................... 252
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. v
`
`

`

`Claim 6 ......................................................................... 252
`e.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................... 253
`f.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................... 254
`g.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 255
`h.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................... 256
`i.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................... 256
`j.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 257
`k.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 257
`l.
`Claims 14-17 ................................................................ 258
`m.
`Claim 18 ....................................................................... 259
`n.
`Claims 19-20 ................................................................ 259
`o.
`Claim 21 ....................................................................... 260
`p.
`Claim 22 ....................................................................... 261
`q.
`Claim 23 ....................................................................... 262
`r.
`Claim 24 ....................................................................... 263
`s.
`Claim 25 ....................................................................... 269
`t.
`Claim 26 ....................................................................... 270
`u.
`Claim 27 ....................................................................... 278
`v.
`Claim 28 ....................................................................... 279
`w.
`Claim 29 ....................................................................... 287
`x.
`Kiuchi et al., “C-HTTP - The Development of a Secure, Closed
`HTTP-based Network on the Internet” ............................................ 292
`1.
`Overview of Kiuchi ................................................................ 292
`2.
`Comparison of Kiuchi to Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 13-19, 21-
`29 of the ’181 Patent .............................................................. 303
`a.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................... 303
`b.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 306
`c.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................... 310
`d.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................... 310
`e.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................... 311
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. vi
`
`

`

`Claim 6 ......................................................................... 312
`f.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................... 312
`g.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 312
`h.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 313
`i.
`Claims 14-17 ................................................................ 313
`j.
`Claim 18 ....................................................................... 315
`k.
`Claim 19 ....................................................................... 315
`l.
`Claim 21 ....................................................................... 316
`m.
`Claim 22 ....................................................................... 316
`n.
`Claim 23 ....................................................................... 317
`o.
`Claim 24 ....................................................................... 317
`p.
`Claim 25 ....................................................................... 320
`q.
`Claim 26 ....................................................................... 321
`r.
`Claim 27 ....................................................................... 325
`s.
`Claim 28 ....................................................................... 326
`t.
`Claim 29 ....................................................................... 330
`u.
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino .............................................. 333
`1.
`Overview of Provino .............................................................. 334
`2.
`Overview of Kosiur ................................................................ 355
`3.
`Comparison of Provino to Claims 1-29 of the ’181 Patent ... 358
`a.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................... 358
`b.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 362
`c.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................... 366
`d.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................... 367
`e.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................... 368
`f.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................... 368
`g.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................... 369
`h.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................... 370
`i.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 371
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. vii
`
`

`

`Claim 10 ....................................................................... 372
`j.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................... 373
`k.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 374
`l.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 375
`m.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................... 376
`n.
`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 377
`o.
`Claim 16 ....................................................................... 378
`p.
`Claim 17 ....................................................................... 379
`q.
`Claim 18 ....................................................................... 380
`r.
`Claim 19 ....................................................................... 380
`s.
`Claim 20 ....................................................................... 381
`t.
`Claim 21 ....................................................................... 381
`u.
`Claim 22 ....................................................................... 382
`v.
`Claim 23 ....................................................................... 385
`w.
`Claim 24 ....................................................................... 385
`x.
`Claim 25 ....................................................................... 392
`y.
`Claim 26 ....................................................................... 395
`z.
`aa. Claim 27 ....................................................................... 403
`bb. Claim 28 ....................................................................... 408
`cc. Claim 29 ....................................................................... 412
`Provino Renders Obvious Claims 21, 26, and 27 ............................ 416
`Provino in View of Beser Renders Obvious Claims 12-17 ............. 418
`a.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 418
`b.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 420
`c.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................... 421
`d.
`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 422
`e.
`Claim 16 ....................................................................... 423
`f.
`Claim 17 ....................................................................... 424
`Provino In View of Kosiur Renders Obvious Claims 12-17 ........... 425
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. viii
`
`

`

`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 425
`a.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 427
`b.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................... 428
`c.
`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 429
`d.
`Claim 16 ....................................................................... 430
`e.
`Claim 17 ....................................................................... 432
`f.
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 433
`VII. APPENDIX A: MATERIALS CONSIDERED BY MIKE FRATTO....... 434
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. ix
`
`

`

`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`
`Appendix A:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. x
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple 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. 8,051,181 (“the
`
`’181 patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-29 of the ’181 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 Bachelor’s 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.
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 1
`
`

`

`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.
`
`8.
`
`I presently serve as an adjunct faculty member of the 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.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 2
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 3
`
`

`

`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. 1030).
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`I am being compensated at a rate of $250 per hour for my study and
`14.
`
`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
`
`testimony.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`I have never testified in Federal District Court.
`
`I have provided declarations that were submitted in inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings based on patents owned by Patent Owner. These
`
`proceedings include Control No. 95/001,682, 95/001,679, 95/001,788 and
`
`95/001,789.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 4
`
`

`

`17.
`
`I have provided declarations that were submitted in inter partes
`
`review proceedings based on patents owned by Patent Owner. These proceedings
`
`include IPR2013-00348, -00349, -00354, -00393, -00394, -00397, and -00398 filed
`
`by Petitioner Apple, IPR2014-00237 and -00238 filed by Petitioner Apple, and
`
`IPR2014-00171, -00172, -00172, -00174, -00175, -00176, and -00177 filed by
`
`another petitioner.
`
`Information Considered
`
`D.
`18. 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.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20. 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. - Ex. 1029, p. 5
`
`

`

`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`21.
`
`claims of the ’181 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`22. 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.
`
`23.
`
`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.).
`
`24.
`
`I understand in this proceeding Apple has the burden of proving that
`
`the ’181 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.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 6
`
`

`

`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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
`28.
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether claims 1-
`
`29 of the ’181 patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 7
`
`

`

`31.
`
`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 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.
`
`32.
`
`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
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`33.
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`34.
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 8
`
`

`

`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.
`
`35.
`
`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 1-29 of the ’181 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious in April of 2000.
`
`36.
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
` 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.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 9
`
`

`

`38.
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1029, p. 10
`
`

`

`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.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not s