UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TWITTER, INC. AND YELP INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`Filing Date: January 28, 1999
`Issue Date: March 7, 2006
`Inventor: Michael De Angelo
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 1
`
`

`

`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 willfiJl 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: May Li, 2014
`
`5441/32
`
`Z710»;
`
`Henry Houh
`
`ii
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 2
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony...................................................... 4
`
`Information Considered......................................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY.......................................... 6
`
`A. Anticipation........................................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness........................................................................................... 9
`
`III. THE ‘536 PATENT .......................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History Of The ‘536 Patent and
`Effective Filing Date of the ‘536 Patent .............................................14
`
`B.
`
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................15
`
`IV. GENERAL ISSUES RELATED TO MY
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`The Claims of the ‘536 Patent I Am Addressing in
`this Report ...........................................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`Interpretation of Certain Claim Terms ................................................21
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Container...................................................................................21
`
`Register .....................................................................................22
`
`iii. Gateway .....................................................................................24
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art References ............................................................................25
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 3
`
`

`

`No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs .............................................................25
`
`V.
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 2-14 AND
`16 OF THE ‘536 PATENT IN VIEW OF U.S. PATENT
`NO. 5,836,529 (GIBBS) ................................................................................26
`
`A. Overview of Gibbs ..............................................................................26
`
`B.
`
`Comparison of Gibbs to Claims 2-14 and 16 of the
`‘536 Patent...........................................................................................55
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................55
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................63
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................64
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................65
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................66
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................67
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................67
`
`Claim 9......................................................................................68
`
`10. Claim 10....................................................................................69
`
`11. Claim 11....................................................................................70
`
`12. Claim 12....................................................................................72
`
`13. Claim 13....................................................................................73
`
`14. Claim 14....................................................................................73
`
`15. Claim 16....................................................................................74
`
`VI. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................75
`
`VII. APPENDIX A: Materials Considered by Henry Houh ................................. 76
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A:
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 5
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”) as an expert 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. 7,010,536 (“the ’536 patent”) and on the
`
`patentability of the claims of this patent. The following is my written declaration
`
`on these topics.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 6
`
`

`

`remote video capture, processing, segmentation and search on computer terminals.
`
`In 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 likely one of the first live Internet video sessions initiated from
`
`a web site. I co-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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 7
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 8
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $575 per hour for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 9
`
`

`

`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.
`
`14.
`
`I have testified as an expert witness 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. I have also
`
`testified as a fact witness in Federal District Court one time, in the matter of
`
`Stragent LLC and TAG Foundation v. Intel Corporation, in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. I have also testified as an expert witness in the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission one time, in the matter of Certain digital media devices, including
`
`televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, tablets and mobile phones,
`
`components thereof and associated software. I have also testified as an expert
`
`witness in the Essex Superior Court of MA, in the matter of Octopus Solution LLC
`
`v. Gary Brown et al.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 10
`
`

`

`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.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`18.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ‘536 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has 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.).
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 11
`
`

`

`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioners have the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ‘536 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
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 12
`
`

`

`of 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 ‘536 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
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 13
`
`

`

`B. Obviousness
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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 2-14 and 16 of the ‘536 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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 14
`
`

`

`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
`
`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 Patent
`
`Owner proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 16
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 17
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 18
`
`

`

`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
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE ‘536 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History Of The ‘536 Patent and Effective Filing Date
`of the ‘536 Patent
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the ‘536 patent issued from U.S. Application No.
`
`09/284,113, filed January 28, 1999.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that the ‘704 application claims priority to Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/073,209, filed January 30, 1998.
`
`47.
`
`I have therefore used January 30, 1998, as the earliest effective filing
`
`date of the ‘536 patent claims in my analysis.
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 19
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`48. 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
`
`programming, 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.
`
`IV. GENERAL ISSUES RELATED TO MY PATENTABILITY
`ANALYSIS
`
`49.
`
`As I explain in more detail below, I believe claims 2-14 and 16 of the
`
`‘536 patent are either anticipated or would have been considered obvious by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art based on a number of prior art references,
`
`particularly when the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification.
`
`A.
`
`50.
`
`The Claims of the ‘536 Patent I Am Addressing in this Report
`The claims of the ‘536 patent that I am addressing in this report (i.e.,
`
`2-14 and 16) are reproduced below.
`
`Claim 2 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`2.
`
`An apparatus for transmitting, receiving and manipulating
`
`information on a computer system, the apparatus including a plurality of
`
`containers, each container being a logically defined data enclosure and
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 20
`
`

`

`comprising:
`
`(a) an information element having information;
`
`(b) a plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming part of
`
`the container and including
`
`(c) a first register for storing a unique container identification
`
`value,
`
`(d) a second register having a representation designating
`
`space and governing interactions of the container with other
`
`containers, systems or processes according to utility of
`
`information in the information element relative to an
`
`external-to-the-apparatus three-dimensional space,
`
`(e) an active space register for identifying space in which
`
`the container will act upon other containers, processes,
`
`systems or gateways,
`
`(f) a passive register for identifying space in which the
`
`container can be acted upon by other containers, processes,
`
`systems or gateways,
`
`(g) a neutral space register for identifying space in which the
`
`container may interact with other containers, processes,
`
`systems, or gateways; and
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 21
`
`

`

`(h) a gateway attached to and forming part of the container,
`
`the gateway controlling the interaction of the container with
`
`other containers, systems or processes.
`
`Claim 3 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`3. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the plurality of
`
`registers includes at least one container history register for storing
`
`information regarding past interaction of the container with other
`
`containers, systems or processes, the container history register being
`
`modifiable.
`
`Claim 4 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`4. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the plurality of
`
`registers includes at least one system history register for storing
`
`information regarding past interaction of the container with different
`
`operating system and network processes.
`
`Claim 5 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`5. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the plurality of
`
`registers includes at least one predefined register, the predefined
`
`register being a register associated with an editor for user selection and
`
`being appendable to any container.
`
`Claim 6 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 22
`
`

`

`6. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the plurality of
`
`registers includes a user-created register, the user-created register
`
`being generated by the user, and being appendable to any container.
`
`Claim 7 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`7. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the plurality of
`
`registers includes a system-defined register, the system-defined
`
`register being set, controlled and used by the system, and being
`
`appendable to any container.
`
`Claim 8 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`8. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the plurality of
`
`registers includes at least one acquire register for controlling whether
`
`the container adds a register from other containers or adds a container
`
`from other containers when interacting with them.
`
`Claim 9 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`9. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the gateway includes
`
`means for acting upon another container, the means for acting upon
`
`another container using the plurality of registers to determine whether
`
`and how the container acts upon other containers.
`
`Claim 10 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`10. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the gateway includes
`
`Petitioners Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 23
`
`

`

`means for allowing interaction, the means for allowing interaction
`
`using the plurality of registers to determine whether and how another
`
`container can act upon the container.
`
`Claim 11 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`11. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the gateway includes
`
`means for gathering information, the means for gathering information
`
`recording register information from other containers, systems or
`
`processes that interact with the container.
`
`Claim 12 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`12. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the gateway includes
`
`means for reporting information, the means for reporting information
`
`providing register information to other containers, systems or
`
`processes that interact with the container.
`
`Claim 13 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`13. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the gateway includes an
`
`expert system including rules defining the interaction of the
`
`container with other containers, systems or processes.
`
`Claim 14 of the ‘536 patent reads:
`
`14. The apparatus of claim 1 or 2, wherein the information element is
`
`one from the group of text, graphic images, video, audio, a digital
`
`Petit