Date Filed: October 22, 2015
`Filed on behalf of: Patent Owner FARSTONE TECH., INC.
`By:
`Tonia A. Sayour
`tsayour@cooperdunham.com
`Ivan Kavrukov
`ikavrukov@cooperdunham.com
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10112
`(212)278-0400
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FARSTONE TECH., INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent 7,120,835
`____________
`DECLARATION OF MATTHEW D. GREEN, PH.D IN SUPPORT OF
`FARSTONE TECH., INC.’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`

`
` 
`I, Matthew D. Green, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert by counsel for Patent Owner Farstone
`
`Tech., Inc.’s (“Farstone” or “Patent Owner”) to provide my opinion on certain issues
`
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835 (“the ‘835 Patent”) in connection with the
`
`above-captioned inter partes review. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinions regarding the patentability of claims 1-7 and 9-13 of the ‘835 Patent (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,785,786 to Gold (“Gold”).
`
`2.
`
`This report is based upon information known to me as of the date of
`
`this report. I expect I will continue my review and analysis in view of any additional
`
`materials and information I become aware of after the date of this report. I also
`
`expect to review further reports submitted by Petitioner Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or
`
`“Petitioner”) and its expert(s). Accordingly, I reserve the right to amend and/or
`
`supplement this report in view of any additional materials and information, including
`
`any further reports submitted by Petitioner’s expert(s), and to respond to any
`
`arguments or opinions raised by Petitioner regarding the subject matter of this report.
`
`3. My compensation as an expert is in no way dependent upon the results
`
`of any investigations I undertake, the substance of any opinion I express, or the
`
`ultimate outcome of this case. Thomson Reuters bills Patent Owner for my time by
`
`the hour, plus reimbursement for travel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred
`
`1
`
`

`
` 
`during my work on this matter. Thomson-Reuters and I are each compensated
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`regardless of the facts I know or discover and/or the conclusions or opinions I reach.
`
`I have no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`Attached as Exhibit A to this report is my up-to-date curriculum vitae,
`
`which includes a complete list of my publications and past testimony as an expert.
`
`The following paragraphs briefly summarize my relevant expertise.
`
`5.
`
`I am an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins
`
`University in Baltimore, MD. My professional responsibilities in this position
`
`include: advising graduate students, teaching, conducting research, and preparing
`
`papers. In my role as a faculty member and researcher, I gained expertise in several
`
`fields including distributed storage systems and backup technology. In my daily
`
`work in the laboratory, I work with backup systems to handle data management and
`
`retention. I have also worked with backup technology and file storage technology
`
`in my research. In one research project, I developed a distributed data backup system
`
`capable of storing information in a peer-to-peer network of computers, such that
`
`even deliberate attempts to destroy the data would be resisted. Additionally, I
`
`designed an encrypted file storage system for backing up large quantities of data in
`
`a secure manner. I have also taught several courses at Johns Hopkins University,
`
`2
`
`

`
` 
`including courses that address file discovery, backup, and techniques for maintaining
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`information in distributed file stores.
`
`6.
`
`I hold a Ph. D. in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins University, a
`
`Master of Science degree in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins University and
`
`a Bachelor of Arts in Computer Science from Oberlin College. I have authored a
`
`number of research papers in top Computer Science journals and conferences,
`
`including journals and conferences of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
`
`7.
`
`A complete list of my research publications, conference papers, patents,
`
`and grant support is included in my curriculum vitae. Several of the publications
`
`and conference papers listed are related to the technology underlying file storage and
`
`backup technology.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to joining the faculty at Johns Hopkins, I worked for a number of
`
`years as a software developer and technology consultant. Through this work, I
`
`gained expertise in several fields, including computer backup technology, and
`
`disaster recovery technology.
`
`9.
`
`From 1999-2003 I held the position of Senior Technical Staff Member
`
`at AT&T Laboratories in Florham Park, NJ, where my responsibilities included
`
`developing software for audiovisual content distribution systems, desktop and
`
`mobile devices, secure text messaging systems for mobile devices, AT&T’s
`
`3
`
`

`
` 
`Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system, researching technology transfer for audio
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`coding, and secure content delivery. Development of these projects included
`
`computer backup technology, and disaster recovery technology. Specifically, in
`
`developing the content distribution system, which transferred data to geographically
`
`distant sites, I designed software to perform computer backup and disaster recovery.
`
`The system implemented processes for replicating, copying, and distributing files
`
`across networks. I also managed the backup of files and software on servers and
`
`computers using various backup software and operating system copy capabilities.
`
`10. From 2005-2011, I served as Principal Analyst and CTO of
`
`Independent Security Evaluators, a custom security evaluation and design
`
`consultancy. In this position, I also provided expertise in backup technologies, such
`
`as the storage of information in database technology, distributing and maintaining e-
`
`books in devices, and securing stored data files.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to the experience above, I have more than twenty years of
`
`software development experience, programming in languages including C/C++,
`
`Java, Pascal, PL/1, Python and various machine assembly languages.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
` 
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`12. Based on my experience, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the ‘835 Patent was invented would have been a person having
`
`an undergraduate degree in computer science or the equivalent and approximately
`
`two years of industry experience in software development (or the equivalent).
`
`13. At the time of the priority date of the ‘835 Patent, I was a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`14. Although I am not an attorney, I have been advised of certain legal
`
`principles relating to patentability upon which I relied in forming the opinions set
`
`forth in this report.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification and how it would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) has
`
`construed the terms “selecting means” and “status.” I understand the Board has
`
`construed “selecting means” to mean “a general purpose computer operation that
`
`does not require description of corresponding structure (such as an algorithm) in the
`
`specification,” and “status” to mean “state or condition.”
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
` 
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the question of obviousness involves a determination
`
`of whether in light of the differences between the patented invention and the prior
`
`art, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found the invention obvious
`
`at the time of the invention. I also understand that obviousness is determined based
`
`on four underlying factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘835 PATENT
`
`18. The ‘835 Patent is directed to the area of computer backup and
`
`recovery. It teaches an invention that includes at least one recovery unit to hold
`
`backup data from a processing system. The patent also teaches a displaying system
`
`which is used to display the status of said backed up data within the recovery unit.
`
`19. The ‘835 Patent addresses difficulties and shortcomings in backup and
`
`recovery systems in existence at the time the ‘835 Patent was filed. A noteworthy
`
`advantage of the ‘835 Patent over the prior art is the ability to display the backed up
`
`data, including contents of backed up data without performing a recovery of backup
`
`data. (‘835 Patent at 2:17-21, 4:6-21, 4:22-30, 5:37-66, 6:61-67, and 8:40-44). The
`
`ability to view the backed up data, including contents substantially exceeds a mere
`
`listing of backed up files. Indeed, the user not only views the structure of this data,
`
`6
`
`

`
` 
`but may also “view the contents thereof” and/or access it directly, e.g., by “open[ing]
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`executable files, pictures or documents.” (Id. at 5:55-62).
`
`20. Additionally,
`
`the
`
`‘835 Patent
`
`teaches backing up hardware
`
`configuration as well as data files. (Id. at 2:45-49 and 6:31-37). This additional data
`
`is information that is not stored in a file, and represents the configuration of hardware
`
`devices. This configuration information is stored in a recovery unit, representing a
`
`specific recovery point. (Id. at 6:31-33). When multiple recovery units are used,
`
`different recovery units may reflect different configurations of the system hardware.
`
`(Id. at 2:45-48, 4:46-49, and 6:23-43). The prosecution history distinguishes this
`
`information and clarifies that this information does not merely consist of files stored
`
`in a first storage device to be backed up. (Exhibit 2002 at p.37).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF GOLD
`
`21. Gold describes a differential backup system capable of backing up and
`
`restoring files to a backup utility. Unlike the ‘835 Patent, the information backed up
`
`by Gold is limited to files. (Gold at 1:5-8, 1:39-51, 6:15-21, 8:44-45, 12:31-35, and
`
`Fig. 3, 5, and 6). Specifically, Gold describes a backup agent that includes, among
`
`other modules, a Block Differencing Module (BDM) and a File Differencing Module
`
`(FDM) that record portions of files to a backup system. (Id. at 4:32-39). Gold
`
`records files in portions, or chunks, that are subsequently restored by reconstructing
`
`7
`
`

`
` 
`the partial file chunks from many different backup versions to restore original files
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`on the computing system. (Id. at 6:65-72, 6:15-22, 7:65-8:42, and Fig. 4).
`
`22. All of the modules described in Gold relate to backing up files. For
`
`example, the Active File Manager (AFM) “monitors which files are to be opened by
`
`the backup agent 215a, for the purpose of backing up.” (Id. at 5:27-29). The Backup
`
`Storage Module (BSM) requires that the “backup data comprises the stream of file
`
`data to be backed up.” (Id. at 11:28-29). The Merge Control Module (MCM) also
`
`describes its operations as file-specific, namely, because it “compares the directory
`
`tree of files of the baseline full backup with the directory tree files of the delta
`
`backups.” (Id. at 12:30-33). In describing the File Differencing Module (FDM),
`
`Gold states that it “selects the files to be backed up by determining which files have
`
`changed or been added since the last backup” by “reading the current directory tree
`
`of the local file system 322 and checking each file’s modified time/date against the
`
`entries in a cached Directory Tree File (DTF) generated from the last backup.” (Id.
`
`at 6:15-22). Gold also discloses a Disaster Recovery Module (DRM) that “recovers
`
`requested files from the baseline full backup for the client and any deltas.” (Id. at
`
`13:64-66).
`
`23. Although Gold states that the File Differencing Module (FDM)
`
`identifies “any modifications to the system information used to rebuild the system
`
`8
`
`

`
` 
`in disaster recovery, Gold’s “disaster recovery module” does not describe how this
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`“system information” is used in disaster recovery.
`
`24. Gold also features a limited viewing functionality that allows users to
`
`view the directory tree of a backed up system. (Id. at 8:65-9:4, 12:19-22, 13:55-58).
`
`However, unlike the ‘835 Patent, Gold does not describe any mechanism by which
`
`the user may view the contents of the files prior to restoration. The files stored by
`
`Gold are placed into Backup Directory Files (BDF) and metadata about the files are
`
`stored in a Directory Tree File (DTF), which are responsible only for storing file
`
`data from the backed up system. (Id. at 6:18-60).
`
`VII. GOLD DOES NOT RENDER CLAIM 1-7 AND 9-13 OF THE ‘835
`PATENT OBVIOUS
`
`25.
`
`I disagree with Petitioner’s contention that Gold renders the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ‘835 Patent obvious. It is my opinion that Gold has numerous
`
`shortcomings and fails to teach or suggest several features recited in the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ‘835 Patent. Namely, Gold fails to teach or suggest: (1) backing up
`
`hardware configuration in a “recovery unit”; (2) displaying backed up data; and (3)
`
`providing an outcome of a recovery operation beforehand.
`
`A. Gold does not describe backing up hardware configuration
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claims 3 and 11 of the ‘835 Patent recite a recovery
`
`unit having data that includes “configuration corresponding to said at least one
`
`9
`
`

`
` 
`hardware resource.” Within the context of the ‘835 Patent, one of ordinary skill in
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`the art would understand “configuration corresponding to said at least one hardware
`
`resource” to be configuration information that is not stored in a file. The
`
`specification of the ‘835 Patent explains that “data contained in the processing
`
`system corresponding to the recovery unit includes configuration corresponding to
`
`the hardware resource and the backup data held in the recovery unit respectively.”
`
`(‘835 Patent at 5:43-47). Plainly then, as described in the ‘835 Patent, hardware
`
`resource configuration information is different from backup data, i.e., data stored in
`
`files, and thus, must be non-file information.
`
`27. The prosecution history is also instructive to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Specifically, the file history notes that “data contained in the processing system,
`
`which includes configuration of hardware resources as well as backup data, is
`
`contained within each recovery unit and can thereby be used to restore their status at
`
`the time of creation of that recovery unit” (Exhibit 2002 at p.37) (emphasis in
`
`original). The applicant contrasts this mechanism to that of an earlier patent, U.S.
`
`Patent 6,611,850 to Shen (“Shen”), which “merely allows the user to select files
`
`stored in a first storage device to be backed up.” (Exhibit 2002 at p.37).
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “backup data” to be
`
`files, and “configuration corresponding to the hardware resource” to be non-file data.
`
`10
`
`

`
`28.
`
`I disagree with Petitioner’s contention that Gold’s description of
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
` 
`
`“system information” can be viewed as the hardware configuration recited in claims
`
`3 and 11 of the ‘835 Patent. (Petition at pp. 22 and 25). It is my opinion that this
`
`argument fails for several reasons, which I will describe below.
`
`29. First, Petitioner identifies the “DTF and BDF” as the recovery unit of
`
`Gold. Yet, Gold does not at any point describe storing this “system information” to
`
`the DTF and BDF. Indeed, based on the description of the DTF and BDF in the Gold
`
`specification, a skilled artisan would recognize that these two elements store only
`
`file information, and therefore would not store non-file information such as hardware
`
`configuration. Specifically, the DTF (“Directory Tree File”) is described as storing
`
`file and directory hierarchy metadata, such as file tree layout, filenames, and creation
`
`and modification times (Gold at 6:18-26), while the BDF (“Backup Directory File”)
`
`explicitly stores differences in changed files. (Gold at 8:12-32). The inputs used to
`
`construct the DTF and BDF come from the File Differencing Module (FDM) and
`
`Block Differencing Module (BDM), which in turn receive their backup data inputs
`
`from the filesystem (Gold at Figure 3), or by intercepting file write operations within
`
`the Operating System (Id. at 7:10-16) as depicted in Figure 3 of the Gold patent:
`
`11
`
`

`
` 
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`
`
`30. Second, Gold never describes storing its “system information.” Gold
`
`only describes that the FDM “identifies” modifications to the “system information
`
`used to rebuild the system in disaster recovery.” (Gold at 6:58-63). Furthermore,
`
`Petitioner does not provide any additional support for the notion that Gold stores
`
`such identified system information in the recovery unit. Such information might be
`
`printed out, or recorded in a separate location so that the user might, at a later point,
`
`manually reconfigure the system prior to initiating recovery.
`
`31. Third, Gold does not describe the process by which this information is
`
`applied to the recovery system by the Disaster Recovery Module. Since this
`
`information is not used by the Disaster Recovery Module as described by Gold, there
`
`12
`
`

`
` 
`is no reason to believe that the system information identified by the FDM would be
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`stored as part of the DTF and BDF as petitioner contends.
`
`32. The concept of storing system information to restore a computing
`
`system to normal operation is not disclosed by Gold to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Significantly, as noted by the patent examiner in connection with the ‘835
`
`Patent, other prior art (the Shen patent) also failed to incorporate such a mechanism.
`
`As Gold explains, an appropriate operating system must be installed on the system
`
`“prior” to performing a disaster recovery operation. (Gold at 13:66-14:57). As a
`
`result, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the user manually installs
`
`and configures such “system information” for the operating system on the recovery
`
`machine prior to disaster recovery. There is no reason to understand Gold to teach
`
`or disclose that the “system information” is stored in the claimed “recovery unit.”
`
`33. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that Gold
`
`does not teach or suggest “wherein said data contained in said processing system
`
`corresponding
`
`to said at
`
`least one recovery unit
`
`includes configuration
`
`corresponding to said at least one hardware resource,” as recited in claims 3 and 11
`
`of the ‘835 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`B. Gold does not describe displaying backed up data
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
` 
`
`34.
`
`I understand claims 1 and 9 require displaying backed up data. It is my
`
`opinion that Gold does not describe displaying backed up data because it does not
`
`describe displaying the contents of files.
`
`35. This understanding is reflected in the specification of the ‘835 Patent,
`
`which describes the ability to allow users to access and view contents of files prior
`
`to performing a recovery operation. (‘835 Patent at 5:57-61). This is consistent with
`
`displaying backed up files of the computer system, since, as described in the ‘835
`
`Patent, the user has the ability to actually view and observe backed up data in situ,
`
`i.e., to view the contents of backed up files of the computer system at a given
`
`recovery point, without recovering them. The specification describes an
`
`embodiment of this display operation explicitly, noting that: “[t]he users can
`
`conveniently extract directory or files inside the recovery points. The users can
`
`rename or remove any of them, view contents thereof, or perform recovery operation,
`
`simultaneously and immediately.” (Id. at 5:53-61) (emphasis added).
`
`36. The specification also explains that “the drawbacks faced by the prior
`
`arts can be solved completely” by allowing the “files contained in the recovery
`
`points” to “be easily opened, viewed, copied or the like.” (‘835 Patent at 4:27-30).
`
`This overcomes a limitation in the prior art noted by the inventors, namely that in
`
`the prior art, recovery points must be loaded and executed before they may be
`
`14
`
`

`
` 
`previewed, and system resources are wasted consequently. In order to solve the
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`problems of the prior art, displaying the backed up data therefore includes a display
`
`of the contents thereof.
`
`37.
`
`In view of the teachings of the ‘835 Patent, it is my opinion that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand displaying of “backed up data” to include
`
`displaying the contents of backed up data files.
`
`38. By contrast, Gold does not describe anything beyond the displaying and
`
`viewing of a directory tree of files, which can be viewed in a graphical user interface
`
`such as Windows Explorer. I understand Petitioner to be relying on this functionality
`
`of Gold of viewing a directory tree of files as teaching displaying of “backed up
`
`data.” As described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`description in Gold referenced by Petitioner is merely describing the ability to view
`
`files and folders in directories as generally depicted in the screenshot below (which
`
`depicts a modern file viewer, not the viewer available at the time of the Gold patent)
`
`and does not teach displaying of backed up data as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, in view of the specification of the ‘835 Patent. Gold’s functionality
`
`of displaying files and file folders is not comparable to displaying backed up data,
`
`i.e., displaying contents of the files as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`15
`
`

`
` 
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`
`
`39. Petitioner does not propose or identify any alternate teaching of Gold
`
`that can be compared to the displaying of backed up data, i.e., the contents of files.
`
`40. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that Gold
`
`does not teach or suggest displaying backed up data as recited in claims 1 and 9 of
`
`the ‘835 Patent.
`
`C. Gold does not describe providing a user with an outcome of a
`recovery operation beforehand
`
`I understand claim 9 requires “providing a user with an outcome of
`
`41.
`
`recovery operation beforehand.” It is my opinion that Gold does not describe
`
`providing an outcome of a recovery operation beforehand.
`
`16
`
`

`
`42. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this limitation of
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
` 
`
`claim 9 allows users to avoid restoring a computer system to a corrupted recovery
`
`point and allow users to access and view contents of files, such as enabling users to
`
`even run executable files or open pictures, all without performing a restore operation.
`
`(‘835 Patent at 5:61-62, 8:40-44). As noted above, the specification describes a
`
`process wherein “the users can conveniently extract directory or files inside the
`
`recovery points. The users can rename or remove any of them, view contents
`
`thereof, or perform recovery operation, simultaneously and immediately.” (Id. at
`
`5:53-61) (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`based on the specification that a user may view the actual contents of the backed up
`
`files in order to determine whether they contain a version of a file that a user is
`
`interested in restoring, or are corrupted prior to – or even as an alternative to —
`
`initiating a recovery operation. Thus, a user might evaluate the contents of a file to
`
`determine whether files are damaged, or infected with a virus, prior to overwriting
`
`the current state of a computer. This allows a user to rapidly identify non-corrupted
`
`recovery points, without the overhead and risk of a full recovery.
`
`43.
`
`I disagree with Petitioner’s view that “Gold discloses providing a user
`
`with an outcome of a recovery operation beforehand by allowing the user to view
`
`the files that will be restored.” As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand,
`
`the description in Gold referenced by Petitioner is merely describing the ability to
`
`17
`
`

`
` 
`view the names and locations of files and folders which can be restored, in a
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`graphical user interface such as Windows Explorer, as generally depicted in the
`
`screenshot above. Gold’s functionality of displaying files and file folders is not
`
`comparable to providing an outcome of a restore operation beforehand. Gold only
`
`shows the presence of certain files and folders, and that alone does not provide the
`
`benefit of viewing the file contents before doing a restore or remove the risk
`
`associated with performing a recovery operation of a corrupted file. Moreover, Gold
`
`acknowledges the possibility that a backup could be corrupted, and thus allow the
`
`user to restore from an earlier backup point, however, Gold does not describe any
`
`mechanism by which the user could detect such corruption prior to completing the
`
`restore operation. (Gold at 14:6-11). Indeed, at no point does Gold teach any
`
`solution that would enable a user to see the outcome of a restore operation before
`
`actually performing such restore. (Gold at 14:7-11). The Gold system merely
`
`provides access to multiple restore points to allow a user to restore the system to an
`
`older system state if the “latest state of the system were corrupted.” (Gold at 14:7-
`
`11).
`
`44. Also, the Gold system does not allow a user to view the contents of a
`
`file prior to performing a restore operation because Gold describes backing up file
`
`data in “chunks” in BDFs. (Gold at 7:55-8:35). Further, Gold only describes piecing
`
`these chunks together during a restore operation. (Id. at 8:17-33) Thus, one of
`
`18
`
`

`
` 
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the architecture of the Gold system
`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
`does not allow for viewing the contents of files prior to a restore operation.
`
`45. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that Gold
`
`does not teach or suggest “providing a user with an outcome of recovery operation
`
`beforehand,” as recited in claim 9 of the ‘835 Patent.
`
` hereby declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true and
`
` I
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`
`Dated: October 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` _______________________
`
`Matthew D. Green
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00599
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`
` 
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`
`Dr. Matthew Green
`
`Summary
`
`
`
`Assistant Professor of computer science and author of numerous peer-reviewed conference papers and journal
`articles. Recognized internationally as an expert in the fields of cryptography and computer security. Expertise
`and experience includes virtual machines, computer backup, disaster recovery, and distributed storage.
`Experienced as a testifying expert witness and litigation consultant includes court cases involving issues ranging
`from patent infringement and validity to mobile devices and operating system software including theft of
`copyrighted source code to computer security, interception of encrypted signals, virtual machines, and backup
`technology.
`
`Johns Hopkins University, Assistant Professor, July 2015 – present; Assistant Research Professor, Sep 2010 – June
`2015; Instructor, Spring 2009
`
`Work Experience
`
`Grant. PI. Google ATAP. Secure cryptographic co-processor. Amount: $108,000.
`
`Grant. Co-PI. Mozilla. Analysis of Cryptographic Protocols. Amount: $68,000, .
`
`Grant. Co-PI. Mozilla. Scientific Analysis of the TLS protocol. Amount: $74,000, .
`
`Grant. Co-PI, National Science Foundation award CNS-1010928, “Self Protecting Electronic Medical Records”.
`Amount: $1,733,881.
`
`Grant. Investigator, Office of Naval Research, $680,000. Automating the development of cryptographic
`protocols.
`
`Grant. Co-PI, DARPA PROgramming Computation on EncryptEd Data (PROCEED). Amount: $344,000.
`
`Grant. Senior Personnel, Department of Health and Human Services Strategic Healthcare Information
`Technology Advanced Research Projects on Security (SHARPS), Research Focus Area: Security of Health
`Information Technology. Amount: $1,600,399.
`
`Instructor for Practical Cryptographic Systems (Spring 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), which examines the
`issues surrounding the design and evaluation of industrial cryptographic products, and the ways that
`these systems fail in practice
`
`Cryptography Engineering, Owner, Jan 2012-present
`
`Scientific consulting work, largely related to data security and encryption
`
`Cryptography Engineering Current Client List
`• Akamai
`• CipherCloud Inc.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Content Guard v. Samsung
`• Dunbar
`• Microstrategy Inc.
`• PNC Bank
`• Stach & Liu
`• Knobbe Martens
`• Venable LLP
`• Blackberry
`• US Federal Reserve Bank of New York
`• Xsette
`
`Barr Group, Consulting Chief Scientist, Feb 2012-present
`
`Technical consultant to embedded systems developers and attorneys
`
`Barr Group Client List
`• Acacia Research Group
`• Advanced Auctions v. Ebay
`• Appistry
`• Brainscope
`• CCE Consolidated Cases
`• Edward Selmani and Nevila Celaj
`• Evolutionary Intelligence
`• Ford
`• Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`• Knology!
`• Mederi
`• Rembrandt IP Management
`• Smartphone LLC
`• Symantec
`
`Zeutro LLC, Founder, July 2010 – present
`
`Functional encryption technology development
`
`Harbor Edge Group, Partner, Jan 2010 – Jan 2012
`
`Expert witness and litigation support.
`
`Harbor Edge Group Client List
`• Aristocrat
`• Bell ExpressVu
`• McAfee
`
`Independent Security Evaluators (ISE), CTO, Apr 2005 – Sep 2011
`
`White hat hacking and independent evaluation of cryptography-based digital security systems
`
`Partial ISE Client List
`
`Dr. Matthew Green
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Adobe Systems!
`• Barnes & Noble
`• Bell ExpressVu
`• Brother Industries
`• Dunbar
`• MediData Solutions!
`• Motorola
`• Qualcomm!
`• Riverbed Technologies
`• Samsung
`• SecurityFirst Corporation
`• Symbol Technologies
`• Walt Disney Publishing
`• Symbol Technologies
`
`AT&T Labs, Senior Technical Staff Member, Jun 1999 – Jun 2003; Contractor, Summer 1998 – May 1999
`
`Advanced research in telecommunications, IP-based telephony, distributed storage, and virtual machines
`including development of software for desktop and mobile devices, a secure text messaging system for
`mobile devices, and AT&T’s Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system, and researching technology
`transfer for audio coding, secure content delivery, and content distribution network
`
`
`
`Advisory Board Experience
`
`Open Crypto Audit Project, Co-Founder and Board of Directors, October 2013-present
`
`CipherCloud, Technical Advisory Board, June 2015-present
`
`Linux Foundation Core Infrastructure Initiative, Technical Advisory Board, June 2014-present
`
`Mozilla Cybersecurity Delphi, Technical Advisory Board, June 2014-present
`
`Expert Witness Engagements
`
`Multiple current engagements involving patent litigation and related to Android, iOS, WiFi hotspots, and
`other mobile devices/technologies. A sample of public engagements includes those below:
`
`Testimony at Trial
`
`Videotron, et.al. v. Bell ExpressVu (security of satellite TV), Quebec Superior Court, 13-14 Dec 2011
`
`Testimony at Deposition
`
`Keith Dunbar v. Google, Inc. (class action), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Case
`#5:10CV00194
`
`Keith Dunbar v. Google, Inc. (class action), U.S. District Court for the No