IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC. AND TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00685
`Patent 7,765,482
`_____________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PETITIONER’S EXPERT DR. ANDREW LIPPMAN
`
`
`Apple/Twitter
`Ex. 1002
`IPR1 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 4
`List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinion .......................... 8
`II.
`III. Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................10
`IV. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ...........................................14
`V.
`Technical Background ...................................................................................16
` Media File Transfer Between Devices ................................................18 A.
`
`
` Media File Conversion ........................................................................19 B.
` Media File Publishing On Web Pages ................................................21 C.
`
`D.
`File Handling on a Device via a User Interface ..................................21
`
`E.
`Graphical Web Browsers ....................................................................22
`
`
` Web Browser-Based Applications ......................................................22 F.
`G.
`File Selection on a Graphical Web Browser .......................................24
`
`Transmitting identifying information associated with digital
`content .................................................................................................27
`Retrieving/transmitting user-identifying information /
`authorization and access ......................................................................28
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................29
`VII. The Scope of The ’482 Patent .......................................................................30
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................31
`A.
`“pre-processing” ..................................................................................31
`
`1.
`modifying ..................................................................................32
`2.
`Before further processing ..........................................................33
`IX. Summary of Prior Art ....................................................................................35
`
`H.
`
`
`I.
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`C.
`
`
`A.
`Creamer (Ex. 1003) .............................................................................35
`
`
` Mattes (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................36 B.
`X. Grounds for Obviousness of Challenged Claims ..........................................37
`A.
`Creamer’s Integrated Internet/Intranet Camera ..................................37
`
`
` Mattes’ Apparatus and Methods for Recording, Communication B.
`and Administering Digital Images ......................................................37
`Summary of Invalidity of the ’482 Patent ...........................................38
`Invalidity of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16-23, 25, 35, 37,
`1.
`38, 40-42, 44-46, 49 and 51 of the ’482 Patent over Creamer .40
`Invalidity of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, 37, 49 and 51 of the
`’482 Patent over Mattes ..........................................................159
`Invalidity of claims 16, 17, 18, 20, 35, and 46 of the ’482 Patent
`over Mattes in view of Creamer..............................................240
`
` Motivation to Combine Mattes with Creamer ..................................240 D.
`XI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................258
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`I, Andrew B. Lippman, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`
`I have been retained by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, and Fox (“SKGF”) to
`
`provide my opinion concerning the validity of U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482 (“the
`
`’482 Patent”). This work is adjunct to SKGF’s services as attorneys on
`
`behalf of their clients, Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. against Summit 6 LLC,
`
`owner of the ’482 Patent. I am being compensated for my time at the rate of
`
`$550 per hour. This declaration covers arguments being presented in four
`
`inter partes review petitions challenging the ’482 Patent, which are being
`
`filed concurrently with this declaration.
`
`Qualifications
`I.
` My experience and education are detailed in my curriculum vitae, which is 2.
`
`
`attached to this report, Exhibit 1002. The curriculum vitae provides a listing
`
`of all publications on which I am a named author and also identifies all cases
`
`in which I have previously provided expert testimony.
`
`3.
`
`
`I am currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) and Associate Director of the MIT Media Laboratory,
`
`a >$25,000,000 research and teaching facility at MIT that I helped establish
`
`in the early 1980s. In addition, I am a principle investigator and director of
`
`the Media Laboratory’s “Digital Life Consortium,” a multi-sponsor research
`
`program initiated in 1997 to address aspects of computing and personal
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`expression. I am also co-principal investigator of the Communications
`
`Futures Program, a program that unifies diverse research across MIT that
`
`relate to the technology, policy, and economics of communications.
`
`4.
`
`
`I have supervised over 50 Master’s and PhD theses in the MIT Media Arts
`
`and Sciences program. Through the course of my career, I have directed and
`
`been principal investigator of research supported by the Defense Department
`
`(DARPA), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science
`
`Foundation (NSF), and over 50 industrial companies. I have never totaled
`
`the net research volume, but it is in excess of $50 million. I have taught a
`
`course entitled Digital Video as well as MIT freshman physics seminars, and
`
`I direct a graduate research group that addresses the principles of Viral
`
`Communications systems that empower the end user to create innovative
`
`systems
`
`that can scale. Much of my current research
`
`in Viral
`
`Communications involves the design of the hardware and software
`
`environment for wireless, personal radio networking that can survive
`
`infrastructure failures from, among other things a hurricane or storm.
`
`5.
`
`
`I received my undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT in
`
`1971. I received a Master’s of Science degree from MIT in 1978, and a
`
`Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from the École Polytechnique
`
`Fédérale de Lausanne in 1995. My thesis was on the topic of scalable video,
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`a technique for representing visual data in a fluid and variable networking
`
`and processing environment, much like what we today call streaming.
`
`6.
`
`
`In the course of my undergraduate studies as an electrical engineering
`
`student at MIT, I worked in a research group that did early work on
`
`computer graphics and human-computer interaction, called the Architecture
`
`Machine Group. I ultimately directed that group from 1982 until it became a
`
`foundational part of the MIT Media Lab in 1985. In the mid-1970s, at the
`
`Architecture Machine, I developed some of the first memory and display
`
`systems that allowed high quality display of text and pictures on television
`
`and commercial television-like displays. We deliberately focused on using
`
`consumer television displays because we wanted to enable them to display
`
`high quality data in a home environment.
`
`7.
`
`
`I also designed data storage schemes to embed digital data in analog video
`
`using optical videodiscs, analog video storage devices by which
`
`entertainment and interactive programming was distributed in the 1980s and
`
`1990s. These were all intended for consumer computer systems.
`
`8.
`
`
`In the early 1980s, I established a research program entitled “Movies of the
`
`Future” that was a multi-sponsor program addressing image distribution,
`
`analysis and interaction. In 1986, I established the “Television of
`
`Tomorrow” program to research digital and scalable video processing
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`technology. The Television of Tomorrow program consisted initially of nine
`
`sponsors, one each representing the television industry, the consumer
`
`electronics industry and a content company from three regions in the world,
`
`North America, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. Some of the ideas in this work
`
`was reported in the lead article in the June, 1995 IEEE Proceedings with co-
`
`author, Arun Netravali.
`
`9.
`
`
`I was a member from the second meeting of the Motion Picture Experts
`
`10.
`
`
`11.
`
`
`Group, an ISO standards committee effort that defined the standards by
`
`which “MP3” music is commonly distributed and by which “MPEG Video”
`
`is stored and distributed. I co-wrote the paper defining the requirements for
`
`the MPEG-2 standard with Okubo and McCann in 1995.
`
`I was a member of the editorial board of Image Communication Journal
`
`between 1989 to 2003.
`
`In the mid-1990s, my students and I developed what we called the “Media
`
`Bank”, a repository and distribution system for audiovisual information
`
`including video, sound and pictures. The Media Bank
`
`featured
`
`programmable access to multimedia material and it could adjust the data it
`
`delivered to suit the capabilities of a diverse set of computer terminals. The
`
`intention was to allow terminals with differing access bandwidth, differing
`
`processing abilities, and differing intentions in viewing material to be
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`accommodated. Transcoding and programmatic assembly were features. It
`
`was reported in various publications, as shown in my CV.
`
`12.
`
`
`I am a named inventor on six patents––U.S. Patent Nos. 4,673,981;
`
`4,987,480; 5,003,377; 5,005,559; 5,010,405; 5,262,856––in the area of
`
`video, image, and digital processing, and have been on advisory boards for
`
`media technology companies in various fields, ranging from video
`
`conferencing to music understanding. I have authored over 65 published
`
`papers in the fields of image and video coding, processing and transmission.
`
`13.
`
`
`I have served as an expert for several patent and arbitration cases in the field
`
`of video communications systems and the human interface, mobile systems
`
`and music streaming, as shown in my CV.
`
`II. List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinion
`14.
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered the following documents:
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 to Wood et al., issued July 27, 2010
`(“the ’482 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,709 to Creamer et al., issued August 16,
`2005 (“Creamer”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/067,310 to Creamer,
`filed December 4, 1997 (“Creamer ’97”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/085,585 to Creamer,
`filed May 15, 1998 (“Creamer ’98”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 to Mattes, issued March 14, 2000
`(“Mattes”)
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Description
`Claim Construction Order, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion
`Corp., CA No. 3:11-cv-367-O (N.D. Tex., May 21, 2012)
`Partial File History of Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent
`7,764,482, Control No. 90/012,987
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,515 to Wood et al., issued December 17,
`2013 (“the ’515 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,092,114 to Shaffer et al., issued July 18, 2000
`(“Shaffer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,223,190 to Aihara et al., issued April 24, 2001
`(“Aihara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,875,296 to Shi et al., issued February 23, 1999
`(“Shi”)
`EP 0838774A2 Application (DE), published April 29, 1998
`(“Bandini”)
`Seth Godin, You’ve Got Pictures: AOL’s Guide to Digital Imaging
`(1998) (“Godin”)
`Lu et al., eWorld – The Official Guide for Macintosh Users,
`Hayden Books, 1994 (“eWorld”)
`Jain et al., “The Design and Performance of MedJava,” Proceedings
`of the 4th USENIX Conference, on Object-Oriented Technologies
`and Systems (COOTS), April 1998 (“MedJava”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774 to Mayle et al., issued January 25, 2000
`(“Mayle”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,567,122 to Anderson et al., issued May 20, 2003
`(“Anderson ’122”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,480 to Anderson et al., issued September 12,
`2000 (“Anderson ’480”)
`Rose et al., NeXTSTEP Applications Manual (1990)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,370,193 to Lee et al., issued April 9, 2002
`(“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,528 to Curtis, issued June 13, 2000
`(“Curtis”)
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,557 to Wood et al., issued May 17, 2005
`(“the ’557 patent”)
`Opening Claim Construction Brief of Plaintiff Summit 6, LLC,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
`29, 2014)
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, Summit 6 LLC v.
`HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2014)
`Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
`27, 2014)
`Ahuja, Client-Server Applications in Java, Pace Univ., December
`1997 (“Ahuja”)
`
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law
`15.
`I understand that prior art to the ’482 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate July 21, 1999, the alleged
`
`priority date of the ’482 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`
`I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope of the
`
`’482 Patent claims to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
`
`time the alleged invention was made (“POSA”). I understand that claims
`
`subject
`
`to
`
`inter partes review are given
`
`the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears” as
`
`would be understood by a POSA. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`17.
`
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. The elements need to
`
`be arranged in the prior art reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness
`
`of a claim requires that the claim be obvious from the perspective of a
`
`POSA. My analysis below is always from the perspective of a POSA unless
`
`otherwise noted, even if that is not explicitly stated. I understand that a claim
`
`may be obvious as a modification of a single prior art reference, by
`
`combining two examples of a single prior art reference, or from a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`18.
`
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill at the time of the
`
`alleged invention in evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`19.
`
`
`I further understand that certain factors, sometimes referred to as secondary
`
`considerations, may support or rebut the obviousness of a claim. I
`
`understand that such secondary considerations include, among other things,
`
`commercial success of the alleged patented invention, skepticism of others,
`
`unexpected results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but unsolved need
`
`in the art that was satisfied by the alleged invention, the failure of others to
`
`make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged invention by those having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the alleged invention by others in the
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a connection—between any
`
`such secondary considerations and the patentable features of the alleged
`
`invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent
`
`invention by others is a secondary consideration tending to show
`
`obviousness.
`
`20.
`
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of
`
`finding a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine is required. When a
`
`product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a POSA can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability.
`
`For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and
`
`a POSA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious.
`
`21.
`
`
`I understand that a claim may be obvious if common sense directs one to
`
`modify a reference, combine examples of a reference, or combine multiple
`
`prior art references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`invention recited in the claims. I understand that it is not proper to use
`
`hindsight to combine references or elements of references to reconstruct the
`
`invention using the claims as a guide. My analysis of the prior art is made as
`
`of the time the alleged invention was made from the perspective of a POSA.
`
`22.
`
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of success
`
`from combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the
`
`analysis. I understand there may be a number of rationales that may support
`
`a conclusion of obviousness, including:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try”––choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`IV. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`23.
`It is my opinion that secondary considerations do not support the non-
`
`
`obviousness of the Challenged Claims of the ’482 Patent. I have seen no
`
`evidence that supports any secondary considerations tending to show non-
`
`obviousness, including commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others,
`
`skepticism, praise, teaching away, recognition of a problem, or copying by
`
`competitors.
`
`24.
`
`
`I do not recall hearing about any innovation in the field of web-based media
`
`file transfer, or media file transfer between devices by Summit 6. I am not
`
`aware of any products developed by Summit 6, any customers of Summit 6,
`
`or anything suggesting commercial success of any products developed by
`
`Summit 6. In addition to my personal knowledge of image and video content
`
`processing and
`
`transmission, computer networking and media and
`
`communication systems interfaces, I have done a general search of my own
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`resources and resources available to me and have likewise been unable to
`
`identify any commercial success of products developed by Summit 6.
`
`25.
`
`
`I am also unaware of there being a long-felt need at the time of the alleged
`
`invention for an invention utilizing the elements recited in the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’482 Patent. Media file transfer systems and methods,
`
`including those which comprise pre-processing based on parameters
`
`obtained from a remote device, were well-known to a POSA, including but
`
`not limited to systems described in Creamer, Mattes, Mayle, and Shaffer, all
`
`of which pre-date the ’482 Patent’s alleged priority date.
`
`26.
`
`
`I am also not aware of any failure of others to design or implement an
`
`invention similar to the one recited in the allegedly infringed claims of the
`
`’482 Patent. In fact, I believe there are numerous similar systems, including
`
`but not limited to the ones described in Creamer, Mattes, Mayle, and
`
`Shaffer, all of which pre-date the filing of the applications that issued as the
`
`’482 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`
`I have reviewed numerous prior art references from around the time of the
`
`alleged invention and am not aware of any skepticism, praise, or teaching
`
`away by others of the alleged invention recited in the allegedly infringed
`
`claims of the ’482 Patent. In fact, the opposite is true: prior art references
`
`explain the ready combination of the cited prior art systems. I am likewise
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`unaware of any recognition afforded to any media file transfer systems
`
`developed by Summit 6.
`
`28.
`
`
`I am not aware of any praise or acclaim for the patents, e.g., no reference in
`
`academic journals, discussion at conferences, etc.
`
`29.
`
`
`I had not heard of the patents before being engaged as an expert,
`
`notwithstanding my expertise in the field and awareness of the relevant
`
`technology.
`
`30.
`
`
`I am not aware of any competitors of media file transfer systems developed
`
`by Summit 6, and am not aware of any copying of designs or products of
`
`Summit 6. As far as I am aware based on my own reading of the news, the
`
`licensees of Summit 6’s patents licensed the patents only after being sued or
`
`threatened with a lawsuit by Summit 6 for patent infringement.
`
`
`
` Should Summit 6 assert that secondary considerations support a finding of 31.
`
`non-obviousness, I reserve the right to submit a Declaration addressing those
`
`new assertions.
`
`V. Technical Background
` The alleged invention recites methods and systems for transferring media 32.
`
`
`content, such as images, between local devices1 and remote devices,
`
`1 Throughout this document, the terms “device” and “computer” are used
`
`interchangeably.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`including servers that will subsequently publish the content, to be viewed by
`
`Internet and other network users. The alleged invention purports to simplify
`
`media file transfer by addressing the tasks associated with media file transfer
`
`in the browser-side without requiring user intervention or even familiarity.
`
`These browser-side tasks include format conversion, image resizing,
`
`compliance with required resolution, or any other processing steps required
`
`before proper media file transfer can occur with the desired processing.
`
`These tasks may be necessary due to the receiving device’s system
`
`requirements or bandwidth constraints of the communication channel
`
`between sending and receiving devices. These processing requirements may
`
`change depending on different recipients’ needs or expectations. For
`
`example, in a business such as online realty listing services, which relies
`
`heavily on photos to interest other agents and their customers in properties,
`
`the listing services may require that these images be in a certain format, to
`
`ensure that they are received and displayed correctly and uniformly to all
`
`potential customers. The particular image specifications may be different for
`
`different listing services.
`
`33.
`
`
`In what follows, I provide a brief technical overview of the elements
`
`required to set up a user-friendly software tool to perform the tasks required
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`to share media files across different devices, over a computer network such
`
`as the Internet.
`
`
` Media File Transfer Between Devices A.
`In order for a user to transfer files between computer systems, one needs to
`
`34.
`
`
`establish a protocol for the transfer to ensure that the sender and recipient
`
`interpret the data accurately. On the Internet, a basic, low-level protocol
`
`such as TCP underlies most reliable transfer mechanisms. TCP establishes a
`
`connection between endpoints on the Internet and ensures that the data is
`
`received completely, in the order in which it is sent, and at a rate that assures
`
`equitable access to the Internet connection. Higher level protocols such as
`
`FTP and HTTP then address higher level concerns. FTP, for example, allows
`
`users or programs to authenticate themselves to the remote computers, to
`
`work with files and directories on those remote systems, and to receive from
`
`or transmit files to them. Typically, the user of the local device (or a local
`
`program) provides a username and password, which is sent over a TCP
`
`connection as a series of FTP commands. Once the server has authorized the
`
`user, the user copies one or more files stored in the local file system into the
`
`remote file system, or vice versa. The authentication information, along with
`
`requests such as changing remote directory takes place over a first TCP
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`channel used for control information, and the file transfer itself takes place
`
`on a second TCP connection, i.e., the data connection.
`
`
`
` Alternatively, file transfer can also be realized using other protocols such as 35.
`
`HTTP, which also takes place over TCP, but uses only one TCP session.
`
`FTP predates the Internet and is intended to be used by people as well as
`
`programs, whereas HTTP is the protocol for transferring World Wide Web
`
`data and is more recent. Browsers use HTTP by default although one often
`
`sees it written as part of the web address of a site. Browsers also can process
`
`FTP requests.
`
`
` Media File Conversion B.
`
`
` When transferring media files from one device to another over a network, 36.
`
`the specifications required by the receiving device for the media files may be
`
`different than current format of the media files. This difference may be due
`
`to many factors including different operating systems, different storage or
`
`computational capabilities, or even different requirements of the interested
`
`consumers of the specific media content.
`
`37.
`
`
`In addition, it is also typically necessary to consider the limitations and
`
`characteristics of the communication channel between these two devices.
`
`One of the important limitations introduced by the communication channel
`
`is the file size. This limitation is mainly due to the limited bandwidth of the
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`channel that exists between the sending and receiving device. It can also
`
`result from limited availability of the channel. Specifically, raw or original
`
`media files are often too large. They are therefore required to be compressed
`
`or even down-sampled (for instance, for the case of image files, by e.g.,
`
`lowering the resolution) before transmission.
`
`
`
` As mentioned above, conversion from one format to another before 38.
`
`transmission may instead be necessary due to the requirements of the
`
`consumer using this media content for personal or business purposes. Using
`
`the real estate industry example noted in the ’482 Patent, the consumers of
`
`the image files are real estate listing services that wish to provide a uniform
`
`format for all images of all listed properties. A professional photo-gallery
`
`website, for example, may instead require all images to use gray-scale only.
`
`Therefore, when transferring files from one device to another, conversion
`
`from one format to another is typically one of the initial (processing) steps
`
`involved.
`
`39.
`
`
`It is worth noting that a sending device may not know the specific
`
`requirements of the receiving device a priori. Therefore, the parameters for
`
`conversion of a file from a first to a second format may occur only after
`
`these parameters have been communicated by the receiving device to the
`
`sending device.
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`
` Media File Publishing On Web Pages C.
`
`
` Often Internet users would like to show their media files, including their 40.
`
`photos and videos, to others. The targeted audience may be an exclusive
`
`group of friends or forum members, or the whole Internet community. The
`
`process of publishing media files over the Internet, like any other file,
`
`involves transmitting a copy of the file to a server that maintains the web
`
`page of interest, which would subsequently publish the media file on the
`
`web page. Internet users who would like to view that web page use a web
`
`browser and specify the URL address of this webpage. Once a connection is
`
`made to the server that maintains this webpage, that page is downloaded
`
`from this server. Web pages are generally composed using a markup
`
`language called HTML that is interpreted in the browser as the page is
`
`downloaded and displayed. The markup can control the layout and
`
`appearance of text and media elements as well as provide for interaction
`
`with the page. The downloaded HTML file may contain file locators (URL)
`
`of other files that reside on remote servers or different directories on the
`
`same server, typically referred to as hyperlinks.
`
`File Handling on a Device via a User Interface
`D.
`
`
`
` Accessing and viewing files on a local computer became much more 41.
`
`expedient as operating systems, such as Windows 95®, started supporting
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`
`Graphical User Interface (GUI)-based file handling. On each modern
`
`computer, GUIs are provided by the operating systems to view, edit or move
`
`local files and directories (e.g., folder windows and icons). They are
`
`distinguished from their predecessor, a terminal where file manipulation
`
`commands are entered as sequential lines of text.
`
`
` Graphical Web Browsers E.
`
`
` Graphical web browsers arrived first with Mosaic® in 1993, providing 42.
`
`Internet users with a much more natural and friendly method of interacting
`
`with the Internet. This essentially made Internet access much easier for
`
`ordinary users, contributing significantly to its success and popularity.
`
`Browsers accommodated different visual layouts and direct access to other
`
`pages by clicking a mouse, as noted above.
`
`
` Web Browser-Based Applications F.
`
`
` HTML is in effect a programming language for the layout of web pages. 43.
`
`
`
` Web browsers can download content not only in the form of HTML files and 44.
`
`media files, but also in the form of stand-alone programs, containing
`
`executed code, capable of running within the web browser environment.
`
`Instead of running on a user’s computer, as is typical for a software
`
`application, web browser-based applications run within the browser itself.
`
`For example, Java and Javascript are two languages that are interpreted by
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,765,482 – Declaration of