Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WHATSAPP, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-00740
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`001
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WHATSAPP, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-00740
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`001
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 1
`RESPONSE TO DR. SURATI’S OPINIONS REGARDING
`CLAIM 1 ........................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Interpretation of “Select” in Claim 1 ................................................... 2
`B. Dr. Surati’s Definition of “Select” Does Not Distinguish
`Coulombe ........................................................................................... 11
`RESPONSE TO DR. SURATI’S OPINIONS REGARDING
`CLAIM 6 ...................................................................................................... 14
`A.
`The Prior Art Discloses a “Template” ............................................... 14
`B.
`The Prior Art Discloses a “Predefined Layout” ................................. 19
`C.
`The Prior Art Is Properly Combinable ............................................... 24
`
`i. Messaging vs. Web Browsing Systems ...................................... 25
`ii. XSLT vs. CSS Style Sheets in Combination with
` Coulombe .................................................................................... 29
`
`iii. Dr. Surati’s Analysis Relies on Errors and Irrelevancies ........... 34
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‐i‐
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`002
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`I, David Klausner, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I submit this Reply Declaration to respond to certain points made in
`
`the December 9, 2015 Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D. (Ex, 2002, hereafter
`
`“Surati Decl.”) submitted by the patent owner.
`
`I.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`2.
`
`In paragraph 20 his declaration, Dr. Surati adopts a definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art different from the one expressed in my Opening
`
`Declaration. (Surati Decl. ¶ 20.) I respectfully disagree with Dr. Surati’s
`
`formulation insofar as it requires “at least one year of experience working with
`
`format encoding and layout of images or video.” (Id. (italics added).) Although a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art could possess such experience, a person can
`
`qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art without such experience.
`
`3.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’475 patent do not require messages that
`
`contain “images or video,” a point Dr. Surati conceded at his deposition. (Surati
`
`Depo., Ex. 1014, at 15:12-16:12, 18:4-21.) The patent specification further
`
`confirms that a “message” could contain only textual information. (’475, Ex.
`
`1001, 10:51-55.) Therefore, experience with format encoding as it relates to
`
`images and video would not have been required to understand and implement the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`1
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`003
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`II. RESPONSE TO DR. SURATI’S OPINIONS REGARDING CLAIM 1
`4.
`Dr. Surati has treated claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 12, 23, 37,
`
`39, and 41. (Surati Decl. ¶ 14.) In attempting to distinguish claim 1 from
`
`Coulombe, Dr. Surati makes only one argument – that Coulombe allegedly fails to
`
`disclose that the media block is “configured to select, before transmitting, at least
`
`one message format and message layout . . . .” (Id. ¶ 105 (emphasis added).) Dr.
`
`Surati’s arguments as to this limitation appear to rely entirely on a narrow
`
`definition of the word “select” as recited in the claim. Dr. Surati contends that
`
`“this limitation requires that the media block be configured to select a format and
`
`layout from a fixed set of layout and format choices.” (Id. (emphasis added); see
`
`also id. ¶¶ 83-85.) I respectfully disagree with Dr. Surati’s definition of “select.” I
`
`also disagree that his definition, even if adopted, would distinguish the Coulombe
`
`reference. I address these issues below.
`
`A.
`
`5.
`
`Interpretation of “Select” in Claim 1
`
`I have found nothing in the patent to support Dr. Surati’s argument
`
`that the media block in claim 1 must “select” the message format and layout “from
`
`a fixed set of layout and format choices,” as alleged by Dr. Surati. (Id. ¶ 105.) To
`
`the contrary, the word “select” as used in claim 1 is synonymous with “decide” or
`
`“determine,” and does not require selection from a fixed set of choices.
`
`2
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`004
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`6.
`
`The patent specification refutes Dr. Surati’s argument in several ways.
`
`First and foremost, it expressly discloses an embodiment in which the messaging
`
`system selects the message format and layout dynamically, relying on information
`
`carried in the message itself. This embodiment argues against Dr. Surati’s
`
`proposed construction, which would require the choices of format and layout be
`
`fixed or preprogrammed into the messaging system.
`
`7.
`
`I note that the messaging system 16 in the specification makes a
`
`“delivery decision” on how a received message should be handled before delivery
`
`to the destination. (’475, 16:51-63; see also id. Fig. 6.) The claimed selection of
`
`the message format and layout is encompassed within this “delivery decision.” As
`
`the specification explains:
`
`The delivery decision comprises delivery instructions with regard to
`destination device(s) and/or content and/or format and/or layout of the
`message to be delivered. The delivery instructions or parts thereof
`may be received with the message (e.g. contained in the metadata),
`extracted and provided accordingly, and/or may be predefined in the
`system (e.g. in a form of a lookup table providing matching between
`originating device and/or destination device and format and/or layout
`of the message to be converted for delivery).
`
`(’475, 16:63-17:4 (underlining added).) This passage discloses at least two
`
`alternative techniques for selecting a format and layout for a received message: (1)
`
`relying on instructions “received with the message (e.g. contained in the
`
`3
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`005
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`metadata),” “or” (2) using instructions “predefined in the system” such as a lookup
`
`table for matching an intended destination device to appropriate format and layout.
`
`(Id.) This passage also discloses that the selection of format and layout
`
`(encompassed within the overall “delivery decision”) can be based on some
`
`combination of information received with the message “and” information
`
`predefined in the system. (Id.) In my opinion, the disclosure of these alternative
`
`techniques for selecting a format and layout fatally refutes Dr. Surati’s narrow
`
`definition of “select.”
`
`8.
`
`The first way (1), in which format and layout may be selected based
`
`on information carried in the message itself, is contrary to selection “from a fixed
`
`set of layout and format choices.” Because the possible choices of format and
`
`layout “predefined in the system” may be augmented or even replaced by
`
`instructions or metadata received with the message, the messaging system is not
`
`restricted to selecting from a set of formats and layouts predefined, built-in, or
`
`otherwise “fixed” by the messaging system. Under this technique, the messaging
`
`system could select a new format and layout that it first learns about on receipt of
`
`the message.
`
`9.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have understood that
`
`the set of formats and layouts the messaging system selects from can contain any
`
`number of format and layout options, as the ’475 patent places no limits on the
`
`4
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`006
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`type of delivery instructions that “may be received with the message (e.g.
`
`contained in the metadata), extracted and provided accordingly.” (’475, 17:66-
`
`17:1.)
`
`10.
`
`I am informed that, in interpreting a patent claim under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction, a person of ordinary skill in the art should generally avoid
`
`an interpretation that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.
`
`However, Dr. Surati’s proposed construction would do just that. By requiring that
`
`the media block select the format and layout from a fixed set of choices, it would
`
`exclude all embodiments involving format and layout options not pre-programmed
`
`into the messaging system, including embodiments in which the format and layout
`
`are selected based on information received with the message itself.
`
`11. The second way (2) mentioned above, in which the format and layout
`
`may be predefined and identified through a lookup table, appears to disclose a
`
`selection based on what Dr. Surati calls a “fixed set of layout and format choices.”
`
`However, this is simply one alternative embodiment for selecting a format and
`
`layout for a received message. I have found nothing in the claims, specification, or
`
`prosecution history to suggest that the applicant intended to limit the claims to the
`
`“lookup table” embodiment. Claim 1, for example, simply recites a media block
`
`that is “configured to select, before transmitting, at least one message format and a
`
`message layout.” (’475, 23:18-19.) Claim 1 does not require selection from a
`
`5
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`007
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`fixed set of choices, through a lookup table or otherwise. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would interpret claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`to cover selection from both the fixed choices in a lookup table predefined in the
`
`messaging system, and the selecting format and layout dynamically based on
`
`instructions or metadata provided with the incoming message itself.
`
`12. Dr. Surati also cites to dictionary definitions for the word “select,” but
`
`in my opinion, those definitions do not support his argument. (Surati Decl. ¶ 81.)
`
`Although the definitions selected by Dr. Surati suggest a choice from among
`
`alternatives, none of his definitions requires that the alternatives be predefined,
`
`static, or otherwise “fixed” in any way. Dr. Surati has also ignored other
`
`definitions of “select” that simply mean “to choose” or “make a choice.” (See Ex
`
`1015, The New Oxford American Dictionary (2d ed. 2005), at 1536 (providing a
`
`definition of “select” as “carefully choose as being the best or most suitable”); Ex
`
`1016, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 2001) (providing a
`
`definition of “select” as “to choose in preference to another or others”), at 1734; Ex
`
`1017, Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1999), at 1000 (providing a definition
`
`of “select” as “[t]o make a choice or selection”).) These definitions illustrate that,
`
`contrary to Dr. Surati’s testimony, the word “select” does not require a “fixed set
`
`of choices.” (See Surati Decl. ¶ 81.)
`
`6
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`008
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`13.
`
`In any event, I have been informed that the specification is more
`
`valuable than dictionary definitions for ascertaining what it means for the media
`
`block to “select” a format and layout. As I explained above, the specification
`
`equates the claimed selection with a “delivery decision,” and makes clear that the
`
`decision can be based either on dynamic information carried with the received
`
`message itself, or a predefined set of choices. (’475, 16:63-17:4.) In either case,
`
`the word “select” as used in the claim is synonymous with “decide” or
`
`“determine,” which both connote making a choice or decision about the format and
`
`layout to use for the message. (Compare id. with Coulombe, ¶ 0083 (“[The
`
`Message Adaptation Engine] may decide to adapt using default capabilities (e.g. a
`
`minimal set of capabilities normally supported by most or all terminals) or may
`
`decide
`
`that no adaptation
`
`is possible except maybe
`
`for
`
`the network
`
`characteristics.”), ¶ 0118 (“The means 68 [of the Message Adaptation Engine] will
`
`make a determination of what sort of adaptation or adaptations are required . . .
`
`.”).) I note that other passages in the ’475 specification also use the word
`
`“determine” to describe a selection among alternatives. (See ’475, 15:26-30 (“In
`
`certain embodiments of the invention the destination device may be determined
`
`among devices assigned to the receiver . . . .”) (emphasis added).)
`
`14. Dr. Surati cites a later passage in column 21 relating to template-based
`
`messaging, but like the passage I quoted above, it confirms that the layout of a
`
`7
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`message may be selected based on information that is not fixed or predefined in the
`
`messaging system:
`
`Accordingly, for template-based messaging the delivery instructions
`with regard to layout of the message are based on predefined layout of
`message matching to template unique identifier and capabilities of
`destination device. The
`layout may be further predefined
`in
`accordance with information to be obtained with regard to certain
`filled field, format of selected media items, etc. Among advantages of
`certain aspects of the present invention is reduction in need of content
`analysis and ability to provide layout-related delivery instructions
`based on pre-defined rules and parameters (e.g. in a form of a look-up
`table).
`
`(’475, 21:1-12 (underlining added).)
`
`15. Dr. Surati focuses on the last sentence of the passage above referring
`
`to a “look-up table” to support his proposed narrow definition of “select,” but he
`
`ignores the earlier sentence that I have shown in underlining above. (Surati Decl.
`
`¶¶ 84, 85.) That underlined text confirms that a selection of message layout may
`
`be based on the content of fields that were filled in, or the format of media items
`
`accompanying the message. This information cannot be known by the messaging
`
`system in advance, as Dr. Surati appeared to acknowledge during his deposition:
`
`8
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`010
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`Q
`
`In column 21, lines 1 through 12, I want to focus on the second
`sentence for a minute that you block quoted, and I'll read it into the
`record.
`
`It says, “The layout may be further predefined in accordance with
`information to be obtained with regard to certain failed field format of
`selected media items, et cetera.”
`
`Umm-hmm.
`
`The information obtained with regard to certain fields that were filled
`in, that’s information that would be carried with the message, correct?
`
`Generally, I think that's true.
`
`Okay. And the next sentence says, format of selected media items,
`the selected media items is something that would be contained in the
`message that is received by the messaging system, correct?
`
`Generally, I think that’s true.
`
`And the format of the selected media items wouldn't necessarily be
`known until after the message was received by the messaging system,
`correct?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`MR. WEIDER: Object to form.
`
`A
`
`The format of what wouldn't be known? Can you repeat that
`question?
`
`Q Well, the selected media items --
`
`A
`
`Umm-hmm.
`
`9
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`011
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`Q
`
`-- until they're received by the messaging system, the messaging
`system won't necessarily know what their format is, correct?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Yeah, because it's not there. Who knows what the heck the person
`says.
`
`It doesn't have it yet, so it doesn't know.
`
`Yeah.
`
`(Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 60:23-62:11.)
`
`16. Therefore, the messaging system in this embodiment is not selecting
`
`the layout from a “fixed set of choices.” Because this embodiment would be
`
`excluded, Dr. Surati’s proposed construction of “select” would not be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art to be the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`17. Finally, I note that my broader definition of “select” is supported by
`
`other language in claim 1. Further down in claim 1, the claim recites the selection
`
`of the format and layout, and conversion of the message is “done in accordance
`
`with at least one criterion selected from a group comprising,” followed by three
`
`identified criteria relating to communication capabilities, displaying capabilities,
`
`and communication media. (’475, 23:23-34 (emphasis added).) This language
`
`would have indicated to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant knew
`
`how to use the verb “select” in the context of choosing from a limited set of
`
`options. I note that the earlier clause in claim 1 relating to the selection of message
`
`format and layout contains no such limiting language.
`
`10
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`012
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`B. Dr. Surati’s Definition of “Select” Does Not Distinguish Coulombe
`
`18. As I explained previously, the correct interpretation of “select” in
`
`claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is “decide” or “determine,”
`
`and the claim does not require selection from a fixed set of format and layout
`
`choices. But even if I were to assume that Dr. Surati’s definition is correct, it
`
`would not provide a basis to distinguish the Coulombe reference.
`
`19. Dr. Surati asserts
`
`that Coulombe “teaches
`
`that
`
`the possible
`
`combinations have no fixed set of choices.” (Surati Decl. ¶ 106.) He reasons that
`
`there cannot be a fixed set of choices in a Coulombe system because Coulombe
`
`provides a “flexible design in which format and layout adaption can encompass
`
`any incoming message characteristics, any destination device characteristics, and
`
`user preferences.” (Id. ¶ 107.) I respectfully disagree with Dr. Surati for a number
`
`of reasons.
`
`20. Dr. Surati’s conclusion derives from the false premise that a
`
`Coulombe system would be capable of an infinite variety of format and layout
`
`adaptations. But Coulombe teaches a computer-based system, and as such, the
`
`messaging system can only carry out the operations it is programmed to perform.
`
`(Coulombe, Ex. 1003, ¶ 0081 (“The proxy 12, in addition to the operations of a SIP
`
`proxy spelled out in RFC 2453, is responsible for performing transformation of SIP
`
`messages. . . . The proxy uses the capabilities or user preferences obtained from the
`
`11
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`013
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`registration or obtains them itself. It then adapts messages with the help of the
`
`Message Adaptation Engine . . . .”).) For example, the adaptation engine 20 in
`
`Coulombe can perform format adaptation (such as PNG to GIF for an image),
`
`presentation and layout adaptation (such as landscape to portrait orientation), and
`
`message size adaptation, among others. (Id. ¶¶ 0086-0091.) A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that, for each adaptation described in
`
`Coulombe, the system must provide software (or equivalent functionality) to carry
`
`out the adaptation. (Id. ¶¶ 0092, 0093.) Unlike the ’475 patent as discussed above,
`
`Coulombe does not suggest that instructions provided by system software for
`
`selecting format and layout may be augmented by instructions provided with the
`
`received message.
`
`21. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have understood
`
`that the available choices of adaptations in a Coulombe system are “fixed” and
`
`limited to those enabled by system software, and as such, the system is not so
`
`“flexible,” as Dr. Surati claims, so as to enable format and layout adaptation for
`
`“any incoming message characteristics, any destination device characteristics, and
`
`user preferences.” (Surati Decl. ¶ 107 (emphasis added).) Coulombe itself
`
`expressly recognizes the existence of limitations to adaptation – and according to
`
`Dr. Surati’s logic, adaptation choices – by acknowledging that there may be
`
`situations in which “[t]he Message Adaptation Engine returns . . . the original
`
`12
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`014
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`message” where adaptation was not successful. (Coulombe, Ex. 1003, ¶ 0083.)
`
`This further refutes Dr. Surati’s suggestion that Coulombe places no limits on the
`
`available format and layout choices.
`
`22.
`
`In fact, the format and layout choices in Coulombe appear more
`
`“fixed” than those in the ’475 patent. This is because, as I have noted previously,
`
`the ’475 patent allows format and layout to be selected based at least in part on
`
`instructions and metadata provided with the received message itself, thus obviating
`
`the need to rely on fixed formats or layouts built-in to the messaging system.
`
`Moreover, Coulombe cannot be said to be any more “flexible” than the ’475 patent
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to
`
`incoming message characteristics, destination device
`
`characteristics, or user preferences. (See ’475, 10:43-55 (explaining that a message
`
`can be “any kind of communication objects capable to be exchanged between
`
`communication devices” and media items can be “in any available formats”);
`
`10:27-42 (explaining that a communication device can be “any kind of CPE
`
`(customer premises equipment) device with messaging communication
`
`capabilities”); 15:7-14 (explaining support for “sender’s and/or receivers’
`
`preferences, if any, related to destination device, message layout and/or format,
`
`etc.”) (emphases added).)
`
`23. Accordingly, even if one were to accept Dr. Surati’s proposed
`
`construction of “select,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found
`
`13
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`015
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`it to present any meaningful distinction over Coulombe. For the reasons stated in
`
`my opening Declaration (Ex. 1002), therefore, claims 1, 12, 23, 37, 39, and 41
`
`would have been obvious over Coulombe under either the correct construction of
`
`“select,” or under the erroneously narrow construction proposed by Dr. Surati.
`
`III. RESPONSE TO DR. SURATI’S OPINIONS REGARDING CLAIM 6
`24. Dr. Surati has treated claim 6 as representative of claims 6, 9, 17, 18,
`
`28, and 40. (Surati Decl. ¶ 14.) Dr. Surati takes issue with only two limitations in
`
`claim 6 – “template” and “predefined layout.” (Surati Decl. ¶¶ 108-117.) Dr.
`
`Surati further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`been motivated to combine Coulombe with either Tittel or Druyan. (Id. ¶¶ 118-
`
`148.) I respectfully disagree with Dr. Surati’s opinions on these subjects.
`
`A.
`
`The Prior Art Discloses a “Template”
`
`25. Dr. Surati has accepted my proposed definition of “template,” which
`
`is “any kind of predefined user interface related to content and/or layout of
`
`transmitted and/or received message.” (Surati Decl. ¶ 111.) Dr. Surati contends
`
`that the style sheets in Druyan and Tittel do not qualify as “templates” because
`
`neither qualifies as a “predefined user interface.” (Id. ¶¶ 112, 113.)
`
`26.
`
`I respectfully disagree with Dr. Surati. It is undisputed that a style
`
`sheet specifies the appearance of an HTML document, including its style and
`
`layout. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 88-89, 92, 100.) As Dr. Surati acknowledged at his
`
`14
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`016
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`deposition, a style sheet can specify, among other things, how elements are
`
`arranged on the screen, the color, size and fonts associated with those elements, the
`
`screen background and foreground colors, and a number of other visual properties.
`
`(Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 28:17-29:17.) Dr. Surati also correctly acknowledged
`
`that a style sheet can be used to prevent objects from being shown when the HTML
`
`document is rendered. (Id. at 29:18-30:3.) These are “user interface” properties
`
`because they affect how the information will be presented to the user. The style
`
`sheet, in other words, defines a graphical user interface used to present the content
`
`and/or layout in the underlying HTML document to the user. A style sheet
`
`therefore qualifies as a “template” for purposes of the ’475 patent.1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` In fact, the Tittel reference specifically uses the word “template” to refer to an
`
`external style sheet, the type of style sheet I have relied upon for purposes of my
`
`analysis. (Tittel, Ex. 1005, at p. 58 (“Taking another cue from standard style
`
`sheets, in HTML you can store style sheets individually . . . which allows you to
`
`create one style template and apply it many times. These style sheets are called
`
`external style sheets.”) (underlining added; italics in original); see also U.S. App.
`
`Pub. No. 2002/0116415 (assigned to IBM), Ex. 1020, ¶ 0008 (“Style sheets work
`
`like templates, a style is defined for a particular HTML element and then this
`
`15
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`017
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`
`27. Dr. Surati’s opinion appears to be based on a narrow interpretation of
`
`the phrase “predefined user interface.” He asserts that “a ‘predefined user
`
`interface,’ in the context of the ’475 patent, has to include a visually displayed
`
`interface consisting of actual data elements of interest and not just the fonts or
`
`colors to apply to the elements in an HTML document.” (Surati Decl. ¶ 113.) The
`
`only statement from the ’475 patent specification that Dr. Surati cites to support
`
`this assertion is: “Typically the template comprises a pre-existing text, and/or
`
`spaces to be filled and/or media items and/or menu elements.” (Id. (quoting ’475,
`
`11:11-14) (emphasis added).) But this statement from the ’475 specification just
`
`describes one embodiment and is expressly qualified by the word “typically,”
`
`indicating an exemplary rather than a limiting description.
`
`28. Dr. Surati’s definition of “predefined user interface” also requires that
`
`a “template” contain actual content, rather than just layout information. As I have
`
`noted, Dr. Surati states that a template must contain a “visually displayed interface
`
`
`
`defined style is used over and over on any number of web pages.”).) There can
`
`also be no dispute that the external style sheet, which must be defined and stored
`
`before being applied to an HTML document, is “predefined.” (Tittel, Ex. 1005, at
`
`p. 58.)
`
`16
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`018
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`consisting of actual data elements of interest and not just the fonts or colors to
`
`apply to the elements in an HTML document” (underlining added).2 (Surati Decl.
`
`¶ 113.) However, this requirement by Dr. Surati contradicts the express definition
`
`of “template” in the specification, the latter which makes clear that a template need
`
`not contain content:
`
`The term “message template” used in this patent specification should
`be expansively construed to include any kind of predefined user
`interface related to content and/or layout of transmitted and/or
`received message.
`
`(’475, 11:8-11 (emphasis added).) The use of the phrase “content and/or layout”
`
`makes clear that a template can relate to just content, just layout, or some
`
`combination of both.
`
`29. To the extent Dr. Surati’s definition of “template” suggests that a
`
`“visually displayed interface” must be employed to create the content or layout
`
`
`
` 2
`
` As I have explained above, to the extent Dr. Surati suggests that a style sheet is
`
`only capable of specifying the “fonts or colors” of the elements, he is mistaken. As
`
`he acknowledged at his deposition, style sheets can also specify the layout of the
`
`documents, the size of objects in the page, color and font information, and can
`
`make objects not appear on the page. (Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 28:17-30:3.)
`
`17
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`019
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`information, such a requirement would not alter my opinion that claim 6 is
`
`obviousover the prior art. Figure 2 in Coulombe, as Dr. Surati acknowledged at his
`
`deposition, discloses a user interface showing the content of an initial message.
`
`(Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 86:2-13; see also Coulombe, Ex. 1003, ¶ 0094 (“The
`
`original message is shown on the left.”).) One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the content shown in the user interface (to the left of Figure
`
`2) can be created using a visually displayed interface of the sending terminal. It
`
`was also well known to those of ordinary skill in art prior to 2005 that a created
`
`message akin to what is shown to the left of Figure 2 can be formatted as an
`
`HTML document having a layout defined using CSS. (See U.S. App. Pub. No.
`
`2005/0257142 (filed May 13, 2004), Ex. 1021, Fig. 3B (showing an HTML
`
`document with layout information specified in CSS), ¶¶ 0013, 0027, 0030
`
`(explaining that the HTML document shown in Fig. 3B is sent as an e-mail
`
`message).)
`
`30. Moreover, prior to 2005, it was well-known that a software program
`
`commonly referred to as a text editor (many of which had a graphical user
`
`interface) could have been used to create CSS files. Dr. Surati agreed at his
`
`deposition. (Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 83:6-84.) Text editing programs were
`
`widely available and universally known prior to 2005 and include word processing
`
`programs (e.g. Microsoft Word) and more rudimentary text editors (such as
`
`18
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`020
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`Microsoft Notepad). It would have been common knowledge and apparent to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art that the style sheets in Tittel and Druyan (which
`
`disclose the “template” recited in claim 6) could have been created through a text
`
`editor program that provides a user interface for typing in and/or editing style sheet
`
`text. (See also U.S. Patent No. 8,181,104 (filed Aug. 31, 2004), Ex. 1018, at 1:64-
`
`2:7 (“Web development environments have been developed that assist in the
`
`creation of CSS for Web pages. Such development environments, such as
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION's FRONTPAGE™, ADOBE SYSTEMS INC.’s
`
`GO LIVE™, and the like, each have included CSS editing tools that provide user-
`
`selectable CSS rules and styles to apply to the various elements and classes of the
`
`Web page being edited. CSS editors, in such development environments, allow
`
`developers to create styles that may be saved and easily applied to content within
`
`the Web page.”).) Therefore, for all of these reasons the prior art discloses and
`
`renders obvious the “template” limitation recited in claim 6.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art Discloses a “Predefined Layout”
`
`31. Dr. Surati also contends that the prior art does not disclose “at least
`
`one predefined layout,” as recited in claim 6. Dr. Surati bases this argument on the
`
`assertion that the term “predefined layout” requires the layout to be created prior to
`
`receipt of the incoming message. (Surati Decl., Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 89, 90, 91, 114.) Dr.
`
`Surati further asserts that a predefined layout “cannot be generated ‘on the fly’ by
`
`19
`
`WhatsApp/Facebook Ex. 1013
`IPR2015-00740
`
`021
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Case No. IPR2015-00740
`
`the messaging system after receipt of the message and prior to delivery to the
`
`destination device.” (Id. ¶ 90.) I respectfully disagree with Dr. Surati
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
