IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-00367-O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,
`RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA LLC, MULTIPLY INC.,
`FACEBOOK, INC., AND
`PHOTOBUCKET CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. V. THOMAS RHYNE
`
`REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,895,557 AND 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 1 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. V. THOMAS RHYNE CONCERNING THE INVALIDITY
`OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENTS NOS. 6,895,557 AND 7,765,482
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this litigation Plaintiff Summit 6 LLC (“Summit 6”) has asserted that defendants
`1.
`infringe various claims of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,895,557 (“the ’557 patent”) and 7,765,482 (“the
`’482 patent”) which are both now assigned to Summit 6. This expert report addresses the claims
`being asserted against defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`Telecommunications America LLC (collectively “Samsung”) and Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”)
`(collectively “Defendants”).
`
`1.1
`
`Retention
`
`I have been retained as an independent technical expert by Defendants Facebook and
`2.
`Samsung in this litigation. I am being paid for my work in this litigation at the rate of $650 per
`hour. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation. I have no personal
`interest in that outcome. My opinions and conclusions and other matters on which I expect to
`testify at trial are set forth below.
`
`This expert report describes the testimony that I am likely to present regarding the
`3.
`technical subject matter described in the ’557 and ’482 patents, as well as what was known in the
`relevant art at the priority dates of those patents. I may provide a tutorial or demonstration
`regarding the issues raised in this expert report, and may also provide oral testimony regarding
`my knowledge and expert opinions at trial. I anticipate that I may be called to testify regarding
`the issues discussed in this expert report, the exhibits to it and the materials I have considered in
`formulating my opinions. I also expect that I may be called to testify in a tutorial role regarding
`the prior art and general technical concepts relevant to the issues in this suit based on my
`education, experience, and expertise in those areas.
`
`I have prepared this expert report based on my independent evaluation and analysis. This
`4.
`expert report also sets forth my conclusions based on my analysis and research to date. I
`respectfully reserve the right to supplement the opinions set forth in this report, however,
`whether through a supplemental expert report, or through testimony at trial. I also respectfully
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 2 of 36
`
`

`

`reserve the right to respond, either through a supplemental expert report or at trial, to any reports,
`
`testimony, other evidence or argument that Slunmit 6 may serve, or depositions of Summit 6
`
`witnesses or third parties that are scheduled but have yet to take place, including the depositions
`
`of Peter Yoakum, Scott Wilson, Laban Jackson, and Point2.
`
`5.
`
`I understand that the Court has construed the asserted claims of the ’557 and ’482 patents
`
`(“Claim Construction”).
`
`I have applied the Claim Constructions in this expert report.
`
`In
`
`addition,
`
`I have reviewed Summit 6’s June
`
`10, 2012 Final
`
`Infiingement Contentions
`
`(“Infringement Contentions”) against Facebook and Samsung, and in preparing this expert report
`
`I have also considered the scope of the claims being asserted by Summit 6, as that scope is
`
`reflected in the Infringement Contentions, although this should not be taken as suggesting that I
`
`agree with Summit 6’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`I have also considered all of the material
`
`listed in Exhibit B.
`
`1.2
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`6.
`
`According to the cover pleading of Plaintiff Summit 6’s June 20, 2012 Local Patent Rule
`
`Disclosures, Summit 6 asserts the following claims against the Defendants identified in the
`
`preceding paragraph:
`
`’557 Patent: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 28, 29,
`
`31, 33, 34, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55,
`
`56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,
`
`Facebook
`
`70, 71, 72, 73, and 74.
`
`19, 22, 23, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 49.
`
`’482 Patent: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
`
`16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30,
`
`34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47,
`
`49, and 51.
`
`’482 Patent: 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,
`
`Page 2
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 3 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`I refer to the claims being asserted by Summit 6 for each of their two patents as the
`7.
`“Asserted ’557 Claims” and the “Asserted ’482 Claims.” I refer to those two sets of claims
`collectively as the “Asserted Summit 6 Claims.”
`
`1.3
`
`The Scope of this Expert Report
`
`For this expert report I have been asked to compare the scope of the Asserted Summit 6
`8.
`Claims to a number of prior patents, other references and products, and as a result of that
`comparison, to determine whether or not that prior art invalidates those claims. This expert
`report provides the opinions of invalidity which I have formed as a result of that comparison, as
`well as the bases for those opinions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 4 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.1.3 The Mattes Patent
`
`
`
`106. Heinz Mattes, U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 (“Mattes”) was filed Jun. 17, 1997 and issued
`Mar. 14, 2000. Mattes is entitled “Apparatus and Method for Recording, Communicating and
`Administering Digital Images.” Mattes is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). I note
`that Mattes was not considered by the PTO during the prosecution of the ’557 or ’482 patents
`and, based on my comparison of Mattes to the prior art before the PTO during the prosecution of
`the ’557 and ’482 patents, is not cumulative.
`
`107. Mattes describes a “communications system for recording and administering” data using
`a “telephone unit” consisting of a “digital image pick up unit,” a “telephone memory,” and a
`“processor.” (Mattes 2:5-10). The Mattes digital image pick up unit, which is essentially a
`digital camera, captures digital images and stores them in the telephone memory. (Mattes 6:1-5).
`Using the processor, the telephone unit then reduces the size of the stored images using the JPEG
`image compression algorithm. (Mattes 6:5-9). The compressed images are subsequently
`transmitted from the telephone unit to a server. (Mattes 7:61-64). After receiving the
`compressed image, Mattes discloses that the server could subsequently make the uploaded image
`available on a web page. (Mattes 8:28-35).
`
`108. Mattes also discloses that the image quality of the uploaded photos varies based on the
`requirements of the destination server. (Mattes 4:18-37). Like the system described in the
`asserted patents, the Mattes systems ensures those requirements are satisfied without any user
`involvement. (Mattes 4:18-37) The Mattes telephone unit and server perform a handshake to
`
`
`
`
`Page 38
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 5 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`settle on the client-side processing parameters necessary to meet the server’s requirements.
`(Mattes 4:18-37.) The telephone unit first transmits to the server the image resolution or quality
`it intends to provide before uploading the photo. (Mattes 4:18-37.) If the intended resolution or
`quality falls outside the server’s requirements, the server asks the telephone unit to change the
`quality of the image. (Mattes 4:18-37). The server communicates its request through “a control
`parameter” that directs the level of image compression performed by the telephone unit’s image
`processor. (Mattes 5:20-29; Fig. 3).
`
`In addition to pre-processing the captured photos before uploading them, the Mattes
`109.
`telephone unit collects and transmits “classification information” associated with each uploaded
`photo. (Mattes 7:6-19). That classification information helps the server organize and later
`quickly retrieve uploaded photos. (Mattes 3:52-65; 8:41-45). As shown in Figure 4 of Mattes,
`the disclosed system can accept several categories of classification information, such as the
`phone number or physical address of the telephone unit and where the server should store the file
`in its file system. (Mattes 7:6-44). The classification information is transmitted to the server
`“with the digital images.” (Mattes 7:6-8).
`
`4.1.4 E. Nebel and L. Masinter, RFC 1867 “Form-based File Upload in HTML,”
`November 1995 (“RFC 1867”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 6 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`* * * * * * * * * *
`
`14.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`615. This expert report reflects my opinions given in good faith with respect to the information
`available to me as of the date I executed it. I respectfully reserve the right to supplement or
`amend my opinions in response to opinions expressed by Summit 6’s experts, or in light of any
`additional evidence, testimony, or other information that may be provided to me after the date of
`this expert report, including at trial. In addition, I explicitly reserve my right to supplement my
`expert report after the depositions of Mr. Yoakum, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Golding, and
`Mr. Willick, and Point2, which I have been informed will occur in the near future. I also
`understand that other additional discovery may occur in the near future and I explicitly reserve
`my right to supplement my expert report based on such discovery. In addition, I expect that I
`may be asked to testify in rebuttal as to issues that may be raised in the expert reports of
`Summit 6’s experts, or to issues that may be raised by Summit 6’s fact witnesses and technical
`experts at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 174
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 7 of 36
`
`

`

`Signed on August L 2012.
`
`W V
`
`. Thomas Rhyne. Ph.D., RE
`
`Page 175
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 8 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit D
`
`As shown in the chart below, the Asserted ’482 Patent Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by one or more
`of the following references, and/or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in light of one or more of the following references either
`individually or in combination. This invalidity claim charts has been prepared based on my understanding of the Asserted ’482 Patent
`Claims, the Court’s Claim Construction, and Summit 6’s proposed interpretations of those claims in its June 20, 2012 Final
`Infringement Contentions. Citations to particular excerpts are exemplary in nature, and are not exhaustive of the evidentiary support
`found in the reference. Where a particular figure is cited in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the caption
`and description of the figure and any text relating to or discussing the figure. Similarly, where particular text that discusses a figure is
`cited, the citation should also include the figure.
`
`
`Table of Contents
`’482 Patent - Claim 1 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
`’482 Patent - Claim 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
`’482 Patent - Claim 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
`’482 Patent - Claim 6 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
`’482 Patent - Claim 7 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
`’482 Patent - Claim 8 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
`’482 Patent - Claim 9 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
`’482 Patent - Claim 10 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 29
`’482 Patent - Claim 12 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
`’482 Patent - Claim 13 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 36
`’482 Patent - Claim 14 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 47
`’482 Patent - Claim 15 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 48
`’482 Patent - Claim 16 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 49
`’482 Patent - Claim 17 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 53
`’482 Patent - Claim 18 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 55
`’482 Patent - Claim 19 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 57
`’482 Patent - Claim 20 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 58
`’482 Patent - Claim 21 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 60
`’482 Patent - Claim 22 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62
`
`1
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 9 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’482 Patent - Claim 23 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 63
`’482 Patent - Claim 25 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 64
`’482 Patent - Claim 26 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 68
`’482 Patent - Claim 27 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 77
`’482 Patent - Claim 34 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 80
`’482 Patent - Claim 35 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 81
`’482 Patent - Claim 36 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
`’482 Patent - Claim 37 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 92
`’482 Patent - Claim 38 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 95
`’482 Patent - Claim 40 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 98
`’482 Patent - Claim 41 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 101
`’482 Patent - Claim 42 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 102
`’482 Patent - Claim 44 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 103
`’482 Patent - Claim 45 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 104
`’482 Patent - Claim 46 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 106
`’482 Patent - Claim 47 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 108
`’482 Patent - Claim 49 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 109
`’482 Patent - Claim 51 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 112
`
`
`2
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 10 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 Patent - Claim 1
`
`’482 PATENT CLAINIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`A computer implemented method of pre- Mattes meets this limitation because it discloses a method of compressing image
`processing digital content in a client
`content 011 a telephone 1mit for subsequent electronic publication. See, e.g. , 2:23-
`device for subsequent electronic
`27: 2:34-40: 4:18—34: 5:20-29; 6:2-8; 7:60—63; 8:14-23; 8:31-34: 8:40-42: Fig. 2.
`
`publishing, comprising:
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 11 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIlVIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
` ~
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 12 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`1(a) receiving pie—processing parameters Mattes discloses a telephone unit receiving from a server a “control parameter to
`from a remote device‘ said pre-
`set the image compression level.” See, e.g.~ 5:20-29; 4:18-34: 8:14-23.
`processing parameters including a
`specification of an amount of digital
`content‘ said digital content including
`one or more of image content, Video
`content and audio content;
`
` U;IIIII
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 13 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Summit 6 argues in its infringement contentions that the specification limitation is
`satisfied by values that control dimensions or compression quality of an image.
`Summit 6’s Infrin ement Contentions to Facebook at 13. Under that inter retation.
`
`Mattes
`
`
`disclose that limitation.
`
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherent] or ex ressl disclosed in the above
`
`
`references or in
`
`, receiving pre—processing parameters from a remote device
`was well known in the an at the time the alle ed invention was made. See e.
`..
`
`Mattes 5:20—29' 4:18-34' 8:14-23 1
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time the alleged invention was made to combine a reference missing this limitation
`with one or more of these references, and/or the general knowledge of one skilled
`in the art.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 14 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLABVIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Mattes discloses a telephone unit that receives an identification of digital content
`when a user records images using the telephone unit‘s digital image pick up unit.
`See, e.g.. 2: 1 1-14: 2:34-40.
`
`1(b) receiving an identification of a
`group of one or more items of digital
`content for transmission, a collective
`digital content of said group of one or
`more items of digital content being
`limited by said received pie-processing
`
`parameters;
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 15 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references, each of the above limitations satisfies the “a collective digital content of
`said group of one or more items of digital content being limited by said received
`pie-processing parameters” limitation for the reasons discussed in limitation 1(a).
`
`1(c) pre-processing said identified group Mattes meets this limitation. It discloses pre-processing the identified image
`of one or more items of digital content
`content by compressing that content using the “control parameter” received from a
`
`using said received pre—processing remote server. See, e.g., 2:23-27; 2:34—40; 4:18-34: 5:20-29; 622—8; 8:14-23; Fig. 2.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 16 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`parameters. said received pie-processing That processing prepares the image content for publication via a web server. which
`parameters controlling said client device would make the content publicly available. See, e.g. 2:34-40: 7:60-63; 8:31-34:
`in a placement of said identified group
`8:40-42.
`of one or more items of digital content
`into a specified form in preparation for
`publication to one or more devices that
`are remote from a server device and said
`
`client device; and
`
`I note that claims of the patents. for example claim 2 of the ‘557 patent. further specify pie-processing includes “encoding.“ But to the extent that Summit 6
`argues otherwise. I note it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the alleged invention was made that the system disclosed in HTML 4
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 17 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAEIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 18 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAINIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 19 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references, pie-processing in preparation for publication was well known in the art
`at the time the alle ed invention was made. See 2.
`.. Mattes 2:34-40' 7:60-63'
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references, each of the above references meets the received pie-processing
`parameters controlling said client device limitation for the reasons discussed in
`limitation 1(a).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time the alleged invention was made to combine the above references with one or
`more of these references, and/or the general knowledge of one skilled in the art.
`
`1(d) transmitting said pre-processed
`group of one or more items of digital
`content to said server device for
`subsequent publishing to said one or
`more devices that are remote from said
`
`server device and said client device.
`
`Mattes meets this limitation because it discloses that the pie-processed image
`content is transmitted fi'onl the telephone unit to a server, which subsequently
`makes the image content publicly available on a web page. See, e.g. , 2:34-40;
`7:60-63: 8:31-43; 8:40-42.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 20 of 36
`
`

`

`_82PATENT CLALVIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 21 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAINIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references. each of the above references meets the publishing limitation for the
`reasons discussed in limitation 1(c).
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 22 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`’482 Patent - Claim 4
`
`4. The method of claim 1, wherein said
`
`receiving an identification comprises
`receiving an identification of a plurality
`of items of digital content.
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherentl or ex ressl disclosed in the above
`
`references or in Mattes
`
`. receiving an identification of a phu‘ality of items
`was well known in the an at the time the alle ed invention was made. See e. -.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 23 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAINIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`and/or the general knowledge of one skilled in the art.
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged invention was made to
`combine a reference missing this limitation with one or more of these references,
`
`It would have been obvious
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 24 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLALMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`’482 Patent - Claim 5
`
`5. The method of claim 1, wherein said
`
`receiving an identification comprises
`receiving a click command at said client
`
`device.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 25 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references or in Mattes or-. receiving a click connnand at said client device
`was well known in the art at the time the alleoed invention was made. See 9..
`.
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged invention was made to combine a
`reference missing this limitation with one or more of these references, and/or the
`
`It would have been obvious to one of
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 26 of 36
`
`

`

`— general knowledge of one skilled in the art.
`
`’482 PATENT CLAINIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 27 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 Patent - Claim 6
`
`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`6. The method of claim 1, wherein said Mattes meets this limitation because it discloses a telephone unit that uses the
`pie-processing comprises reducing a file
`JPEG standard to compress image content on a client before sending the image to a
`size or compressing said digital content.
`
`sewer. See, e.g.. 5:20-29; 622-8: Fig. 2.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 28 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references or in- reducing a file size or compressing said digital content
`was well known in the an at the time the alle ed invention was made. See e.
`..
`Mattes 5:20-29' 622-8: Fi
`.
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the an at the time the alleged
`invention was made to combine a reference missing this limitation with one or
`more of these references, and/or the general knowledge of one skilled in the alt.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 29 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 Patent - Claim 7
`
`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`7. The method of claim 1, wherein said Mattes meets this limitation because compressing image content changes a quality
`pie-processing comprises changing a
`of the content. See, e.g.. 5:20-29; 6:2-8; Fig. 2.
`
`quality of said digital content.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 30 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`To the extent this limitation is not inherently or expressly disclosed in the above
`references or in- reducing a file size or compressing said digital content
`was well known in the an at the time the alle ed invention was made. See e.
`..
`Mattes 5:20-29' 6:2—8' Fi
`.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 31 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`— more of these references, and/or the - eneral knowled - e of one skilled in the 311.
`
`’482 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 32 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 Patent - Claim 8
`
`’482 PATENT CLAHVIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Mattes meets this limitation because it discloses transmitting identifying
`8. The method of claim 1, fluther
`information, such as a telephone number. time stamp, 01' file path, to the sewer with
`comprising transmitting identifying
`infonnation for said pie-processed group the digital images. See, e.g.‘ 2:11-14; 3:51-42: 4:5-8: 725-9; 8:40-45.
`
`of one or more items of digital content.
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 33 of 36
`
`

`

`_82PATENT CLADIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 34 of 36
`
`

`

`’482 PATENT CLABVIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 35 of 36
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in Washington, D.C. I am over the
`
`age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 655 15th
`
`Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005. On the date set forth below, I served the documents
`
`described below:
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. V. THOMAS RHYNE REGARDING THE
`INVALIDITY OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
`6,895,557 AND 7,765,482
`(cid:58) (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business
`practice of Kirkland & Ellis LLP for the preparation and processing of documents
`in portable document format (PDF) for e-mailing, and I caused said documents to
`be prepared in PDF and then served by electronic mail to the parties listed below.
`
`
`On the following party in this action:
`
`Douglas Cawley
`Ashley Moore
`Bradley Caldwell
`Theodore Stevenson III
`Phillip M. Aurentz
`McKool Smith
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Summit6_Counsel@McKoolSmith.com
`Attorneys for Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Executed on August 1, 2012.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Corey J. Manley
`
`Corey J. Manley
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook v. TLI Communications
`IPR2015-00778 TLI Ex. 2006
`Page 36 of 36
`
`