`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROTHSCHILD BROADCAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2015-01181
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR STORING BROADCAST CONTENT IN A
`CLOUD-BASED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
`____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL DOLAN
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 3
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`Prior art .................................................................................................. 4
`
`B. Anticipation: 35 U.S.C. §102 ................................................................ 4
`
`C. Obviousness: 35 U.S.C. §103................................................................ 5
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................... 7
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 7
`
`B. Overview of the ’221 Patent ................................................................11
`
`VII. OPINIONS RELATED TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF REVIEW ..........15
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................15
`
`B. Hardin (Ex. 1005) Teaches or Makes Obvious Every Feature of
`Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 Alone or in view of Monroe (Ex.
`1006) ....................................................................................................16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Description of Hardin (Ex. 1005) .............................................17
`
`Description of Monroe (Ex. 1006) ............................................22
`
`3. Motivation to Combine Hardin and Monroe ............................24
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................27
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................35
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................36
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................36
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................37
`
`Independent Claim 7 .................................................................38
`
`10. Claim 8 ......................................................................................39
`
`11. Claim 10 ....................................................................................39
`
`12. Claim 11 ....................................................................................40
`
`13. Claim 12 ....................................................................................40
`
`14. Claim 13 ....................................................................................41
`
`C. Hardin (Ex. 1005) in View of Monroe (Ex. 1006) and Further
`in View of Remijn (Ex. 1006) Discloses, Teaches, or Makes
`Obvious Every Feature of Claims 3 and 9. .........................................42
`
`1.
`
`Description of Remijn (Ex. 1007) .............................................42
`
`2. Motivation to Combine Remijn with Hardin and Monroe .......43
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................45
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................46
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................47
`
`List of Materials Considered ...................................................................................... i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`I, Michael Dolan, declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at
`
`my usual rate of $250 per hour for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my
`
`compensation depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other
`
`interest in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,856,221(“the ’221 patent”) (Ex. 1001) and that the application for the ’221 patent
`
`was filed on October 15, 2012, as U.S. Patent Application No. 13/652,034 (“the
`
`’034 application”), and that the ’034 application was filed as a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/300,798, filed on November 21, 2011. Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`The ’034 application claims priority to provisional U.S. application No.
`
`61/528,543 (“the provisional application”), filed on August 29, 2011. Id. The ’221
`
`patent issued on October 7, 2014. Id. I understand that the ’221 patent has an
`
`effective filing date of August 29, 2011, the date of the filing of the provisional
`
`application to which it claims priority.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain prior art references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in the claims of the ’221 patent. I have also
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`been asked to consider the state of the art of media content storage and delivery
`
`before August 29, 2011, and compare the systems and methods of the ’221 patent
`
`to the prior art available before August 29, 2011. My opinions are provided below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4. My resume is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A. Briefly, after
`
`receiving a B.S. in electrical engineering in 1979 from Virginia Tech and several
`
`years of graduate studies, I gained more than 25 years of experience in the design,
`
`development, and implementation of broadcast and internet content delivery
`
`systems. For the past several decades, I have held chief technical and management
`
`roles for several internet, software, and broadcast technology companies. Most
`
`recently, I founded Television Broadcast Technology, Inc., where I have consulted
`
`with many significant industry leaders on television standards, and technical and
`
`architectural efforts related to data enriched TV broadcasting and digital media. I
`
`have participated in and held leadership roles in various digital media standards
`
`organizations, such as DECE, ATSC, SMPTE and CEA, and I was a founding
`
`member representative to the W3C. I have an in-depth understanding of digital
`
`content systems, internet and web technologies, television data broadcasting, as
`
`well as marketplace needs. In addition, I am an inventor on two U.S. patents
`
`relating to integrated user-interfaces for accessing a number of network services
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`using different network protocols, and have authored or contributed to three
`
`broadcast technology books.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’221 patent, the
`
`prosecution history of the ’221 patent, and the documents listed at the end of this
`
`declaration. Importantly, I have reviewed the claim charts in the related petition. I
`
`reviewed and agree that the charts demonstrate where the references teach the
`
`various elements of the claims.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether claims 1-13
`6.
`
`of the ’221 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the filing date of the ’221 patent.
`
`7.
`
`I am an engineer and innovator by training and profession. The
`
`opinions I express in this declaration involve the application of my technical
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the
`
`’221 patent. In addition, I understand that the following legal principles apply, as
`
`explained to me by Unified’s counsel.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that a patent is only valid when the invention claimed in
`
`the patent is new, useful, and nonobvious in light of the prior art. That is, the
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`invention as defined by the claims of the patent must not be anticipated by or
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim is a patent claim that refers back
`
`to another patent claim. A dependent claim, as I understand it, includes all of the
`
`limitations of the claim to which it refers.
`
`Prior art
`
`A.
`10. Prior art is generally information in the relevant field publically
`
`available before or at the time of the invention and includes such documentary
`
`materials as patents and publications, as well as evidence of actual uses or sales of
`
`a technology within the United States. I have been advised that for purposes of an
`
`inter partes review, categories of prior art include: (1) anything that was patented
`
`or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the inventor
`
`made his invention; and (2) anything that was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication anywhere in the world more than one year before the inventor filed the
`
`application for the patent.
`
`B. Anticipation: 35 U.S.C. §102
`I understand that a person cannot obtain a patent on an invention if the
`11.
`
`prior art included that invention. If an invention is not new, then the invention has
`
`been “anticipated” by the prior art. A claim is “anticipated” by the prior art if each
`
`and every limitation of the claim is disclosed, expressly or inherently, in a single
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`item of prior art, from which a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
`
`invention without undue experimentation.
`
`C. Obviousness: 35 U.S.C. §103
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`12.
`
`§ 103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`13.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered relevant prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`14.
`
`I also understand that to assess the differences between prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter to determine obviousness, the claimed invention to be
`
`considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment involves showing that one of
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems
`
`as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have
`
`selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
`15.
`
`It is my further understanding that several rationales may be applied
`
`for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. These rationales include: combining prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; a predictable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions; applying a known technique to a
`
`known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable
`
`results; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify a prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`D.
`16.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’221
`
`patent I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`relevant priority date. My understanding is that the relevant priority date of the
`
`’221 patent is August 29, 2011 (the filing date of the provisional application to
`
`which the ’221 patent claims priority).
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`17. Based on my experience as an engineer and innovator, I believe that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have (i) a B.S.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Network Engineering, Computer Science, or
`
`equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience in networked
`
`content systems. I meet this definition through my educational background and
`
`experiences. I have used this definition in my analysis below.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`18. As set forth more fully herein, it is my opinion that claims 1-13 would
`
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before August 29,
`
`2011. Although I believe other grounds for invalidity of these claims exist, the
`
`obviousness of the claimed subject matter is demonstrated by the following prior
`
`art references:
`
`a. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 are obvious over Hardin alone or in
`
`view of Monroe; and
`
`b. Claims 3 and 9 are obvious under Hardin in view of Monroe
`
`and further in view of Remijn.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`A. Technology Background
`19. Prior to August 29, 2011, and in particular in the timeframe of 1996-
`
`2011, there was tremendous interest in providing consumers with media content -
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`video, audio and/or data (“content”) on demand (referred to generally as “video on
`
`demand (VOD)”). VOD allow users to browse, select and watch/listen to content at
`
`any time. VOD systems support delivery of content through a set-top box (STB), a
`
`computer, or other network enabled device allowing both/either instantaneous
`
`viewing of the selected content, and/or downloading of the selected content to a
`
`storage and player device such as a computer, digital video recorder (DVR) or
`
`other media player (e.g., smart phones, iPAD, etc.) for viewing at a later time.
`
`Similarly, audio on demand systems have the ability to deliver audio content to an
`
`individual Web browser or internet enabled audio player whenever the user
`
`requests it. Comcast had started providing Video On Demand services in the
`
`United States at least by 2003. Ex. 1008 at p. 6.
`
`20. To facilitate selection of programs, VOD services generally allow a
`
`user to use the remote control or cursor to browse through an on-screen menu of
`
`programs and select from a variety of titles of stored content for individual viewing
`
`on demand.
`
`21. The content is stored in servers from which a user can stream or
`
`download it. The servers store the content in compressed digital files and provide
`
`support for different portions of the files to be randomly accessed and transmitted.
`
`In VOD systems, the design of servers for storage of the content is a challenging
`
`task because of the large size of the files, especially video files, and the huge
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`selection of titles. As the content has evolved over the years to high definition, the
`
`amount of storage capacity required to store the content has increased
`
`considerably. At the same time, content libraries have become larger as customers
`
`expect more title choices, thus increasing the data storage constraints for VOD
`
`services.
`
`22. The Background section of US 2008/0155059 (Hardin) describes
`
`existing systems as of 2006 and describe some of the challenges facing VOD
`
`systems. Ex. 1005, ¶¶5-8.
`
`23. Cost-effective storage of content has been of interest to on-demand
`
`service providers well before 2011. To minimize the cost of content storage, many
`
`service providers have developed an efficient content allocation scheme using a
`
`hierarchy of servers. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at Abstract, ¶16. Such hierarchical storage
`
`systems include multiple levels of servers—with lower level servers (e.g.,
`
`regional/local severs) storing fewer files compared to the one (or a few) higher
`
`level server(s) (e.g., a national server). Id. at ¶¶16-17. Generally, the lower level
`
`servers store content that is most frequently accessed by customers (e.g., recent
`
`episodes of TV programs, latest movies, etc.), or local content (e.g., local news or
`
`sports events). See id. The higher level server stores a wider selection of content
`
`for longer periods of time, particularly content that may be requested less
`
`frequently. See id. This type of multiple server arrangement for the delivery of
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`media content is old, as evidenced also by U.S. Patent No. 5,172,413 to Bradley
`
`(Ex. 1010), which issued in 1992 and shows in FIG. 1 a “hierarchical network of
`
`electronic libraries” of media content.
`
`24. Customers access and request content available on the lower level
`
`server used to service the customer, e.g., a regional/local server closest to the
`
`customer. The content servers can also store customer data, e.g., customer premise
`
`equipment (CPE) identifiers, subscriptions plans, payment and billing information,
`
`etc.
`
`25. When a customer wishes to access content that is not stored in the
`
`local server, the request is forwarded to the higher level server. If the content is
`
`available in the higher level server, the content is delivered and stored at the lower
`
`level server from where the customer can download or stream the content. This
`
`allows the VOD system to provide customers with access to a large selection of
`
`titles without having to store all the content at each of the lower level servers. By
`
`storing less content at the lower level servers, the cost of storage at the lower level
`
`servers is reduced. The cost of continuously adding newer content to every lower
`
`level server is also minimized by adding content, particularly content that is less in
`
`demand, to only the higher level server from where the content can be downloaded
`
`to the lower level server upon customer request.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`26. The hierarchical storage system reduces the amount of data storage at
`
`the lower level servers while supporting a wide selection of content. As the number
`
`of titles to which a customer is provided access to increases, the growth is
`
`accommodated by increasing the storage capacity of the higher level server as
`
`opposed to every lower level server. Thus, the hierarchical storage system provides
`
`a scalable approach to providing customers with a large selection of content in a
`
`cost-effective manner.
`
`27. With overall lower cost of data storage (afforded largely by the
`
`hierarchical storage scheme), content distributors can bill customers only for
`
`ordered content instead of a flat rate subscription fee, which was previously
`
`required to support the cost of storing a wide variety of content at every on-
`
`demand server.
`
`B. Overview of the ’221 Patent
`28. As part of my analysis, I read and considered the ’221 patent, which
`
`relates to systems and methods for content storage and delivery. Ex. 1001 at Title,
`
`Abstract. This overview is not meant to describe my full understanding of the ’221
`
`patent, but is only used to generally describe the structure and functionalities of the
`
`’221 patent.
`
`29. The ’221 patent purports to have invented a system and a method for
`
`enabling a consumer device to download or stream content from a content server,
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`and/or request the content server to store specific content not already stored there.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`30. The content distribution system described in the ’221 patent includes
`
`two levels of servers— one or more remote servers 16a to 16n (collectively
`
`referred to as “remote server 16”), and one or more broadcast servers 14a to 14n
`
`(collectively referred to as “broadcast server 14”). Id. at 3:41-55; FIG. 1. The
`
`system of the ’221 patent further includes one or more consumer devices 12a to
`
`12n (collectively referred to as “consumer device 12”). Id. The broadcast server
`
`14, remote server 16, and consumer device 12 communicate with each other over a
`
`communication network 18. Id.
`
`31.
`
`I have noted that, while the title of the application implies that the
`
`invention relates to storing broadcast content “in a cloud-based computing
`
`environment,” none of the claims use the term “cloud.” In fact, the only time
`
`“cloud” is mentioned in the specification, other than the title, is column 3, lines 53-
`
`55, where it is mentioned as an “other network” which is not shown in any
`
`drawings. The claims do not, in fact, mention any “network” at all, leaving it open
`
`as to how the various components of the system communicate or pass data between
`
`them.
`
`32. According to the content distribution method described in the ’221
`
`patent, consumer device 12 sends a “request message” to remote server 16
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`requesting delivery of certain content. Id. at 5:5-7. The ’221 patent does not
`
`specify that the “request message” is in any particular format just that it is
`
`generated by “request module 28” which “includes instructions, which when
`
`executed by processor 24, causes processor 24 to perform the processes described
`
`herein.” Id. at 4:6-10. In one place in the ’221 patent, it states that a “list of media
`
`content” may be displayed to the user on a consumer device via “a website
`
`displayed in a web browser.” Id. at 4:66-5:1. The consumer can then request
`
`content from the list by initiating a “request message.” Id. at 5:5-7. While not
`
`described in the ’221 patent, I would expect that the request message could be in
`
`the form of a web browser request in HTTP format.
`
`33. According to the ’221 patent, the “request message” may include
`
`“media data indicating the consumer device is requesting that remote server 16
`
`store specific media content for an amount of time, e.g. the storage request
`
`message may have a triggering flag.” Id. at 5:23-27; 6:40-41. While the ’221 patent
`
`does not provide any further detail about the “flag” or how an “amount of time” is
`
`specified, if various choices for the “amount of time” are presented to the user via
`
`a list (e.g. “rent for 3 days,” “rent for 1 week”, etc.), and the consumer indicates a
`
`choice, the length of time that the user chooses could be represented by a simple
`
`data structure such as a “flag.”
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`34.
`
`In addition to media data, the “request message” may include
`
`consumer data, consumer device identifier, etc., corresponding to the user and/or
`
`consumer device 12. Id. at 5:8-14. Remote server 16 determines if the request is
`
`made from a registered consumer device 12. Id. at 5:8-19. If consumer device 12 is
`
`not registered, remote server 16 initiates a device registration process. Id. Remote
`
`server 16 maintains a record of consumer data in a consumer database 30, which is
`
`used by remote server 16 to authenticate the requesting consumer device 12. Id.
`
`Once consumer device 12 is verified as a registered device, remote server 16
`
`processes the “request message” to determine if the media request is a “storage
`
`request” or a “content request.” Id. at FIGS. 2 and 3; 5:20-23; 6:32-35. If the
`
`request is determined to be a “content request” message, remote server 16 searches
`
`content corresponding to the request, and delivers the requested content to
`
`consumer device 12. Id. at 6:66-7:5.
`
`35. A “storage request” directs remote server 16 to store specific content
`
`not already stored in remote server 16. Id. at 5:23-36. Remote server 16 transmits
`
`the content information to broadcast server 14. Id. at 5:42-49. Broadcast server 14
`
`searches content characteristics corresponding to the media data, and transmits the
`
`identified content characteristics to remote server 16 for verification. Id. at 5:48-
`
`53. If the requested content exists or is available for download, remote server 16
`
`downloads and stores the requested content from broadcast server 14. Id. at 5:53-
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`6:6. Consumer device 12 can then download or stream the stored content from
`
`remote server 16. Remote server 16 stores the content for a length of time specified
`
`by consumer device 12 when requesting the content. Id. at 6:16-20; 5:29-33; 7:64-
`
`8:3. Further, the ’221 patent claims to structure the cost of delivering content on
`
`factors, such as playback time of the content, the length of the time the consumer
`
`wants the content to be stored, and other cost reduction criteria. Id. at 8:20-25.
`
`Thus, according to the ’221 patent, the cost of content storage and delivery is
`
`“tailored” to each customer based on the requested content. Id. at 2:13-15.
`
`VII. OPINIONS RELATED TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF REVIEW
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been advised that the first step of assessing the validity of a
`36.
`
`patent claim is to interpret or construe the meaning of the claims. I have been
`
`advised that in inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, an unexpired patent claim receives the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. I have
`
`also been advised that, in applying the broadest reasonable construction, (i) all the
`
`limitations of a claim must be given meaning and (ii) the prosecution history may
`
`be used in interpreting claims under the broadest reasonable construction standard.
`
`I have been informed that constructing a patent claim applied during this
`
`proceeding may differ from that in a district court proceeding.
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`37. To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve
`
`the right to continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information that recently have been or may be produced, as well as
`
`testimony from depositions that may yet be taken.
`
`38.
`
`I reserve the right to have my opinions provided here to this IPR only,
`
`and I reserve the right to continue my investigation and study such that I am not
`
`bound by my opinions in other proceedings.
`
`39.
`
`I have also been informed that the claim terms of the ’221 patent
`
`should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as is known in the art of content
`
`storage and delivery. I have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim
`
`terms in my analysis. In my discussion below, I have described the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of certain claims terms from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B. Hardin (Ex. 1005) Teaches or Makes Obvious Every Feature of
`Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 Alone or in view of Monroe (Ex. 1006)
`In my opinion, Hardin teaches every element of claims 1, 2, 4-8 and
`
`40.
`
`10-13. If any elements are not found in Hardin, they are found in Monroe and
`
`these two references are very complimentary such that one of ordinary skill would
`
`have had the motivation to and be prompted to combine their teachings.
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`Description of Hardin (Ex. 1005)
`1.
`41. Hardin discloses methods and apparatuses for content delivery and
`
`storage. Ex. 1005 at Abstract. The system described in Hardin comprises a
`
`hierarchy of servers, with multiple regional or local content servers lower in the
`
`hierarchy and one (or a few) national content server higher up in the hierarchy. Id.
`
`at ¶16, ll. 1-9 According to Hardin, “[a] content server hierarchy may be
`
`implemented with servers higher up in the hierarchy including more content, e.g.,
`
`titles, than the number of titles stored in the lower level servers. By storing less
`
`frequently accessed content in servers higher in the hierarchy and frequently
`
`requested titles lower in the hierarchy, a vast number of titles can be supported
`
`without overburdening the storage available at local and regional servers” Id. at
`
`Abstract. When requested content is not already available in the regional or local
`
`server used to supply content to a customer’s premises, the content can be supplied
`
`to the regional or local server from a server higher up in the hierarchy. Id.
`
`42. Hardin discloses that the regional web server 148 maintains a
`
`database 150 with customer information that may include “user identification
`
`information, a password, information identifying customer preferences, customer
`
`ordering and/or viewing history information, pending customer order information,
`
`and customer program availability information.” Id. at ¶ 53. In Hardin,
`
`regional/local servers receive customer identification information and content
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`request from a customer via either a set-top box (STB) or a Web browser. Id. at
`
`¶ 53], ll. 1-7, 13-16; FIGS. 3A, 4A and 4B. In particular, Hardin discloses that
`
`when the customer makes a content request via a Web browser, the regional server
`
`performs secure log-in of the customer, and based on the customer login, the server
`
`accesses the customer record to identify the STB (i.e., one type of consumer
`
`device) identifier and verify if the consumer device is registered. Id. at ¶81, ll. 7-
`
`11; ¶59, 13-23; FIG. 9 (steps 1406-1408).
`
`43. Hardin discloses with reference to figure 9:
`
`In step 1406, the service provider's system accesses the
`
`customer record corresponding to the access and
`
`determines the service or services to which the customer
`
`subscribes. Then, in step 1408, the customer premise
`
`device or devices corresponding to the customer are
`
`identified from stored customer information.
`
`Id. at ¶129, ll. 1-7.
`
`44. Hardin discloses that when a regional server receives a request for
`
`content from a registered consumer device, the regional server performs a search
`
`for content that satisfies the request and is available in one of the national,
`
`regional, or local content libraries. Id. at ¶[0089], ll. 1-12.
`
`45.
`
`In particular, Hardin discloses:
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 56
`
`Unified Exhibit 1002
`Unified Patents v Rothschild
`IPR2015-01181
`
`

`

`The content access server performs “a search for content
`
`satisfying the query which is available from any one of a
`
`national content library, a regional content library, and a
`
`local content library.”
`
`Id. at ¶90, ll. 1-12
`
`46.
`
`If a requested content is stored at the regional content server (to which
`
`a customer has access), the requested content is delivered to the customer. Id. at
`
`¶53, ll. 13-16; ¶27, ll. 1-10. If the content is not available in the regional content
`
`server, the customer re