Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE INC., NEST LABS, INC., and
`DROPCAM, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`e.DIGITAL CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474, and -01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT M. NETTLES IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 1
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
`II. List of Documents Considered ........................................................................... 1
`III. My Background and Qualifications ................................................................... 5
`IV. Legal Principles ................................................................................................. 8
`A. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8
`B. Obviousness ..................................................................................................... 8
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................... 11
`VI. Context Does Not Equal Presence ................................................................... 13
`VII. Overview of the Disputed Patents .................................................................. 15
`VIII. The Combination of Miluzzo and Robarts .................................................... 19
`A. Miluzzo .......................................................................................................... 19
`B. Robarts ........................................................................................................... 20
`C. Miluzzo’s Combination with Robarts is Improper Because a Suggestion to
`Uses Themes ........................................................................................................ 24
`D. The Combination of Miluzzo and Robarts is Missing the “Unique Social
`Signature” of the Disputed Patents ...................................................................... 25
`E. There is no TSM for a POSA to Combine Miluzzo with Robarts ................. 26
`F. The “Social Hierarchy” of the Dependent Claims Involves Non-obvious
`Complexity ........................................................................................................... 27
`IX. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 29
`
`Combine cannot Require Substantial Reconstruction or Redesign Of The Way It
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`I, Scott M. Nettles, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of e.Digital Corporation (the “Patent
`
`Owner” or “Owner”) for the above-captioned Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`
`proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at
`
`my standard hourly consulting rate. I have no personal or financial stake or
`
`interest in the outcome of the present proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is submitted in support of Patent Owner’s responses
`
`in each of the above-captioned proceedings. I understand that U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,311,522 B1 (“the ’522 patent”) is the parent of each of the other disputed patents
`
`and that the other disputed patents are direct continuations of the ’522 patent. I
`
`further understand that, aside from information covering the relationship of the
`
`continuation patents to the ’522 patent, the respective specifications of each of the
`
`disputed patents are essentially identical. For the sake of efficiency, I cite only to
`
`the ’522 patent in this declaration, but understand that the same information is
`
`contained in each of the disputed patents.
`
`II. List of Documents Considered
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with,
`
`among other things, the following materials:
`
`
`
`1
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`• The ’522 patent;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,306,514 B1 (“the ’514 patent”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,311,523 B1 (“the ’523 patent”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,311,524 B1 (“the ’524 patent”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,315,618 B1 (“the ’618 patent”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,315,619 B1 (“the ’619 patent”);
`
`• International Patent Publication No. WO 2009/043020 A2 to
`
`Miluzzo et al., entitled “System And Method For Injecting
`
`Sensed Presence
`
`Into Social Networking Applications”
`
`(“Miluzzo”) (Ex. GOOG 1007);
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. US2006/0004680 A1 to Robarts, et
`
`al., entitled “Contextual Responses Based On Automated
`
`Learning Techniques” (“Robarts”) (Ex. GOOG 1008);
`
`• The subject Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’522 Patent
`
`(Paper No. 1);
`
`• Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the subject Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’522 Patent (Paper No. 8);
`
`• The Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review of the ’522 Patent
`
`(Paper No. 11);
`
`• The Declaration of David H. Williams filed in support of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`subject Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’522 patent (Ex.
`
`GOOG 1003);
`
`• The Deposition/Cross-Examination of David H. Williams taken
`
`on March 15, 2016 in this matter (relevant portions of which
`
`are submitted as Ex. 2013);
`
`• The claim construction order entered in e.Digital v. Dropcam, Case
`
`No. 3:14-cv-04922-JST (Ex. 2003);
`
`• “Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-
`
`Awareness”, Anind K. Dey and Gregory D. Abowd, HUC ’99
`
`Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Handheld
`
`and Ubiquitous Computing, Springer-Verlag London, UK
`
`(1999) (Ex. 2019);
`
`• “Learning to Detect User Activity and Availability from a
`
`Variety of Sensor Data,” Martin Mühlenbrock, Oliver Brdiczka,
`
`Dave Snowdon, Jean-Luc Meunier, Proceedings of the Second
`
`IEEE Annual Conference on Pervasive Computing and
`
`Communications (PERCOM ’04) (2004) (Ex. 2018);
`
`• “A Survey of Mobile Phone Sensing,” Nicholas D. Lane,
`
`Emiliano Miluzzo, Hong Lu, Daniel Peebles, Tanzeem
`
`Choudhury, and Andrew T. Campbell, Communications
`
`
`
`3
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`Magazine IEEE 48.9 (2010) (Ex. 2017);
`
`• “Multi-Sensor Context-Awareness in Mobile Devices and
`
`Smart Artifacts,” Gellersen et al., Mobile Networks and
`
`Applications v.7 n.5, p.341-351, October 2002 (“Gellersen”)
`
`(Ex. GOOG 1009);
`
`• “A Privacy Framework for Mobile Health and Home-Care
`
`Systems,” Kotz, et al., SPIMACS '09 (Nov. 13, 2009) (“Kotz”)
`
`(Ex. GOOG 1011);
`
`• Patent Publication No. US 2008/0140650 A1 to Stackpole,
`
`entitled “Dynamic Geosocial Networking,” published June 12,
`
`2008 (Ex. GOOG 1013);
`
`• “Wearable Computing and Contextual Awareness,” T. Starner,
`
`Ph.D. thesis, MIT Media Lab., Apr. 30, 1999 (“Starner”) (Ex.
`
`GOOG 1015);
`
`• “Designing for privacy in ubiquitous computing environments,”
`
`V. Bellotti and A. Sellen, In Proc. European Conference on
`
`Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Milano,
`
`Italy,
`
`September 1993 (“Bellotti”) (Ex. GOOG 1016); and
`
`• “On Protecting Private Information in Social Networks: A
`
`Proposal,” Luo, et al., Data Engineering, ICDE ’09. IEEE 25th
`
`
`
`4
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`International Conference on March 29 - April 2, 2009 (“Luo”)
`
`(Ex. GOOG 1017).
`
`5.
`
`I have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art prior to September 28, 2010. I am familiar with the technology at issue as
`
`of the September 28, 2010, the effective filing date of the parent ’522 patent. I am
`
`also familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the
`
`technology at issue as of the September 28, 2010.
`
`III. My Background and Qualifications
`
`6.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current curriculum
`
`vitae is provided as Ex. 2016 and provides a comprehensive description of my
`
`academic and employment history over the last thirty-plus years.
`
`7.
`
`I attended Michigan State University from 1977 to 1981 as a Merit
`
`Scholar and an Alumni Distinguished Scholar, and received a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Chemistry. I later attended Carnegie Mellon University from 1988 to 1995, during
`
`which time I received both a master’s degree (1992) and a Ph.D. (1996) in
`
`Computer Science. My dissertation was entitled “Safe and Efficient Persistent
`
`Heaps” and focused on high performance automatic storage management for
`
`advanced database systems.
`
`8.
`
`Before earning my Ph.D., I worked for over four years in industry at
`
`
`
`5
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`Silicon Solutions, Inc. and Digital Equipment Corporation, developing computer
`
`aided design (CAD) software for the semiconductor and computer sectors. For
`
`example, I designed and implemented systems for VLSI mask generation and
`
`VLSI design rule checking. I also built the first graphical drawing editor for the X
`
`window system, Artemis, which included a sophisticated graphical user interface.
`
`9.
`
`I have worked as a professor at three universities since 1995: the
`
`University of Pennsylvania, the University of Arizona, and The University of
`
`Texas at Austin. I was the recipient of a National Science Foundation CAREER
`
`award for “CAREER: Advancing Experimental Computer Science in Storage
`
`Management and Education” while I was an Assistant Professor at the University
`
`of Pennsylvania. During this time, I also was part of the DARPA-funded
`
`SwitchWare project, which was one of the pioneering groups in the area of Active
`
`Networking (“AN”). My group developed PLAN, the first domain-specific
`
`programming language for programmable packets, as well as PLANet, the first
`
`purely active inter-network.
`
`10.
`
`I joined the faculty of The University of Texas at Austin (“UT”), in
`
`the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in 1999. In 2005, I was
`
`appointed Associate Professor with tenure. At UT, I continued to develop AN
`
`technology and in 2002, my Ph.D. student, Michael Hicks, won the ACM
`
`SIGPLAN dissertation award for our joint work on software updating.
`
`
`
`6
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`11. Along with my Ph.D. student, Seong-kyu Song, I focused my AN
`
`work on mobile and wireless networking. As a result, my research shifted away
`
`from AN to mobile and wireless networking in general, especially interactions
`
`between the network, the radios, and the physical world. My most recent research
`
`involves the development of Hydra, which is a working prototype of an advanced
`
`software-implemented WiFi network funded primarily by NSF.
`
`12. My CV contains an extensive listing of my teaching experience, but a
`
`summary is useful. At all three universities my teaching responsibilities spanned
`
`undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. level instruction. Most recently, at the
`
`undergraduate level, I generally teach our second programming class (Intro to
`
`Java), Operating Systems, and Networking. At the graduate level I have generally
`
`taught networking or computer architecture. At the PhD level, in addition to
`
`individual instruction, I have recently regularly taught and advanced seminar most
`
`recently labeled “Wireless and Mobile Networking.” This class is a seminar in
`
`which the students read papers and then do group projects with reports and
`
`presentations on topics of interest. One of my colleagues, Christine Julien, works
`
`in part in the area of context awareness. Her students regularly took this class and
`
`did projects in this area.
`
`13.
`
`In the spring of 2013, I left my full time position at UT and I now
`
`work as a consultant and expert witness.
`
`
`
`7
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`IV. Legal Principles
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`14.
`
`I understand that claims are construed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention (“POSA”). I
`
`further understand that, during inter partes review, claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the
`
`subject patent, which means that the words of the claims should be given their
`
`broadest possible meaning consistent with the specification of the subject patent. I
`
`also understand that the BRI used here may be different from the interpretation that
`
`a POSA may give to the claims in another context—e.g., in litigation—and that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation may be informed by the construction advanced
`
`by a patentee in litigation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`15.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA in view of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in
`
`the art at the time of the invention. I also understand that when a POSA would
`
`have reached the claimed invention through routine experimentation, the invention
`
`may be deemed obvious.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that combining or modifying the teachings of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 10
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`prior art can establish obviousness. Specific teachings, suggestions, or motivations
`
`to combine any first or primary prior art reference with a second prior art reference
`
`can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before the subject patent was
`
`filed. I understand that prior art references themselves may be one source of a
`
`specific teaching or suggestion to combine features of the prior art, but that such
`
`suggestions or motivations to combine art may come from other sources as well.
`
`Specifically, the sources may include logic, judgment, and common sense available
`
`to a POSA rather than explicit statements in the prior art. I understand that it is not
`
`proper to combine references when there is a teaching away of such a combination.
`
`However, a reference’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
`
`constitute teaching away from any of these alternatives.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of
`
`success from combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the
`
`analysis. I understand there may be a number of rationales that may support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness, including:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`
`
`9
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 11
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• 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;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`
`led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that it is not proper to use hindsight to combine
`
`references or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims
`
`as a guide. I understand that so-called objective considerations may be relevant to
`
`the determination of whether a claim is obvious. Such objective considerations can
`
`include evidence of commercial success caused by an invention, evidence of a
`
`long-felt need that was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an
`
`invention, or evidence that an invention achieved a surprising result. I understand
`
`that such evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the elements of a
`
`
`
`10
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 12
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`claim, in order to be relevant to the obviousness or non-obviousness of the claim.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, for a reference to be used to show a claim is
`
`obvious, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. I
`
`understand that a reference is analogous to the claimed invention if the reference is
`
`from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a
`
`different problem, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced
`
`by the inventor, even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`
`invention. I understand that a reference is reasonably pertinent based on the
`
`problem faced by the inventor as reflected in the specification, either explicitly or
`
`implicitly.
`
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`21. Applying the above understanding, it is my opinion that, as a general
`
`matter, a POSA at the time of the filing of the parent ’522 patent would have at
`
`least a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-5 years of academic or industry
`
`experience in mobile communication and context awareness.
`
`22. This differs from the definition given by Petitioners’ expert witness,
`
`
`
`11
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 13
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`David H. Williams, in his declaration in support of the Petition, to the extent I
`
`propose the phrase “mobile communication and context awareness” as opposed to
`
`“mobile communication and/or context awareness.” However, I understand that,
`
`at his deposition, Mr. Williams agreed with this change and that a POSA must
`
`have 2-5 years academic or industry experience in mobile communications and
`
`context awareness. (See Ex. 2013 at 126:8-130:11.)
`
`23. This difference is important because “mobile communication” is a
`
`very broad term covering a variety of technologies, many of which are very
`
`mature, and “context awareness” is a much narrower concept and one of recent
`
`vintage. As a result, in many cases “mobile communication” experience is not
`
`relevant to the specialized field of context awareness, while experience in areas
`
`closely related to context awareness may be highly relevant.
`
`24. As an example, it is undeniable that the design of RF transceivers is a
`
`crucial aspect of mobile communications and is at the heart of what we would call
`
`“cell phone” technology. However, experience in transceiver design does not fully
`
`inform the kind of understanding needed by a POSA in the field of the invention of
`
`the subject patents. As another example, although GPS is a key enabling
`
`technology for some aspects of “context,” a POSA would only know how to use
`
`GPS as a black box sensor and detailed experience concerning the internal
`
`functioning of the GPS device would not be useful. Thus, expertise and experience
`
`
`
`12
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 14
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`in GPS, although apparently relevant at first blush, is not particularly applicable to
`
`the issue of “context awareness.”
`
`25. Conversely, the idea of “context awareness” is new and fairly narrow.
`
`The idea did not simply appear out of a vacuum, but rather is an outgrowth of (or
`
`really just a part of) mobile and/or ubiquitous computing. Experience in those
`
`areas or in the closely related area of mobile networking or in the larger parent
`
`areas of computer networking and distributed systems would be highly relevant.
`
`26. As a
`
`final point concerning what kinds of experience
`
`is
`
`required, general or peripheral experience in the area of mobile communications
`
`and context awareness, e.g., in a marketing or planning role is not sufficient. A
`
`POSA’s experience would need to be in actually designing, implementing, and
`
`testing (and not merely assembling) systems of the sort described in the patent. I
`
`would further expect that, given the inventions likely embodiment in software that
`
`that strong programming experience would be highly relevant.
`
`VI. Context Does Not Equal Presence
`
`27. Context is not simply “presence” as articulated by Mr. Williams in his
`
`Declaration. Williams equates “presence detection” with “context awareness,”
`
`without evidentiary support. (See Ex. GOOG 1003 at ¶¶ 33 and 97.) Williams
`
`explained in his deposition that the correlation of presence detection with context
`
`awareness was a determination he came up with on his own. ( See Ex. 2013 at
`
`
`
`13
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 15
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`91:1-11 (“I equated them by equating them.”), 189:16-190:1 (“That is my
`
`opinion.”).)
`
`28.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Williams. A POSA would understand that
`
`teachings related to presence detection are more about the location of the user or
`
`mobile computing device and less about their surroundings. Even Petitioners’
`
`references make clear that context is more than just presence. In “The importance
`
`of ‘context in mobile devices’” by Gellersen (GOOG 1009, Abstract, p. 1), context
`
`is expressed in much greater detail as the reference to the physical world that
`
`surrounds a mobile device. Specifically, Gellerson states that “[c]ontext is what
`
`surrounds, and in mobile and ubiquitous computing the term is primarily used in
`
`reference to the physical world that surrounds the use of a mobile device.”
`
`(Ex. GOOG 1009 at p. 2 (emphasis added).)
`
`29. Similarly, Anind Dey and Gregory Abowd in their paper, “Towards a
`
`Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness,” define context as “any
`
`information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity
`
`is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction
`
`between a user and an application, including the user and applications
`
`themselves.” (Ex. 2019 at 3-4 (emphasis added).) They describe context in terms
`
`of “the situation” of an entity.
`
`30. One skilled in the art would therefore understand that presence,
`
`
`
`14
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 16
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`although a component of context awareness is not the same thing as context
`
`awareness.
`
`VII. Overview of the Disputed Patents
`
`31. The parent ’522 patent issued on November 13, 2012 pursuant to an
`
`application filed September 28, 2010. The other disputed patents are direct
`
`continuations of the ’522 patent, share a common specification, and, though they
`
`may differ in ways not relevant here, they share the same basic architecture as the
`
`’522 patent.
`
`32. The state of the art in September 2010 was limited to presence sensing
`
`and supervised learning as described by Lane, Nicholas D., et al., in “A survey of
`
`mobile phone sensing.” (Ex. 2017 at 5, 7.) Essentially, the use of mobile
`
`communication devices and other sensors to consider and interpret conditions
`
`within their surroundings was nascent and developing.
`
`33.
`
`In very general terms, the subject patents concern systems and
`
`methods (1) using a set of sensors to gather data and information about the
`
`surrounding environment,
`
`(2) classifying an activity, event, or other
`
`characteristic(s) about the environment surrounding the sensing device(s) based on
`
`that sensor data or other information based on sensor data, and (3) automatically
`
`providing specifically tailored information and/or operations based on that
`
`classification.
`
`
`
`15
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 17
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`34. The systems of the patents claims begin when a processor assembles
`
`the retrieved sensor data and/or other information based on the sensors (e.g., map
`
`or location data derived from a comparison of GPS sensor data and non-sensor data
`
`such as Google Maps) into what the patent refers to as a “detected social
`
`signature.” (’522 patent at 9:24-10:67, 13:36-45, and passim; see also id. at Claim
`
`1 (“creates a detected social signature from the received sensor data”.)
`
`35. A processor then compares the data within the detected social
`
`signature to a “static and/or dynamic rule set,” which the patent refers to as a
`
`“social template.” (Id. at 11:1-2; see also 18:63-19:3 and Fig. 3; claims 1
`
`(“processor … determines which of the social signatures of the stored social
`
`templates has a greatest correspondence with the created social signature through
`
`comparison of the first and second detected sensor values and the first and second
`
`sensor value ranges of each stored social template) and 17.)
`
`36. The “social template” provides a set of parameters and/or information
`
`against which the data of the detected social signatures can be compared. For
`
`example, the specification of the patents describes an embodiment in which a
`
`location sensor provides data on the location of a device (“39.78° N, 104.88° W”),
`
`inertial sensor data shows no movement, an optical sensor provides data consistent
`
`with low light levels (“223 lm”), and an acoustic sensor provides data consistent
`
`with low sound levels (“-63 db”). (Id. at 16:14-18.) Compiled together, this data
`
`
`
`16
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 18
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`set is the “detected social signature.” (Id. at 16:14-18; see also Claim 1.)
`
`37. A processor then compares the detected social signature with the
`
`parameters of one or more social templates stored in memory to determine the
`
`closest match – in this example, the social template for “mother and baby sleeping”
`
`is selected. (Id. at 16:18-23.) An example of what information the selected social
`
`template might comprise is depicted at Table 1 of the specification. (Id. at 15:48-
`
`58, shown below.)
`
`
`
`38. The specification refers to the sensor value ranges of Table 1 as “the
`
`social signature of the social template.” (Id. at 16:18-20.) These “social signatures
`
`of the social template” are “unique” to the “social template” to which they are
`
`associated at the time of processing.
`
`39. The social template can be associated with a “social hierarchy.” (See,
`
`e.g., id. at 1:59-2:4, 3:63-4:6, Claim 3 and passim.) The associated “social
`
`
`
`17
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 19
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`hierarchy” can be comprised of people, social networks, emergency services,
`
`and/or operations (e.g. email, text message, pre-recorded voice messages), etc.
`
`(See, e.g., id. at 2:39-45 (hierarchy composed of social networks); 15:59-16:13
`
`(hierarchy composed of people); 21:4-14 (emphasis added); and 21:19-24, 21:28-
`
`33, 21:38-44 (hierarchy composed of operations).) The “social hierarchy” is
`
`organized such that the processor can provide different levels of information to
`
`each level of the hierarchy based upon which social template is selected. (See, e.g.,
`
`id. at 1:59-2:4, 3:63-4:6, Claim 3 and passim.) An example of a potential social
`
`hierarchy is shown in Table 2 in the specification, shown below. (See id. at 15:60-
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`16:13.)
`
`
`
`
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 20
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`
`
`40. Thus, if the “social template” for “do-not-disturb-due-to-Mother-and-
`
`baby-sleeping” is selected in the above example, any communication requests
`
`would be handled according to the operations and authorizations set forth in Table
`
`2. (Id.)
`
`VIII. The Combination of Miluzzo and Robarts
`
`A. Miluzzo
`
`41. Miluzzo does not explicitly disclose specifics of how it infers a user’s
`
`status from sensor data, however, contrary to Mr. Williams’ assertion, it does teach
`
`where to store, and how to organize and retrieve, a users' status or privacy settings.
`
`42. Miluzzo
`
`is concerned with sharing presence sensing,
`
`(e.g.,
`
`determining a user’s location in conjunction with a keyboard’s activity). (Ex.
`
`GOOG 1007, ¶ [0002].) Miluzzo states “location is a key function in any sensing
`
`system.” (Id. ¶ [0044].) Miluzzo wants to update presence more frequently and
`
`allow more people to see the presence and to inject the presence into social
`
`networks. (Id. ¶¶ [0003]-[0004].)
`
`43. Miluzzo suggests that it would be useful to sense the presence of a
`
`user like “outside of work.” (Id. ¶ [0012].) Miluzzo mentions analyzing sensed
`
`data (id. ¶ [0025]), but does not say how user activity classification (e.g., the
`
`inference engine) is accomplished.
`
`
`
`19
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 21
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`44. The architecture of Miluzzo is best expressed in Fig. 3 shown below.
`
`There, like the subject patents, the system starts with sensor data that, in the case of
`
`Miluzzo, is associated with a user.
`
`
`
`45. Next, an inference engine is used to “infer the presence status of the
`
`user” from the received sensor data.
`
`46. Miluzzo then stores the sensor data and inferred presence status for
`
`later use and distributes the presence status based on the “user’s preferences.”
`
`Basically, the distribution is along the lines of privacy policies set by the user.
`
`B. Robarts
`
`47. Robarts, on the other hand, teaches an approach that starts with the
`
`selection of “themes” as opposed to data collected from sensors. Robarts’ process
`
`
`
`20
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 22
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`is expressed in Fig. 4, depicted below, which begins with a “theme” at step 402.
`
`(See also, Ex. GOOG 1008 at ¶ [0080].)
`
`
`
`48. Themes in Robarts include “related sets of attributes that reflect the
`
`context of the user, including: (1) the user’s mental state, emotional state, and
`
`physical or health condition; (2) the user’s setting, car.” (GOOG 1008, ¶ [0040].)
`
`Attributes in Robarts are the product of the Context Server as described in Fig. 7,
`
`21
`
`shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 23
`
`

`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`49. Robarts’ Fig. 7 discloses that data enters the Context Server at step
`
`702 and is processed by Logic at step 704 before becoming attributes.
`
`50. However, Robarts does not disclose the process that occurs in the
`
`Logic (704) that results in the creation of an attribute. (See Ex. GOOG 1001
`
`passim).
`
`51.
`
` Looking at Fig. 15 (shown below) of Robarts, at step 1505, Robarts
`
`determines the availability of themes first, before applying any attributes to them
`
`(step 1510). Robarts then determines which themes match the current context (step
`
`1515). These themes may have been created by the user or may have even been
`
`
`
`22
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2015 - Page 24
`
`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01470, -01471, -01472, -01473, -01474 and -01475
`
`purchased from third party vendors (Ex. GOOG 1008, ¶ [0201]). The user may
`
`decide to select a theme as shown in ste