Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF MR. JEFFREY FISCHER
`IN SUPPORT OF
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,787,904
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 1
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................4
`II.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...............................................................8
`III.
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING .............................................................................................9
`IV.
`THE ‘904 PATENT ...........................................................................................................15
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...............................................................................................19
`VI.
`STATE OF THE ART .......................................................................................................23
`VII.
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-4, 7, 10, 12-18, AND 20 OF THE ‘904 PATENT
`84.
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...............................................................................................................31
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................117
`
`
`
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 2
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Mr. Jeffrey Fischer, submit this declaration in support of a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of United States Patent No. 7,787,904 owned by Qurio Holdings, Inc. (“Qurio” or
`
`“Patent Owner”). I have been retained in this matter by Baker Botts L.L.P. (“Counsel”) on
`
`behalf of DISH Network L.L.C. (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I am over the age of
`
`21 and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`The statements herein include my opinions and the bases for those opinions,
`
`which relate to at least the following documents of the pending inter partes review petition:
`
`(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 by Alfredo Issa entitled “Method and System to Display
`
`Media Content Data” (“the ‘904 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`(cid:1) File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 (Ex. 1002).
`
`(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,535,465 B2 by Morse (“Morse”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`(cid:1) U.S Patent Application No. 2003/007117 A1 to Meade, II (“Meade”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`(cid:1) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0073610 by Terada et al. entitled “Contents
`
`Reproducing System” (“Terada”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,647,614 to Krikorian et al. (Ex. 1007) (“Krikorian”).
`
`(cid:1)
`
`IEEE 802.15.1 WPAN standard published in 2005 (Ex. 1008)
`
`(cid:1) Patent Owner’s Patent Rule 4-2 Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions (Ex. 1013).
`
`(cid:1) Qurio Initial Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 (Ex. 1014).
`
`4.
`
`My materials considered for forming my opinions herein have included at least
`
`the above-referenced documents.
`
`- 3 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 3
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $300 per hour in preparing this
`
`declaration. The opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of the review
`
`proceeding. My compensation does not depend in any way on the outcome of the Petitioner’s
`
`petition.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am qualified by education and experience to testify as an expert in the field of
`
`telecommunications. Attached, as Attachment A, is a copy of my resume detailing my
`
`experience and education. Additionally, I provide the following overview of my background as it
`
`pertains to my qualifications for providing expert testimony in this matter.
`
`7.
`
`I am qualified both by education and experience to testify in the field of
`
`telecommunications, wired and wireless networking, and in particular, as it pertains to the
`
`7,787,904 patent.
`
`8.
`
`I have been an electrical engineer working in the communications field for 35
`
`years. I am currently an engineering consultant actively engaged in product design for both
`
`indoor and outdoor wireless systems. I also perform expert consulting work in intellectual
`
`property cases. I design wireless hardware, software, low-level firmware, algorithms and entire
`
`wireless system architectures including wired network interfaces. My hardware work includes
`
`design of digital circuits, analog circuits, and radio frequency (RF) circuits. My work often
`
`includes system analysis and system engineering. System analysis involves analyzing the
`
`performance of a communications system and often includes determining the best parameters of
`
`a design for solving an over-all problem. Typically it incorporates simulations of a system or part
`
`of a system and comparisons of different techniques. System engineering involves the design of
`
`operational algorithms from input to output to achieve a communications system that suits a
`
`- 4 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 4
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`specific set of requirements. I also do hands-on system integration, which is working in an
`
`engineering laboratory building and debugging hardware to put together a final product,
`
`including testing the product, making design adjustments to pass regulatory requirements, and
`
`assisting in the development of test systems for mass production.
`
`9.
`
`As part of my intellectual property work, I have provided expert assistance to both
`
`plaintiffs and defendants.
`
`10.
`
`I am a co-inventor on more than 11 patents, which relate to technologies such as
`
`high speed wireless network communications, radio frequency identification systems and
`
`underwater communications.
`
`11.
`
`I attended Cornell University where I received a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1979 and a Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering in 1980.
`
`During school, I had cooperative work-study assignments at Hewlett Packard Co. and worked at
`
`Ampex Co.
`
`12.
`
`I was subsequently employed at MIT Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington,
`
`Massachusetts for 6 years, 5 of them as a Senior Staff Member, in the Analog Device
`
`Technology Group. Lincoln Laboratory is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center
`
`administered by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with specialties in advanced radio
`
`communications and radar technology. At Lincoln Lab I was given charge of a project to build
`
`the signal processing and control circuits of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA) Advanced Packet Radio, which was also sponsored by the Department of the Army.
`
`In developing this radio I performed a large part of the actual circuit design in concert with a
`
`larger team that I led in the development effort. The team that I led on this project consisted of
`
`- 5 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 5
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`highly trained engineers and technicians with contributions from engineers with a range of
`
`education levels, including engineers with Ph.D. and Post Doctorate degrees.
`
`13.
`
`A side responsibility of my group at Lincoln Laboratory, was to perform
`
`independent analysis of work that commercial wireless communications companies were
`
`performing under contract for DARPA or other Defense department sponsors. This included
`
`field-worthy military radios and new network designs as well as laboratory experiments and
`
`proposals. We often compared how to best achieve improved communications results and
`
`compared different technologies to do so. In 1986, Microwave Journal called the network radio
`
`that we developed the most advanced radio reported to date. I believe it remained so for some
`
`years to come. I authored or co-authored six papers on various aspects of this radio. One of
`
`these was an invited paper for the director of DARPA’s Communications and Computing
`
`program published in the IEEE Proceedings review issue of radio technology at the time. I was
`
`inducted as a Senior Member of the IEEE for my contributions to communications engineering,
`
`sponsored by Seymour Stein, a renowned author and contributor to communications sciences.
`
`14.
`
`After leaving MIT Lincoln Laboratory, I worked at MICRILOR, a small company
`
`in Wakefield, MA, with the intent to commercialize advanced technology. MICRILOR was
`
`started by my group leader and another staff member from Lincoln Laboratory. The FCC had
`
`just opened up frequency spectrum for unlicensed spread spectrum operation with an allowed
`
`transmit power level that was previously unheard of for unlicensed operation. The objective of
`
`this FCC action in 1985 was to spur new wireless markets and my goal was to bring my
`
`understanding of advanced radio technology obtained at Lincoln Lab to the commercial
`
`marketplace. I spent the next 14 years at MICRILOR developing high performance, low cost
`
`radio modems, as well as other technology for communications and radar. Ultimately, I co-
`
`- 6 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 6
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`invented a way to transmit at 10 Mbps within the FCC direct sequence spread spectrum
`
`regulations; this was a higher data rate than had previously been thought possible indoors in the
`
`unlicensed spread spectrum band. We filed for a patent in 1994 on the signaling technique. I built
`
`the first prototype and we engaged in a joint development with a major corporation to create
`
`wireless networking products based on this technique. In 1997 MICRILOR presented the
`
`technique in a proposal to the IEEE 802.11 working groups for “Higher Speed PHY Extension”
`
`in the 2.4 GHz Band as well as the 5 GHz band. The techniques in the MICRILOR proposal
`
`evolved into what is today the IEEE 802.11b standard.
`
`15.
`
`After our work on 802.11, MICRILOR was purchased by Proxim, Inc. a publicly
`
`traded wireless company. I continued to work on wireless products at Proxim for the next 3
`
`years until 2003. During this period I worked on radio designs including a product with
`
`proprietary modulation and a chip that was being designed to support multiple standards. The
`
`proprietary product was a point to multipoint fixed installation network that was installed
`
`between enterprise locations. The standards based chip was being designed for 802.11 a/b and
`
`WiMAX. My responsibility in the chip design was the signal detection, automatic gain control,
`
`and the analog to digital conversion circuits needed between the front end and the digital signal
`
`processing circuits.
`
`16.
`
`In 2003-2004 I worked as a consultant for several companies in the wireless space
`
`designing and evaluating various aspects of their wireless products. These included two startup
`
`companies attempting to get venture funded in the WiFi market. At that time I became interested
`
`in radio frequency identification technology (RFID). I started an RFID company with several
`
`other technologists that were interested in this path. Until 2009, I was the RF Architect for the
`
`company, Reva Systems, which quickly became the leading RFID infrastructure company. From
`
`- 7 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 7
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`2004 to 2007 I served as the technical co-chair of the standards body working group to develop a
`
`new international standard for RFID. Doing so involved comparing competing technologies,
`
`including acting as co-referee in a worldwide technology bakeoff with over 200 companies
`
`participating. RFID required new regulations and I was the liaison for doing so with the FCC in
`
`the US, the radio regulatory standards body of Europe, and the regulatory agency in Japan.
`
`17.
`
`Since 2009 I have been a consultant. Some examples that demonstrate the range
`
`of consulting work I have done are developing product design plans for in-home wireless sensor
`
`networks (for a major corporation), integrating a communications package for networked video
`
`from multiple drones (for Draper Laboratory), building a multipath channel sounder for a
`
`wireless infrastructure company and then architecting an appropriate multipath processing design
`
`(for Fastback Networks), making extensive WiFi performance measurements on an 802.11n
`
`indoor wireless speaker system (for Sonos), and simulating a short range low power indoor
`
`wireless network. I also serve on a panel working with the FCC and NTIA on methods for
`
`making new spectrum available.
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the content of a patent (including its claims) and prior art should
`
`be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the material at
`
`the time of invention.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the “time of invention” here is the date that the applicants for the
`
`‘904 Patent first filed their application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, namely,
`
`Nov. 9, 2005.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of
`
`the patent would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Computer
`
`- 8 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 8
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic
`
`or industry experience in any type of networking field.
`
`21.
`
`In addition to my testimony as an expert, I am prepared to testify as someone who
`
`actually practiced in the field from 1980 to present, who actually possessed at least the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in that time period, and who actually worked
`
`with others possessing at least the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in that time
`
`period.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical person who is
`
`assumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as prior art. In addition, the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art makes inferences and takes creative steps.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`23.
`
`I have a general understanding of validity based on my experience with patents
`
`and my discussions with counsel.
`
`24.
`
`I have a general understanding of prior art and priority date based on my
`
`experience with patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that inventors are entitled to a priority date up to one year earlier
`
`than the date of filing to the extent that they can show complete possession of particular claimed
`
`inventions at such an earlier priority date and reasonable diligence to reduce the claims to
`
`practice between such an earlier priority date and the date of filing of the patent. I understand
`
`that if the patent holder contends that particular claims are entitled to an earlier priority date than
`
`the date of filing of the patent, then the patent holder has the burden to prove this contention with
`
`specificity.
`
`- 9 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 9
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`26.
`
`I understand that an invention by another must be made before the priority date of
`
`a particular patent claim in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, that a
`
`printed publication or a product usage must be publicly available before the priority date of a
`
`particular patent claim in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), that a printed
`
`publication or a product usage or offer for sale must be publicly available more than one year
`
`prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States in order to qualify as “prior art”
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or that the invention by another must be described in an application
`
`for patent filed in the United States before the priority date of a particular patent claim in order to
`
`qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). I understand that the Defendants have the
`
`burden of proving that any particular reference or product usage or offer for sale is prior art.
`
`27.
`
`I have a general understanding of anticipation based on my experience with
`
`patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that anticipation analysis is a two-step process. The first step is to
`
`determine the meaning and scope of the asserted claims. Each claim must be viewed as a whole,
`
`and it is improper to ignore any element of the claim. For a claim to be anticipated under U.S.
`
`patent law: (1) each and every claim element must be identically disclosed, either explicitly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference; (2) the claim elements disclosed in the single prior art
`
`reference must be arranged in the same way as in the claim; and (3) the identical invention must
`
`be disclosed in the single prior art reference, in as complete detail as set forth in the claim.
`
`Where even one element is not disclosed in a reference, the anticipation contention fails.
`
`Moreover, to serve as an anticipatory reference, the reference itself must be enabled, i.e., it must
`
`provide enough information so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can practice the subject
`
`matter of the reference without undue experimentation.
`
`- 10 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 10
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`29.
`
`I understand that claim elements may be expressed as a means for performing a
`
`recited function as set out in 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. I further understand that for such a means-
`
`plus-function element, the element is to be construed to cover only the structure or structures
`
`described in the patent specification for performing the exact function recited by the element and
`
`structural equivalents thereof. Thus, in an infringement (or anticipation) analysis involving such
`
`claim elements, one is required to consult the patent specification in order to determine the
`
`composition of the specific relevant structures for performing the recited functions. I further
`
`understand that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure
`
`in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a means-plus-
`
`function claim element is indefinite.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a claim including a means-plus-function element is literally
`
`infringed (or anticipated) if the accused product or method (or prior art reference) is found to
`
`have a structure that performs the identical recited function wherein that structure is identical or
`
`equivalent to structure disclosed in the patent for performing the identical recited function. I
`
`further understand that structures are deemed equivalent if they are insubstantially different. One
`
`way of determining whether structures are equivalent is to determine whether each performs the
`
`identical recited function in a substantially similar way to obtain a substantially similar result. I
`
`understand that a structural equivalence analysis must be supported by specific evidence, and
`
`that a conclusory statement alleging that a structure within an accused product or process is
`
`equivalent to structure disclosed in the patent for performing the identical recited function is
`
`insufficient. I further understand that an equivalent structure must have been available at the
`
`time of the issuance of the claim including the means-plus-function element being considered.
`
`- 11 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 11
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that when construing means-plus-function limitations that
`
`concern a computer or a microprocessor that is programmed to carry out an algorithm, the
`
`structure is to be construed as the algorithm as disclosed in the patent specification. I further
`
`understand that literal infringement (or anticipation) of a means-plus-function claim limitation
`
`directed to a computer programmed to perform an algorithm requires that the software in the
`
`accused device (or prior art reference) use an algorithm that performs the same steps as the
`
`algorithm disclosed in the patent specification.
`
`32.
`
`I further understand that where a prior art reference fails to explicitly disclose a
`
`claim element, the prior art reference inherently discloses the claim element only if the prior art
`
`reference must necessarily include the undisclosed claim element. Inherency may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities. The fact that an element may result from a given set
`
`of circumstances is not sufficient to prove inherency. I have applied these principles in forming
`
`my opinions in this matter.
`
`33.
`
`I have a general understanding of obviousness based on my experience with
`
`patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
`
`only if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in that art. An obviousness analysis requires consideration of four factors: (1)
`
`scope and content of the prior art relied upon to challenge patentability; (2) differences between
`
`the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention; and (4) the objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial success,
`
`unexpected results, the failure of others to achieve the results of the invention, a long-felt need
`
`- 12 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 12
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`which the invention fills, copying of the invention by competitors, praise for the invention,
`
`skepticism for the invention, or independent development.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference is proper to use in an obviousness
`
`determination if the prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. I understand
`
`that a prior art reference is analogous art if at least one of the following two considerations is
`
`met. First a prior art reference is analogous art if it is from the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention, even if the prior art reference addresses a different problem and/or arrives at a
`
`different solution. Second, a prior art reference is analogous art if the prior art 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.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that it must be shown that one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation that a modification or
`
`combination of one or more prior art references would have succeeded. Furthermore, I
`
`understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a single prior art reference, without the need
`
`to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference can be
`
`supplied by the knowledge or common sense of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`However, I understand that it is inappropriate to resolve obviousness issues by a retrospective
`
`analysis or hindsight reconstruction of the prior art and that the use of “hindsight reconstruction”
`
`is improper in analyzing the obviousness of a patent claim.
`
`37.
`
`I further understand that the law recognizes several specific guidelines that inform
`
`the obviousness analysis. First, I understand that a reconstructive hindsight approach to this
`
`analysis, i.e., the improper use of post-invention information to help perform the selection and
`
`combination, or the improper use of the listing of elements in a claim as a blueprint to identify
`
`- 13 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 13
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`selected portions of different prior art references in an attempt to show that the claim is obvious,
`
`is not permitted. Second, I understand that any prior art that specifically teaches away from the
`
`claimed subject matter, i.e., prior art that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to a
`
`specifically different solution than the claimed invention, points to non-obviousness, and
`
`conversely, that any prior art that contains any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify or
`
`combine such prior art reference(s) points to the obviousness of such a modification or
`
`combination. Third, while many combinations of the prior art might be “obvious to try”, I
`
`understand that any obvious to try analysis will not render a patent invalid unless it is shown that
`
`the possible combinations are: (1) sufficiently small in number so as to be reasonable to conclude
`
`that the combination would have been selected; and (2) such that the combination would have
`
`been believed to be one that would produce predictable and well understood results. Fourth, I
`
`understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or
`
`more prior art references uses known methods or techniques that yield predictable results, then
`
`that factor also points to obviousness. Fifth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises
`
`from the modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of known
`
`work in one field prompting variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces that yields predicable variations, then that factor also
`
`points to obviousness. Sixth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the
`
`modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of routine
`
`optimization, then that factor also points to obviousness. Seventh, I understand that if a claimed
`
`invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or more prior art references is
`
`the result of a substitution of one known prior art element for another known prior art element to
`
`yield predictable results, then that factor also points to obviousness.
`
`- 14 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 14
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every limitation of the
`
`claim from which it depends. Thus, my understanding is that if a prior art reference fails to
`
`anticipate an independent claim, then that prior art reference also necessarily fails to anticipate
`
`all dependent claims that depend from the independent claim. Similarly, my understanding is that
`
`if a prior art reference or combination of prior art references fails to render obvious an
`
`independent claim, then that prior art reference or combination of prior art references also
`
`necessarily fails to render obvious all dependent claims that depend from the independent claim.
`
`V.
`
`THE ‘904 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`The ‘904 Patent (Ex. 1001), entitled “Personal Area Network Having Media
`
`Player and Mobile Device Controlling the Same” addresses an asserted need to have a remote
`
`control that can ascertain the content available at the plurality of media devices it is in wireless
`
`contact with, and control the content played on these. (Ex. 1001 at 1:16-23.)
`
`40.
`
` I note that the ‘904 Patent claims priority to the date it was filed, Nov. 9, 2005. I
`
`am not aware at this time of any basis for an assertion of a priority date earlier than Nov. 9, 2005.
`
`41.
`
`The ‘904 patent includes a system and a method independent claim, each “for
`
`controlling digital content played by a plurality of media devices.” (Ex. 1001 at claims 1 and 16.)
`
`42.
`
`An example system claim (claim 1) from the ‘904 Patent is presented below:
`
`1. A mobile device for controlling digital content played by a plurality of media devices
`comprising:
`a) a wireless communication interface for communicating with the plurality of
`media devices;
`b) a media database; and
`c) a control system adapted to, for each of the plurality of media devices:
`i) communicate with the media device when the mobile device is within a
`wireless personal area network (WPAN) associated with the media device to
`obtain information describing content residing at the media device; and
`ii) store the information describing the content residing at the media
`device in the media database;
`
`- 15 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 15
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`wherein desired content is selected from the content at the media device based on
`the information in the media database and played at the media device when the mobile
`device is within the WPAN associated with the media device.
`
`43.
`
`An example method claim (claim 16) from the ‘904 Patent is presented below:
`
`16. A method for controlling digital content played by a plurality of media devices
`comprising, for each of the plurality of media devices:
`obtaining information describing content residing at the media device when a
`mobile device is within a wireless personal area network (WPAN) associated with the
`media device;
`storing the information describing the content residing at the media device in a
`media database of the mobile device;
`selecting desired content to play from the content residing at the media device
`based on the media database when the mobile device is within the WPAN associated with
`the media device; and
`playing the desired content at the media device.
`
`44.
`
`The ‘904 Patent specification contains 9 figures. The ‘904 describes Figure 1 as
`
`“a block diagram of a system including a mobile device and a number of media devices.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:14-15 The WPAN is described as a space physically surrounding “a media device” in
`
`which it can make RF contact with the “mobile device.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:57-3:14.
`
`WPAN spaces are described as capable of overlapping (Ex. 1001 at 2:63-64) and, in the case
`
`where WPAN spaces do overlap, a mobile device could therefore be in more than one WPAN at
`
`a time, and thus be able to communicate with more than one media device at a time.
`
`45.
`
`Fig. 2 of ‘904 (shown below) shows an exemplary media device, comprising a
`
`“control system 24” and a “content database 26,” which are described as connected to each
`
`other, and a “wireless communication interface 22,” which is connected to the “control system.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:31-39. The “control system” is described as including a “media player 28” and a
`
`“WPAN media server 30.” Ex. 1001 at 3:48-50. The ‘904 Patent states that the media player is
`
`what actually plays the content. Ex. 1001 at 3:59-62. This would be, for example, a Television,
`
`Stereo, Projector, or Monitor. Ex. 1001 at 1:27-32, col 1:50-54. The ‘904 Patent describes the
`
`WPAN media server (30) “operates to instruct the media player 28 to play select content based
`
`- 16 -
`
`DISH, Exh. 1003, p. 16
`
`

`
`Expert Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey Fischer for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`on instructions or information received from the mobile device” Ex. 1001 at 3:60-63. The
`
`content database 26 stores the content to be played, such as a recorded show or music file. See,
`
`e.g, Ex. 1001 at 7:23-28.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Fig. 3 of the ‘904 (shown below) is an embodiment of the mobile device. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:20-21. The WPAN Media Client (36) is a layer that communicates to the WPAN
`
`Media Server in the Media Device of Fig. 2 to pass information and controls back and forth by
`
`way of the Wireless Communication Interface. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:21-30. No claims
`
`include the terms “media client” or “WPAN Media Client.”
`
`47.
`
`The Media Database (38) in the Mobile Device where the information is stored in
`
`the Mobile Device regarding what digital content is available to be played by the Media Devices.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:21-58. When the Mobile Device is within the WPAN of one or more
`
`Media Devices, the Mobile Device acquires informati