UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 8,612,515
`Filing Date: April 29, 2011
`Issue Date: December 17, 2013
`
`Title: SYSTEM, METHOD, AND
`APPARATUS FOR MEDIA
`SUBMISSION
`
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`Filing Date: October 8, 2004
`Issue Date: July 27, 2010
`
`Title: WEB-BASED MEDIA
`SUBMISSION TOOL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. Unassigned
`
`
`
`Declaration of Paul Clark Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 8,612,515
`Filing Date: April 29, 2011
`Issue Date: December 17, 2013
`
`Title: SYSTEM, METHOD, AND
`APPARATUS FOR MEDIA
`SUBMISSION
`
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`Filing Date: October 8, 2004
`Issue Date: July 27, 2010
`
`Title: WEB-BASED MEDIA
`SUBMISSION TOOL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. Unassigned
`
`
`
`Declaration of Paul Clark Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`I, Paul Clark, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`I am an independent consultant. I am over eighteen years of age, and I
`
`would otherwise be competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein if I am
`
`called upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I have prepared this Declaration for consideration by the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board in the Inter Partes Reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,765,482 (“the ʼ482
`
`patent”) and 8,612,515 (“the ʼ515 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I have written this Declaration at the request of and have been retained by
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, which represents Google Inc., HTC
`
`Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC in connection with
`
`the above-captioned Inter Partes Reviews.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $590 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of or any issue in relation to the
`
`Inter Partes Reviews.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I relied on my knowledge and experience in the
`
`field and on documents and information referenced in this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I earned a B.S. in Mathematics from University of California Irvine in 1986,
`
`a M.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from University of
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`Southern California in 1988, and a DSc. in Computer Science with a concentration
`
`in Security, Graphics, and Intellectual Property Law from George Washington
`
`University in 1994. A copy of my current curriculum vita is attached following the
`
`signature line of this letter.
`
`II.
`
`7.
`
`Information Considered
`
`In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge and experience, I have
`
`considered the following documents and things that I have obtained, or that have
`
`been provided to me:
`
`The ʼ482 patent;
`
`The History of the Original Prosecution of the ʼ482 patent;
`
`The ʼ515 patent;
`
`The History of the Original Prosecution of the ʼ515 patent;
`
`U.S. 6,930,709 to Creamer et al. (“Creamer”);
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/085,585, filed on May 15, 1998
`(“Creamer ’98”);
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/067,310, filed Dec. 4, 1997 (“Creamer
`’97”);
`
`U.S. 6,223,190 to Aihara et al. (“Aihara”);
`
`U.S. 6,018,774 to Mayle et al. (“Mayle”);
`
`U.S. 6,035,323 to Narayen et al. (“Narayen”);
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Summit 6 LLC v.
`HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014)
`(“Summit 6 Brief”);
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in Summit 6 LLC
`v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014)
`(ECF No. 149) (“Summit 6 JCCS”);
`
`I further performed Internet research and document review to confirm
`my recollection of technology that was available in the time prior to
`1998.
`
`III. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`8.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art is someone with either an
`
`undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral degree in computer science (or similar field,
`
`e.g., electrical engineering, etc.), or three to five years’ industry experience in the
`
`general field of software engineering and web implementation. By August of
`
`1998, I was at least one of ordinary skill in the art based on my education and
`
`experience.
`
`IV. Obviousness
`
`9.
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious in light of the prior art if the difference
`
`or differences between the claimed subject matter 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 having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that in KSR Int’l
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), the Supreme Court provided an
`
`outline for analyzing obviousness. The Supreme Court rejected an earlier test in
`
`favor of an “expansive and flexible approach” using “common sense.” I also
`
`understand that the Supreme Court explained that under the correct analysis, any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
`
`addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed. I also understand that the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” I further understand
`
`that the Court pointed to other factors that may show obviousness. These factors
`
`included the following principles:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`a combination that unites old elements with no change in their
`respective functions is unpatentable. As a result, the combination of
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
`when it does no more than yield predictable results,
`
`a predictable variation of a work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor is likely obvious if a person of ordinary skill would be able
`to implement the variation,
`
`an invention is obvious if it is the use of a known technique to
`improve a similar device in the same way, unless the actual
`application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of the
`person of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, a key inquiry is
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
`elements according to their established functions,
`
`an invention is obvious if there existed at the time of invention a
`known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed
`by the patent’s claims,
`
`inventions that were “obvious to try” — chosen from a finite number
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`success — are likely obvious,
`
`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 would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art to combine
`references, while not a requirement for a finding of obviousness,
`remains “a helpful insight” in determining upon which a finding of
`obviousness may be based.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`General Field of the Art
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the earliest priority date to which the Patent Owner may
`
`claim the ʼ482 and ʼ515 patents are entitled is August 1998.
`
`11. Prior to August, 1998, a broad range of client devices were available that
`
`allowed users to capture, select, modify, and distribute digital multimedia content,
`
`such as images, videos, and audio files. (See, e.g., Creamer ’97, 3:20-24; Aihara,
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`3:35-40; Mayle, 2:7-25.) For example, users could capture still or video images
`
`using a digital camera. (See, e.g., Creamer ’97, 3:28 – 4:12; 42:4-7; Aihara, 1:13-
`
`38.) Users could also select and modify multimedia content through personal
`
`computers, laptop computers, Internet-enabled televisions (e.g., “WebTV”), or
`
`network computers. (See, e.g., Creamer ’97, 42:24-26; Mayle, 4:6-20; Narayen,
`
`5:2-5.)
`
`12. These client devices were routinely connected to the Internet, which was
`
`well known before August, 1998. (See, e.g., Narayen, 1:38-41; Aihara, 7:11-21;
`
`Mayle, 1:53-67; Creamer ’97, 1:8-18.) The Internet allowed users to share,
`
`publish, and distribute information and content. (See, e.g., Mayle, 1:53-67; Aihara,
`
`1:55 – 2:3; Creamer ’97, 1:8-11.) Many different means existed to share content
`
`over the Internet, such as sending the content via email, publishing the content in a
`
`web page, or uploading the content to a file server. (See, e.g., Creamer ’97, 18:6-
`
`26; Aihara, 2:59-67; Mayle, 4:37-49; Narayen, 4:26-48.)
`
`13. For example, an Internet-connected client device, such as a digital camera or
`
`personal computer, could be used to capture and format multimedia digital content
`
`and transmit it to a remote server. (See, e.g., Creamer ’97, 27:22 – 28:3; Mayle,
`
`Figure 2; 2:48-63; Narayen, Figure 2 (see below).) The remote server would store
`
`the multimedia content and allow it to be accessed by other users. (See, e.g.,
`
`Narayen, Figure 2 (see below); Mayle, 2:7-12.)
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`14. Other users could access and view the digital content through client devices,
`
`such as computers running web browsing software. (See, e.g., Narayen, 1:54 – 2:8;
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`Creamer ’97, 18:12-17; Mayle, 12:57-60.) By August 1998, the tools for capturing,
`
`modifying, transmitting, and accessing such digital content had become easy and
`
`straightforward for the various users to obtain and use. (See, e.g., Mayle, 1:44-52
`
`(“the price for such a system is now within the budget of many households”);
`
`Aihara, 2:59-67 (“The present invention provides a process of creating the
`
`formatted document including the image which is intuitive and user friendly”);
`
`Creamer ’97, 3:20-22 (“an inexpensive and efficient camera having all necessary
`
`components and functionality for transmission of real-time digital images to the
`
`Internet”).)
`
`15.
`
`In order to allow other users to access the multimedia content from the
`
`remote servers, the digital content was typically stored along with web pages
`
`encoded in a format such as hypertext markup language (“HTML”). (See, e.g.,
`
`Narayen, 1:54 – 2:8; Creamer ’97, 18:2-17; Mayle, 4:51-64.) These web pages
`
`included insertion points so that the web pages and multimedia content could be
`
`linked, allowing a user to use a web browser to view the multimedia content on the
`
`web page. (See, e.g., Narayen, 1:54 – 2:8; Aihara, 1:49 – 2:3.)
`
`16. Multimedia digital content such as image files tended to be larger in size
`
`than text-based content. Thus, in order to facilitate the transfer and access of the
`
`multimedia content, it could be encoded in a variety of ways. (See, e.g., Creamer
`
`’97, 12:16-22.) For example, by August, 1998, multiple algorithms for encoding
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`and compressing the size of digital content, such as the JPEG digital image
`
`compression standard, were ubiquitous and in use. (See, e.g., Creamer ’97, 12:16-
`
`22; Mayle, 10:28-33; Narayen, 10:61-65.)
`
`17.
`
`It was well known to a person of skill in the art that the particular means
`
`used to encode or compress digital content for transmission via the Internet
`
`typically depended on the requirements of the device receiving the content. (See,
`
`e.g., Creamer ’97, 6:14-20 (“[t]he configuration information retrieving device
`
`retrieves configuration information from the destination shell account, while the
`
`configuration setting device sets operational parameters…according to the
`
`configuration information”); Mayle, 10:66 – 11:1 (“The image data that is POSTed
`
`to the server must be in a size and format that the electronic postcard software can
`
`handle”).)
`
`18. The ’482 patent relates to a “web-based media submission tool.” (See, e.g.,
`
`’482 patent, Abstract.) In this web-based media submission tool a user may
`
`identify one or more media objects (which include digital pictures, audio, videos,
`
`etc.) stored at a first location (e.g. a “local device”) for submission to a second
`
`location or server (e.g. a “server device” or “remote device”). (See, e.g., ’482
`
`patent, 2:44-48.) Prior to transmission, the media object(s) can be pre-processed in
`
`a number of ways including resizing the object, compressing the object using a
`
`compression algorithm like the JPEG standard, changing the file format, and
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`cropping, scaling, or changing the aspect ratio of the images. (See, e.g., ’482
`
`patent, 4:46-67.) Parameters received by the local device from either a server or
`
`remote device define the processing that occurs at the local device. (See, e.g., ’482
`
`patent, 4:67 – 5:4; 10:40-45.) Following processing at the local device, the media
`
`object(s) can be transmitted from the local device to a remote server or other
`
`device. (See, e.g., ’482 patent, 6:27-32.)
`
`19. The ’515 patent relates to an “improved web-based media submission tool.”
`
`(See, e.g., ’515 patent, Abstract.) In this improved web-based media submission
`
`tool, a client device first transmits information to access an account associated with
`
`a user. (See, e.g., ’515 patent, 6:57-59.) A user may identify one or more media
`
`objects (which include digital pictures, audio, videos, etc.) stored at a first location
`
`(e.g. a “local device”) for submission to a second location or server (e.g. a “server
`
`device” or “remote device”). (See, e.g., ’515 patent, 2:50-58.) Prior to
`
`transmission, the media object(s) can be pre-processed in a number of ways
`
`including resizing the object, compressing the object using a compression
`
`algorithm like the JPEG standard, changing the file format, and cropping, scaling,
`
`or changing the aspect ratio of the images. (See, e.g., ’515 patent, 4:52 – 5:12.)
`
`Parameters received by the local device from either a server or remote device
`
`define the processing that occurs at the local device. (See, e.g., ’515 patent, 5:6-
`
`12; 6:66-67; 9:9-12.) Following processing at the local device, the media object(s)
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`can be transmitted from the local device to a remote server or other device. (See,
`
`e.g., ’515 patent, 6:23-28.) As described above, user accounts and formatting the
`
`media parameters of a receiving device were well known to a person of skill in the
`
`art prior to 1998.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review claim terms are construed
`
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an amount of
`
`media data” and “an amount of digital content” includes at least the quantity or
`
`size of the digital content or media data and covers data compression, file size,
`
`pixel count, physical dimensions, cropping, and aspect ratios. In light of the
`
`specifications of the ’482 and ’515 Patents, one of skill in the art would understand
`
`that an “amount” of digital content or media data describes the quantity or size of
`
`the digital content or media data. For example, the specification discusses resizing
`
`a media object by increasing or decreasing its size as defined by physical
`
`dimensions, pixel count, or kilobytes. See, e.g., ’482 patent, 4:56-58 (“In the case
`
`of an image media object for example, the Prepare and Post tools may resize the
`
`image, (i.e., increase or decrease its size as defined by either physical dimensions,
`
`pixel count, or kilobytes).”) In view of this description, a person of skill in the art
`
`would understand that the “amount of media data” or “amount of digital content”
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`refers at least to the quantity or size of the media object, which may be defined by
`
`either physical dimensions (e.g. cropping, and aspect ratios), pixel count, or
`
`kilobytes (e.g., data compression, file size).
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “distribution,”
`
`“distributing,” “publishing,” and “publication” includes at least making available
`
`to at least one person other than the user. One of skill in the art would understand
`
`that distribution of electronic data is the transmission of the data from one device
`
`to at least one other device. See, e.g., ’482 patent, claim 38 (“transmitting a
`
`message from said client device to said server device for subsequent distribution to
`
`said one or more devices that are remote from said server device.”) One of skill in
`
`the art would recognize that distribution and distributing are broad terms that can
`
`encompass publication or publishing. For example, publication or publishing is
`
`distribution to the public rather than specific recipients. I understand that in a
`
`related litigation the parties stipulated to a construction of “making publicly
`
`available / the act of making publicly available” for the terms “publication” and
`
`“publishing.” (See Summit 6 JCCS, at 2.) In my opinion, this construction is
`
`narrower than the broadest reasonable construction of “distribution” and
`
`“distributing.” As discussed above, both of these terms encompass making the
`
`distributed content available to at least one person other than the user.
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable construction of the term “said
`
`identification” of claim 18 in the ’482 Patent is at least as broad as “said
`
`identification of digital content.” The word identification is recited two different
`
`times in claim 13, from which claim 18 depends: an identification of digital
`
`content, and an identification of a user. In the related litigation the patent owner
`
`has asserted that “said identification” means “said identification of digital content.”
`
`(See Summit 6 Brief, at 29-30.) In my opinion, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of this term is at least as broad as the identification of digital content.
`
`C.
`
`Similar Claim Terms
`
`24. The ’482 Patent contains several groups of terms that are very closely
`
`related. As discussed below in paragraphs 23-26, in my opinion these terms are
`
`either equivalents or encompass a similar but narrower term.
`
`25.
`
`In light of the specification of the ’482 Patent, I believe that “digital content”
`
`encompasses “media objects,” which may be images, audio files, and / or video
`
`files. For example, the specification refers to “the transportation and Internet
`
`publishing of digital content, particularly image media objects and rich media.”
`
`(’482 Patent, 1:12-14.) The specification also refers to “other media objects, such
`
`as streaming video, 3D objects, slide shows, graphics, movies, and even sound files
`
`that accompany imaging data.” (’482 Patent, 1:36-38.) Thus, the specification
`
`makes clear that digital content encompasses media objects.
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 14 of 46
`
`
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the terms “local device” and “client device” as they are used
`
`by the claims of the ’482 patent are interchangeable. Local device is not used in
`
`the specification of the ’482 patent. However, the claims use both terms to refer to
`
`the same device, a device at which media objects are pre-processed prior to
`
`distribution or publication. For example, claim 12 recites “A method of pre-
`
`processing media objects in a local device for subsequent transmission to a remote
`
`device” and claim 13 recites “A computer implemented method of pre-processing
`
`digital content in a client device for subsequent electronic publishing.” In both
`
`cases, these terms refer to the same device. Based on my experience and
`
`knowledge, I know that one of skill in the art would understand that a “client
`
`device” is any device accessed by a user, and that this encompasses devices located
`
`proximately with the user.
`
`27. One of skill in the art would understand that electronic publishing or
`
`distribution is the act of making information or content available in a digital
`
`format. In my opinion, “electronic publishing” broadly encompasses many
`
`different means of making content available in a digital form, including
`
`transmitting content from one device to another device. In light of the
`
`specification of the ’482 Patent, I understand “electronic publishing” or
`
`distribution to encompass a range of means for making content available to
`
`someone other than the user.
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 15 of 46
`
`
`
`28. The ’482 and ’515 Patents refer to “changing a file format” and “encoding or
`
`otherwise converting” digital content. Based on my experience and knowledge, I
`
`know that one of skill in the art would understand that changing the file format of
`
`digital content alters the way that digital content is encoded in the memory of the
`
`device storing the digital content. In my opinion, “encoding or otherwise
`
`converting” encompasses a broad range of conversions of digital content, which
`
`includes “changing a file format” of digital content.
`
`D.
`
`Creamer and Aihara References
`
`29.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with Creamer and Aihara.
`
`30.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the Creamer
`
`reference with the Aihara reference. Both references relate to Internet-enabled
`
`digital cameras with display screens for previewing and reviewing images. (See,
`
`e.g., Creamer, 2:60-66 (“an integrated Internet camera for transmitting digital
`
`images to an Internet address”); 29:45-47 (“the display is a color or greyscale
`
`(video) LCD, and the LCD controller drives the display to show images formed on
`
`the image pickup”); compare, e.g., Aihara, 13:42-43 (“camera coupled to [the]
`
`Internet”); 1:33-35 (“the LCD is used as a playback screen for allowing the user to
`
`review previously captured images”).) Both references describe processing
`
`images stored on those cameras before subsequently transmitting those images to
`
`the Internet through a network connection. (See, e.g., Creamer, 4:54-58 (“Internet
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 16 of 46
`
`
`
`camera may include an image compression circuit that generates compressed
`
`digital image files from the captured digital images, so that the file transfer device
`
`transfers the compressed digital image files to the destination shell account”);
`
`compare, e.g., Aihara, 3:24-26 (“[t]he digital camera then generates an HTML file
`
`referencing the resulting images, wherein the HTML file is formatted in
`
`accordance with the script’s predefined model”); 3:38-40 (“the HTML file can be
`
`made directly available over the Internet”).) Creamer and Aihara recite benefits
`
`associated with processing digital images on a camera, such as the faster
`
`transmission speeds of compressed digital images (see, e.g., Creamer, 19:16-19
`
`(the camera can “increase the compression level by a predetermined amount if the
`
`data rate is lower than a predetermined rate”)) and the ease of automatically
`
`uploading images to a server on the Internet so that other users can view the
`
`images. (See, e.g., Creamer, 3:56-59 (“without requiring the use of an external
`
`controlling apparatus…the images become available to any authorized user on the
`
`Internet via the accessing device”); compare, e.g., Aihara, 3:26-30 (“the present
`
`invention allows a user having no knowledge of HTML to produce HTML and
`
`image files which describe one or more web pages including the resulting
`
`images”).)
`
`31. One of skill in the art would be aware of the limitations of liquid-crystal
`
`displays on handheld cameras, such as small viewing area size. The combination
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 17 of 46
`
`
`
`of Creamer and Aihara would constitute the use of a known technique to improve
`
`similar devices and methods which would yield predictable results. Combining the
`
`technique of displaying preview images, as disclosed by Aihara, on a camera
`
`display of limited size, as disclosed by Creamer, would improve the ability of the
`
`screen to display multiple images. This combination would allow a user to review
`
`captured images faster and more accurately. Based on my knowledge and
`
`experience, one of skill in the art would know how to combine Creamer and Aihara
`
`by, for example, writing code executed by the microcontroller disclosed in
`
`Creamer to enable it to display arrays of preview images on the display screen like
`
`the processor and LCD screen disclosed in Aihara.
`
`32.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with Creamer ’97 and Creamer ’98. The
`
`relevant substance of the disclosures of Creamer ’97 and Creamer ’98 were carried
`
`over to the non-provisional application that later issued as Creamer.
`
`33. For instance, Creamer ’97 and Creamer disclose “an integrated Internet
`
`camera for transmitting digital images to an Internet address” having a network
`
`interface “for transmission of the digital image files to the Internet.” (Creamer ’97,
`
`3:28-32; Creamer, 2:60-66.) Creamer ’97 and Creamer disclose that the images
`
`are sent to a “destination shell account at a predetermined Internet address.”
`
`(Creamer ’97, 3:33 – 4:1; Creamer, 2:67 – 3:4) In addition, the camera has a
`
`“configuration device” which “retrieves configuration information from the
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 18 of 46
`
`
`
`destination shell account” and “sets operational parameters” of the components of
`
`the camera “according to the configuration information.”(Creamer ’97, 6:14-20;
`
`Creamer, 4:32-42.) A component of the camera is a “compression circuit that
`
`generates compressed digital image files from the captured digital images, so that
`
`the file transfer device transfers the compressed digital image files to the
`
`destination shell account and the transport control device packetizes the
`
`compressed digital image files according to the predetermined Internet transport
`
`control protocol.” (Creamer ’97, 7:3-7; Creamer, 4:54-60.)
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, Creamer ’97 and Aihara in combination render obvious each
`
`limitation recited by claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38,
`
`40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 49 of the ʼ482 Patent, and claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19,
`
`20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38, and 39 of the ’515 Patent.
`
`35. As discussed further in paragraphs 36-49 below, in my opinion Creamer and
`
`Aihara in combination render obvious each limitation recited by claims 12, 13, 16,
`
`18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 49 of the ʼ482
`
`Patent, and claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38, and 39 of the
`
`’515 Patent.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, the combination of Creamer and Aihara discloses or renders
`
`obvious pre-processing digital content in a client device according to pre-
`
`processing parameters received from a remote device for subsequent transmission
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 19 of 46
`
`
`
`in view of Creamer’s Internet-enabled digital camera that processes (e.g.,
`
`compresses) captured digital images and subsequently transmits the processed
`
`images to the Internet, (See, e.g., Creamer, 2:49-52 (“camera having all necessary
`
`functionality for transmission of real-time and stored digital images to the
`
`Internet”); 3:49-56 (“camera initiate and independently control scheduled
`
`connections to a destination shell account having a user directory at a
`
`predetermined Internet address and transmission of real-time digital images to the
`
`user directory”); 4:35-42 (the camera’s “configuration retrieving device retrieves
`
`configuration information from the destination shell account, while the
`
`configuration setting device sets operational parameters…according to the
`
`configuration information”); 19:9-15 (“the compression engine…according to
`
`settings stored…[may] compress the image in the image memory”) and Aihara’s
`
`digital camera coupled to the Internet that captures images, processes them, and
`
`distributes a formatted HTML page containing those images. (See, e.g., Aihara,
`
`13:42-43 (“camera coupled to [the] Internet”); 14:56-67 (camera capable of
`
`“capturing images and generating a formatted electronic document which includes
`
`those images…[and] making the formatted document available via the Internet to
`
`web browser equipped users”).)
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, the combination of Creamer and Aihara discloses or renders
`
`obvious receiving pre-processing parameters from a remote device. Creamer
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 20 of 46
`
`
`
`discloses a camera that can download a set of operational parameters from a server,
`
`e.g., Creamer discloses transmitting parameters such as image compression from a
`
`server to a camera. (See, e.g., Creamer, 13:36-44 (“variable group stores several
`
`color property parameters defining increase or decrease of gamma, brightness,
`
`contrast, hue, saturation, and luminance, as well as settings for (e.g., JPEG)
`
`compression level”); 24:10-15 (“the user may place a setup or configuration file in
`
`his destination directory and in a predetermined format recognizable by the
`
`camera, and the camera may download a new or modified full or partial set of
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 21 of 46
`
`
`
`operational parameters (e.g. those shown in FIG. 5)”); Figure 5 (see below).)
`
`
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, the combination of Creamer and Aihara discloses or renders
`
`obvious receiving an identification of a group of digital content and confirming an
`
`intent to associate the digital content with an account in view of Creamer’s
`
`disclosure of a camera that captures digital images and categorizes them for
`
`processing and subsequent transmission according to settings stored within the
`
`camera. (See, e.g., Creamer, 18:46-56 (“the image pickup is driven by the driver to
`
`accumulate light, i.e., to store an image…Subsequently, the A/D [analog/digital]
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 22 of 46
`
`
`
`converter converts the [analog] signal to a digital image signal, which is passed by
`
`the compression engine and memory controller to the image memory (at this point,
`
`without compression)”); 19:9-21 (“the compression engine…according to settings
`
`stored in the IMAGE FILES: IMAGE ADJUST [may] compress the image in the
`
`image memory”).) Based on my knowledge and years of experience, I know that
`
`one of skill in the art would understand that the group of digital content is limited
`
`by the pre-processing parameters because the parameters define the level of
`
`compression performed on the digital content. Also based on my knowledge and
`
`experience, I know that one of skill in the art would consider compression, which
`
`reduces the overall size of a file of digital content, to limit the digital content.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, the combination of Creamer and Aihara discloses or renders
`
`obvious a specification of an amount of digital content. Creamer discloses settings
`
`that specify how the camera will compress images, the desired resolution of
`
`images, whether an image will be cropped, and whether an image is stored in
`
`greyscale or in color. (See, e.g., Creamer, 13:36-44 (“variable group stores several
`
`color property parameters defining increase or decrease of gamma, brightness,
`
`contrast, hue, saturation, and luminance, as well as settings for (e.g., JPEG)
`
`compression level”).) One of skill in the art would understand those settings to
`
`determine the size or quantity of digital content, as defined by the physical
`
`dimensions, pixel count, or kilobytes of the digital content.
`
`
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1003
`Page 23 of 46
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, the combination of Creamer and Aihara discloses or renders
`
`obvious preprocessing digital content by encoding or otherwise converting digital
`
`content. Creamer discloses processing digital content by compressing the content.
`
`(See, e.g., Creamer, 8:22-29 (“the compression engine performs image
`
`compression under a JPEG standard, but may be alternatively arranged to output
`
`other image formats (e.g., TIFF, GIF) and/or other compression schemes (e.g.,
`
`Huffman, wavelet, fractal). When JPEG is used as the standard, the compression
`
`engine is able to encode, decode, and recode JPEG image files with any suitable
`
`JPEG compression level”).) From my years of experience and knowledge of
`
`image compression, I know one of skill in the art would understand that when the
`
`camera discussed in Creamer captures an image, renders the analog information of
`
`the image into a digital format, and then compresses the digital image, the way in
`
`which the digital image is coded in the memory of the device is altered. In my
`
`opinion, compression is a form of encoding or otherwise converting digi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
