Filed on behalf of:
`Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc. and Avigilon Corporation
`
`
`By: Timothy D. Casey
`
`Jeffrey W. Lesovitz
`
`William F. Smith
`
`Ronald C. Kern Jr.
`
`William C. Powell
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`AVIGILON USA CORPORATION, INC. AND AVIGILON CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JDS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2016-00511
`Patent No. 8,185,964
`________________
`
`EXHIBIT 1008
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS A. GAFFORD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
` Materials Reviewed ......................................................................................... 3 II.
`
`
`
` The Applicable Law ........................................................................................ 3 III.
`
`A.
`
`In General .............................................................................................. 4
`
`B. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 5
`
`IV.
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 10
`
`A. Unique Identifier (claims 1 and 2) ...................................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`Component based video server (claim 3) ............................................ 11
`
`VI.
`
` Overview of Opinion ..................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
` Overview of Prior Art .................................................................................... 12 VII.
`
`A.
`
`State of Prior Art in General ............................................................... 12
`
`B. Description of Prior Art “AXIS Manual” Reference .......................... 20
`
`C. Description of Prior Art “Schell” Reference ....................................... 23
`
`D. Description of Prior Art “Nelson” Reference ..................................... 27
`
`VIII.
` Independent Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over the AXIS Manual
`in View of Schell ........................................................................................... 28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The AXIS Manual taught the recitations of claim 1’s preamble ........ 28
`
`Recitation [a] of claim 1: The AXIS Manual taught “sending a
`request from the computer to a video server over a network” ............ 29
`
`Recitation [b] of claim 1: The AXIS Manual, in combination with
`Schell, taught “receiving at the computer from the video server a
`unique identifier stored in and identifying the video server,
`
`i
`
`

`
`wherein the unique identifier is received by the computer over the
`network” .............................................................................................. 31
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Recitation [c] of claim 1: The AXIS Manual, in combination with
`Schell, taught “determining that access to the video server is
`authorized by comparing the unique identifier received by the
`computer to one or more authorized unique identifiers” .................... 36
`
`Recitation [d] of claim 1: The AXIS Manual, in combination with
`Schell, taught “in response to the determination, obtaining at the
`computer one or more images from the video server for
`displaying.” .......................................................................................... 37
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`combine the relevant teachings of the AXIS Manual and Schell ....... 38
`
`IX.
`
` Dependent Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious Over the AXIS Manual
`in View of Schell ........................................................................................... 45
`
`X.
`
` Dependent Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over the AXIS Manual
`in View of Schell ........................................................................................... 47
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over Schell in View of
`Nelson ............................................................................................................ 49
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Schell taught the limitations of claim 4’s preamble ............................ 49
`
`Recitation [a] of claim 4: Schell taught “executing a computer
`program stored in computer readable form at the computer, the
`computer being connected to a hardware device via a network” ........ 50
`
`Recitation [b] of claim 4: Schell, in combination with Nelson,
`taught “accessing the hardware device from the computer over the
`network using an IP address associated with the hardware device” ... 52
`
`Recitation [c] of claim 4: Schell taught “transmitting a request
`from the computer over the network for a MAC address of the
`hardware device” ................................................................................. 54
`
`Recitation [d] of claim 4: Schell taught “receiving at the computer
`the MAC address of the hardware device over the network” ............. 55
`
`ii
`
`

`
`F.
`
`Recitation [e] of claim 4: Schell taught “determining if the
`computer program is authorized to access the hardware device by
`validating the MAC address using data accessible to the
`computer.” ........................................................................................... 55
`
`G. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`combine the relevant teachings of the Schell and Nelson
`references ............................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`I, Thomas A. Gafford, declare as follows:
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I understand that Avigilon USA Corporation and Avigilon
`
`Corporation (“Avigilon”) are petitioning the Patent Office for an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,964 (“’964 patent”). I have been
`
`retained by Avigilon to offer technical opinions relating to the ’964 patent and
`
`certain prior-art references relating to its subject matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have over forty years of experience with electronics and electrical
`
`engineering, including practical experience related specifically to computer
`
`applications including those involving networks. In addition, I have at least ten
`
`years’ experience in writing and managing the development of commercial
`
`software including software with licensing provisions. In addition, I have
`
`developed computer camera data acquisition network systems and components. I
`
`am also familiar with the standards that cover TCP/IP and Ethernet communication
`
`and have built numerous networks using these standards.
`
`3.
`
`I am the founder and owner of Gafford Technology, where I have
`
`been employed since 1986. Among other service, my company provides services
`
`include consulting in computer system design, software selection, and network
`
`configuration; conducting research and development projects in peripheral switch
`
`design and application of hardware design language tools to peripheral
`
`

`
`interconnection design; manufacturing and selling peripheral switching equipment;
`
`and providing consultation and assistance in hardware and software patent
`
`litigations.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to Gafford Technology, I held various positions, including Head
`
`of Engineering, at other companies that designed and developed computer
`
`networks, including hardware components and applications. I was also a Sergeant
`
`and Instructor for the U.S. Air Force at the McChord Air Force Base. My
`
`responsibilities at that time included, among other things, acting as a maintenance
`
`technician and as an instructor for the maintenance of the SAGE air defense
`
`computer systems.
`
`5.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, which
`
`I earned in 1972 from the University of Washington. I have also completed
`
`coursework in a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering program at Stanford
`
`University. Although I did not complete the Master’s program at Stanford, I did
`
`complete various coursework in logic, circuit and computer design, computer
`
`architecture, and software and system programming through that program.
`
`6. My curriculum vitae, which is Exhibit 1009, contains a more detailed
`
`description of my background.
`
`7.
`
`I am being compensated at a consulting rate of $500 per hour for my
`
`technical analysis in this matter.
`
`2
`
`

`
` Materials Reviewed
`II.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed various documents in forming my opinions, including
`
`the documents referenced herein and the following listed documents:
`
`(a) The ‘964 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`(b) Prosecution history of U.S. Patent App. No. 12/708,394 (Ex. 1002)
`
`(c) AXIS 240 user manual (“AXIS Manual”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 6,477,648 (“Schell”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`(e) U.S. Patent No. 6,292,838 (“Nelson”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`(f) IEEE 802, IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area
`Networks: Overview and Architecture (1990) (“IEEE 802”) (Ex.
`1010)
`
`(g) Walpole, J., et al. “A Player for Adaptive MPEG Video Streaming
`Over The Internet.” Proc. SPIE 3240, 26th AIPR Workshop:
`Exploiting New Image Sources and Sensors, 270 (March 1, 1998)
`(“Walpole”) (Ex. 1011)
`
`(h) U.S. Patent No. 5,757,924 (Ex. 1012)
`
`(i) U.S. Patent No. 5,489,896 (Ex. 1013)
`
` The Applicable Law
`III.
`
`9.
`
`I am not an attorney, and I am not providing any expert opinions on
`
`the law. However, I have been advised of certain basic legal principles applicable
`
`to my analysis in this report, and I have applied those principles in forming my
`
`opinions. Those principles are provided below:
`
`3
`
`

`
`A.
`10.
`
`In General
`
`I understand that determining the validity of a patent requires a two-
`
`step analysis. First, the meaning and scope of the patent claims are construed, and
`
`then the construed claims are compared to the prior art.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that, in the context of an inter partes review, the prior art
`
`may comprise patents or printed publications. I also understand that the phrase
`
`“printed publication” means sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the
`
`art, and depends upon dissemination and accessibility.
`
`B. Anticipation
`12.
`It is my understanding that to prove anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102, the challenger of the patent’s validity must show that all of the requirements
`
`of that claim were present in a previous method or system that was described in a
`
`single previous printed publication or patent. To anticipate the claimed invention,
`
`the prior art does not have to use the same words as the claim, but all of the
`
`requirements of the claim must have been disclosed, either stated expressly or
`
`inherently, to a person having ordinary skill in the art in the technology of the
`
`invention, so that looking at that one reference, that person could make and use the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that to expressly anticipate, each limitation must be
`
`expressly disclosed within the four corners of the document and arranged or
`
`4
`
`

`
`combined in the same way as recited in the claim. To be anticipatory, a prior art
`
`reference must further enable one skilled in the art to make the anticipating subject
`
`matter.
`
`14.
`
`I further understand that to inherently anticipate when the reference is
`
`silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, the gap in the reference may be
`
`filled by looking to extrinsic evidence. The extrinsic evidence, however, must
`
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
`
`described in the reference, such that it would be recognized by persons of ordinary
`
`skill. Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities, and the
`
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
`
`sufficient.
`
`C. Obviousness
`15.
`It is my understanding that to prove that a claim is invalid for
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (the pre-America Invents Act version), the
`
`challenger of its validity must prove that, for example, two or more prior art
`
`references in combination disclose, expressly or inherently, every claim limitation
`
`and also that the claim, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that the relevant standard for obviousness
`
`under Section 103(a) is as follows:
`
`5
`
`

`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
`title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented 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 to which said subject matter
`pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which
`the invention was made.
`
`17.
`
`In determining whether or not a patented invention would have been
`
`obvious, the following so-called Graham factual inquiries must be made: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the
`
`invention was made; and (4) any secondary considerations, including commercial
`
`success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior
`
`art. The challenger of the patent’s validity must prove that, at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, there was a reason that would have prompted a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the invention to combine the known elements in a way
`
`the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as:
`
`(a) whether the claimed invention was merely the predictable result of using
`prior art elements according to their known function(s);
`
`(b) whether the claimed invention amounted to nothing more than using a
`known technique to improve similar devices or methods in the same way;
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`(c) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known
`problem in the relevant field;
`
`(d) whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining
`elements claimed in the invention;
`
`(e) whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the
`claimed invention;
`
`(f) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of elements,
`such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and
`
`(g) whether the change resulted more from design incentives or other market
`forces.
`
`To find it rendered the invention obvious, the prior art combination must have
`
`provided a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that it is not permissible to use hindsight in
`
`assessing whether a claimed invention is obvious. Rather, I understand that, to
`
`assess obviousness, you must place yourself in the shoes of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field of technology at the time the invention was made
`
`who is trying to address the issues or solve the problems faced by the inventor,
`
`consider only what was known at the time of the invention and ignore the
`
`knowledge you currently now have of the inventions.
`
`20. Regarding the fourth step in the four-step process for assessing
`
`obviousness (the so-called Graham inquiries), specifically the step involving
`
`“objective considerations,” I have been told that some of the factors that may be
`
`7
`
`

`
`considered are those of copying, a long felt but unsolved need, failure of others,
`
`commercial success, unexpected results created by the claimed invention,
`
`unexpected properties of the claimed invention, licenses showing industry respect
`
`for the invention, and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention was made.
`
`I have no reason to believe that any of these factors apply to the challenged claims
`
`of the ’964 patent.
`
`IV.
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`21.
`
`I understand there is a concept in patent law known as the “person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art.” I understand that this concept refers to a person
`
`who is trained in the relevant technical field of a patent without possessing
`
`extraordinary or otherwise exceptional skill. I further understand that factors such
`
`as the educational level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish
`
`the level of skill in the art.
`
`22.
`
`In reviewing the ’964 patent to determine the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, I have arrived at my opinion that the “art” found in the ’964 patent pertains
`
`primarily to video image capture, storage, and display systems, including those
`
`used to access images from a camera over a computer network. It also involves, at
`
`8
`
`

`
`a rudimentary level, image processing, which is the processing of images received
`
`from a camera for motion detection and displaying on a computer screen.
`
`23. The discussions in the ‘964 patent about video image capture, storage,
`
`and display systems and accessing images over a network are topics that would
`
`have been well known to a student studying for a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related degree by the
`
`time he or she graduated in the 2000 timeframe (the year the ‘964 patent was
`
`filed). At that timeframe, these topics would have been routine and well within the
`
`scope of a student at this level of education. Such a student, in the 2000
`
`timeframe, would have also likely gained a rudimentary understanding of image
`
`processing, sufficient to know and practice other concepts of the ‘964 patent
`
`involving processing images for network transmission and motion detection. A
`
`few of the specific concepts described in the ‘964 patent, such as validating MAC
`
`addresses using server data and comparing pixel data to detect motion, may have
`
`required the student to have had some additional experience beyond an
`
`undergraduate degree.
`
`24. Taking the relevant factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ‘964 patent
`
`(March 14, 2000, the filing date of the priority application) would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`9
`
`

`
`science, or a related degree, and at least two to three years’ experience in the
`
`design of computer networks and applications. Such a person would have also had
`
`at least a basic understanding, through education or experience, of how to process
`
`images using computer networks and applications.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, I qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`2000 under this standard. As explained above and in my curriculum vitae, I had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, and more than two to three
`
`years’ experience in the design of computer networks and applications. I also had
`
`an understanding of, and applied, the concept of processing images using such
`
`networks and applications.
`
`V.
`
` Claim Construction
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review at the patent office, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
`
`as would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Therefore, in
`
`applying the claims at issue to the prior art, I gave the claim terms their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as would be commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art as of 2000. Also, using this
`
`standard, it is my opinion that the following claim terms have the meanings
`
`provided below:
`
`10
`
`

`
`A. Unique Identifier (claims 1 and 2)
`27.
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`this term to mean “data that uniquely identifies hardware on a network, such as a
`
`MAC address.” The specification of the ‘964 patent says that “the user interface
`
`client program 42 is operable to access locally stored camera data that uniquely
`
`identifies the cameras 24,” and that “MAC addresses are unique to each camera
`
`and server and can be queried via FTP requests to protected areas of the camera or
`
`server's memory.” Col. 5:54-56; 6:48-50.
`
`B. Component based video server (claim 3)
`28.
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`this term to mean “standalone video server that includes connectors or ports for
`
`connecting other components.” When the specification refers to a component
`
`based video server, it is referring to a video server that has inputs for video feeds,
`
`rather than a server that includes a server and camera as a complete product. Col.
`
`2:15-20.
`
`VI.
`
` Overview of Opinion
`
`29.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1-4 of the
`
`‘964 patent were invalid as obvious in view of the prior art. In my opinion, those
`
`claims are invalid because a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 2000 would
`
`have found the subject matter of each of those claims obvious in view of the prior
`
`11
`
`

`
`art. To summarize, it is my opinion that claims 1-3 are obvious over the AXIS
`
`Manual (Ex. 1004) in view of Schell (Ex. 1005); and claim 4 is obvious over
`
`Schell in view of Nelson (Ex. 1006).
`
`30.
`
`In following the legal framework for obviousness that has been
`
`explained to me, I will first discuss the scope and content of the prior art, then
`
`analyze each claim to show where the limitations of the claim are present in the
`
`prior art. I will also discuss why one of skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine the prior art accordingly. I have already set forth above the level of skill
`
`for a person skilled in the art in the time frame of the ’964 patent.
`
` Overview of Prior Art
`VII.
`
`A.
`State of Prior Art in General
`31. The following is an overview of the relevant state of the relevant art at
`
`the time of the supposed invention of the ‘964 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Network Communications in General
`
`32. By 2000, the use of public and private computer networks for
`
`transmitting information was well established. Common network types used for
`
`personal and business activities included the Internet and Ethernet. Ethernet is a
`
`local area network used to connect computers near one another. Internet, on the
`
`other hand, is a wide area network of networks that computers far away can
`
`connect to in order to access information. Various types of information, in the
`
`12
`
`

`
`form of data packets having headers and payloads, could be sent over the Internet
`
`and Ethernet. Hardware devices typically communicated with each other over
`
`such networks using Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and media access control
`
`(MAC) addresses.
`
`33.
`
`IP is the communications protocol that provides an identification and
`
`location system for computers on networks and routes traffic across the Internet.
`
`Every device on the Internet is assigned a unique IP address for identification and
`
`defining its location. A MAC address, or physical address, is a unique identifier
`
`assigned to network interfaces on servers so that other network devices on the
`
`same network can communicate with them. In fact, Ethernet standards as of 2000
`
`required that each network device have its own MAC address. IEEE 802 § 5.2
`
`(Ex. 1010). The typical format of a MAC address, set by standard number 802 of
`
`the Institute of Electrical and Electronics dealing with local area networks and
`
`metropolitan area networks, comprises six groups of two hexadecimal digits,
`
`separated by hyphens (-) in transmission order (e.g. AC-DE-48-00-00-80). Id.
`
`This is illustrated in Fig. 5-3 of IEEE 802:
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`34. A server or other hardware device typically contains a network
`
`interface card or controller (NIC) for communicating over the Internet or Ethernet.
`
`MAC addresses are usually assigned by the manufacturer of the NIC. Id.
`
`However, a server hosting the NIC may also issue a command to the NIC to use an
`
`arbitrary address when sending and receiving data packets. In either case, the NIC
`
`must contain its MAC address in memory, whether it be burned into the memory or
`
`dynamically stored in memory for populating packet headers. Without a MAC
`
`address stored in its memory, the NIC (and host device) could not communicate
`
`over a network, such as the Ethernet. This is acknowledged to be known in the art
`
`in the ‘964 disclosure. “As is known, the MAC addresses are unique to each . . .
`
`server and can be queried via FTP requests to protected areas of the . . . server’s
`
`memory. Specific locations vary by manufacturer and require parsing and
`
`formatting to extract the required data, as will be known by those skilled in the
`
`art.” ‘964 patent at 6:48-53. A MAC address, by definition, is an address that is
`
`14
`
`

`
`necessarily stored in a server or other hardware device’s memory so that it can
`
`send and receive data packets over the network.
`
`35. The use of IP and MAC addresses to transmit information over the
`
`Internet can be described with respect to the following Figure.
`
`
`
`This Figure shows an exemplary Internet. In the middle is a long-haul network,
`
`which connects two local area networks, LANs 1, 2 (such as two companies’
`
`Ethernets). The boxes labeled G represent gateway nodes, and the boxes labeled S
`
`and T represent host nodes (e.g., client or server computers) in the networks. Each
`
`of those nodes has its own unique MAC address. Information may be sent from a
`
`node in LAN 1 (e.g., node S) to a node in LAN 2 (e.g., node T) as long as the IP
`
`address of the target node is in the layer 3 header of the packet containing the
`
`transmitted information. Each node in LANs 1 and 2 also has its own IP address,
`
`which identifies the node and the network that it is on.
`
`36. Transmission of a data packet from a node in LAN 1 to a node in
`
`LAN 2 occurs as follows. Source node S, for example, includes the IP address of
`
`target node T in the header of a packet that it is sending to node T. Using the IP
`
`15
`
`

`
`address, the packet is delivered to the gateway node G of LAN 2, which retrieves
`
`node T’s MAC address by requesting it from node T. One way of doing that is
`
`issuing a standard Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) broadcast request. The
`
`MAC address and IP address are stored in T’s memory and are reported to G in
`
`response to the ARP request to the IP address of T. The IP address-MAC address
`
`mapping will then be stored in node G’s memory, i.e., ARP cache. The MAC
`
`address, once received from the target node, may or may not be sent back to node
`
`S, depending on the application. Nelson (Ex. 1006), for example, discloses an
`
`application in which the MAC address is returned to the source node. In any event,
`
`the packet is then forwarded to node T using node T’s MAC address in the layer 2
`
`packet header to identify the correct node. As this demonstrates, without a MAC
`
`address stored in its memory so that it can supply it via a reply to an ARP query,
`
`node T could not send or receive any information over the Internet (or Ethernet).
`
`37. When transmitting data packets from one node to another node within
`
`the same LAN, a source node can transmit an ARP broadcast request containing
`
`the IP address of a target node and directly receive in response the MAC address
`
`itself from the target node. The application level of the first node accesses the
`
`second node using the IP address. The low-level network drivers access the
`
`second node using the MAC address, as required by IEEE 802. Also see Ex. 1006
`
`at 9:54-61.
`
`16
`
`

`
`38. Various publications from the 1980s and 1990s describe these
`
`standard Ethernet and Internet operating principles. One known publication is
`
`Nelson (Ex. 1006), which provides a good overview of Internet protocols and
`
`processes. In any event, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 2000 would have
`
`been very familiar with the above referenced standard networking techniques.
`
`This would include, among other things, the design and operation of NICs and
`
`software for network interfacing, use of servers to transmit information to a client
`
`computer over a network, and the use of MAC addresses to identify network
`
`devices.
`
`2.
`
`Server Authentication
`
`39. The late 1980s and 1990s were known for being the advent of
`
`unauthorized intruders into computer systems commonly called “computer
`
`hacker.” Sophisticated hackers could easily bypass the typical protective
`
`measures, such as passwords, to steal confidential, proprietary, financial, and often
`
`personal information on computers connected to public (and private) networks.
`
`This was a well-known problem by the time the priority application for the ‘964
`
`patent was filed in 2000. For example, Schell (Ex. 1005), which I rely on in my
`
`obviousness analysis, described the problem in the late 1990s as follows:
`
`Client/server computing networks have dramatically increased and
`facilitated the access to information. However, due to [ubiquitous]
`nature of computer networks the threat to the integrity of the
`information stored on network resources due to “hackers”/“attackers”
`
`17
`
`

`
`and malicious software components (e.g., operating system and
`application program viruses) has also increased. Threats include any
`person, place or thing which poses some danger to a network asset.
`
`Security of the information transmitted over the network must be
`assured when the network is used to transmit information for
`businesses such as banking, brokerage, government entities and other
`users of highly confidential or commercially valuable information. A
`known threat to the security of information available on a network is a
`hacker/attacker who poses as an authorized user of the network by
`impersonating the authorized user.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 1:20-53.
`
`40. Methods of curtailing computer hacking were being developed at a
`
`tremendous pace, and anti-hacking software was becoming increasingly profitable.
`
`See, for example, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,757,924; 5,489,896; and 6,477,648, which
`
`describe some of the various ways of providing network security developed in the
`
`1990s.
`
`41. One way of preventing hacking was the use of MAC addresses to
`
`securely identify a particular computer on a network. In fact, it was well known, at
`
`least as of 2000, that, since network devices necessarily stored MAC addresses,
`
`those MAC addresses could be used to authenticate devices on the network before
`
`the devices were authorized to communicate with and access information from
`
`network devices. For example, Schell described methods of performing MAC
`
`address validation as a security measure in the late 1990s. Ex. 1005 at 2:28-30.
`
`Similarly, Nelson addressed this same use of source addresses, including MAC
`
`18
`
`

`
`addresses: “In existing network management systems employing address-based
`
`network management policies, a request to use a given network service is granted
`
`or rejected based on the privileges or level of service associated with a source
`
`address contained in the request.” Ex. 1006 at 2:3-7.
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, the use of MAC addresses to authenticate network
`
`devices, including as described in Schell, would have been within the skillset and
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2000.
`
`3.
`
`Network Video Servers
`
`43. The use of video servers to transmit images from a camera or recorder
`
`over a network to a client computer or workstation was also well known by 2000.
`
`44. For example, Walpole (Ex. 1011), published in 1998, describes “a
`
`player for adaptive MPEG video streaming over the internet,” and “describes the
`
`design and implementation of a real-time, streaming, Internet video and audio
`
`player.” Walpole at p. 270. Acc