U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772
`Declaration In Support Of Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Issue Date: November 11, 2014
`Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REMOTE DEVICE MANAGEMENT
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PETER REIHER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 1
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Educational Background .................................................................................. 1
`B. Career History .................................................................................................. 2
`C. Publications and Patents .................................................................................. 3
`D. Other Relevant Qualifications ......................................................................... 4
`E. Materials and Other Information Considered .................................................. 5
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ........................................................... 5
`
`A. Legal Standard for Prior Art ............................................................................ 5
`B. Legal Standard for Anticipation ...................................................................... 6
`C. Legal Standard for Obviousness ...................................................................... 7
`D. Legal Standard for Claim Construction .........................................................12
`E. Legal Standard for Priority Date ...................................................................18
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..19
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................20
`
`V.
`
`THE ‘772 PATENT .....................................................................................29
`
`A. Summary of the ’772 Patent ..........................................................................29
`B. ’772 Patent Prosecution History ....................................................................35
`C. ’772 Patent Claims .........................................................................................38
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................................44
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................44
`
`A. “a plurality of auto-configuration servers (ACSs)” .......................................45
`B. “auto-configuration server managing device (ACSMD)” .............................47
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................50
`
`IX. BATES RENDERS OBVIOUS THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE
`’772 PATENT .........................................................................................................55
`
`A. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 1 ....................................................................55
`B. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 2 ....................................................................71
`C. Bates in view of Barakat Renders Obvious Claim 8 .....................................72
`D. Bates in view of Yla-Mella Renders Obvious Claim 8 .................................76
`E. Bates in view of Applicant's Admitted Prior Art Renders Obvious
` Claim 9 .........................................................................................................78
`F. Bates in view of Bauchot, and further in view Applicant's Admitted Prior
`Art Renders Obvious Claim 9 .......................................................................84
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 2
`
`

`
`G. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 10 ..................................................................88
`H. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 11 ..................................................................92
`I. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 12 ..................................................................93
`J. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 13 ..................................................................97
`K. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 14 ..................................................................97
`L. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 15 ..................................................................98
`M. Bates Renders Obvious Claim 16 ................................................................100
`
`X. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS .................................................................100
`
`EXHIBIT 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. PETER REIHER .................103
`
`EXHIBIT 2: MATERIALS CONSIDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF
`THIS REPORT ....................................................................................................123
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 3
`
`

`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1. My name is Peter Reiher, Ph.D. I am an Adjunct Professor of
`
`Computer Science at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in Los
`
`Angeles, California. I have prepared this report as an expert witness on behalf of
`
`Samsung. In this report I give my opinions as to whether the asserted claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772 (the “’772 Patent”) are valid. I provide technical bases
`
`for these opinions as appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`This report contains statements of my opinions formed to date
`
`and the bases and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional opinions
`
`based on further review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or
`
`testimony of other expert witnesses.
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background,
`
`career history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum
`
`vitae is attached as Exhibit 1 to this report.
`
`A. Educational Background
`
`4.
`
`I received a BS degree in electrical engineering, with a
`
`concentration in computer science, from the University of Notre Dame in 1979,
`
`graduating cum laude. I then studied computer science at UCLA, receiving my
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 4
`
`

`
`MS degree in 1984 and my Ph.D. in 1987. My dissertation was on scaling issues
`
`in distributed systems, working in particular on the Locus Operating System.
`
`B. Career History
`
`5.
`
`I spent five years, after completing my Ph.D., at the Jet
`
`Propulsion Laboratory, where I worked on a parallel discrete event simulation
`
`system called the Time Warp Operating System. I then returned to UCLA as a
`
`researcher in the Computer Science department, working in the fields of operating
`
`systems, distributed systems, computer networks, computer security, and mobile
`
`and ubiquitous systems. I became an adjunct associate professor in the UCLA
`
`Computer Science department in 1995. I was promoted to adjunct professor in
`
`2009.
`
`6. My work at UCLA has encompassed both teaching and
`
`research. I have led several research projects and have taught a number of classes.
`
`My research projects have been supported by US government agencies such as
`
`DARPA, NSF, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Institute of
`
`Health, and by companies such as Intel, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Lockheed-
`
`Martin, and GTE. The topics of these research projects include operating system
`
`security, defending against distributed denial of service attacks, replicated data
`
`systems for mobile computing, ubiquitous computing infrastructure, file systems,
`
`active and software defined networks, and security issues for autonomous vehicles
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 5
`
`

`
`and vehicular ad hoc networks. I have performed joint research projects with
`
`other UCLA faculty members in the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
`
`departments (including Dr. Leonard Kleinrock, one of the fathers of the Internet),
`
`as well as faculty at other institutions such as Stanford University, Carnegie
`
`Mellon University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Southern
`
`California, Purdue University, the University of Oregon, Florida State University,
`
`and the University of Delaware.
`
`7.
`
`I have supervised several Ph.D. students, 17 of whom have
`
`received Ph.D.s while working with me, as well as many more MS students and
`
`undergraduate researchers. Some of my Ph.D. students are in faculty positions at
`
`the University of Oregon, Harvey Mudd College, Florida State University, and
`
`other universities. Others work in major corporations such as Intel, Google, IBM,
`
`and Oracle.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught classes in computer security, operating systems,
`
`computer networks, distributed systems, ubiquitous computing, and performance
`
`evaluation of computer systems. In all, I have taught over 60 courses while at
`
`UCLA on these and other related topics.
`
`C. Publications and Patents
`
`9.
`
`I have published over 120 papers in conferences, workshops,
`
`and journals, as well as several book chapters on topics related to my research.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 6
`
`

`
`These have appeared in leading venues such as Infocom, the Usenix Annual
`
`Technical Conference, the Usenix Security Symposium, ICNP, ACSAC, and
`
`various IEEE and ACM journals. I am also co-author of the first book on
`
`distributed denial of service attacks.
`
`10.
`
`I am a co-inventor on an invention currently in the process of
`
`being patented. This invention addresses security issues for mobile devices. I am
`
`a joint inventor with co-researchers at Florida State University.
`
`D. Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`11.
`
`I served as Vice-Chair of the IEEE ComSoc Communications
`
`and Information Security Technical Subcommittee from 2005 to 2007, and was an
`
`associate editor of ACM Transactions on Internet Technologies from 2007 to 2015.
`
`I have reviewed papers for several other IEEE and ACM journals. I have worked
`
`on the technical review of security aspects of proposals for new Top Level Domain
`
`Internet names for ICANN in 2000, and was a member the I3P Wireless Network
`
`Security Cluster group in 2002. I consulted with the Department of Homeland
`
`Security on plans for the US government research agenda in computer and network
`
`security in 2005. I was program chair for AMS 02, WSPWN06, Sauce 2008,
`
`Sauce 2009, MTEM 2012, and was general chair for the Symposium on
`
`Experiences with Distributed and Multiprocessor Systems in 1993. I have been a
`
`program committee member for over 75 conferences and workshops, and have
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 7
`
`

`
`reviewed research proposals for the National Science Foundation for over ten
`
`years.
`
`E. Materials and Other Information Considered
`
`12.
`
`I have considered information from various sources in forming
`
`my opinions. I have reviewed Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`
`’772 patent (the “Petition”), to which this Declaration is being submitted as Exhibit
`
`No. 1006, in detail and agree with both its analysis and conclusions. I have also
`
`reviewed and considered each of the exhibits to the Petition in forming my
`
`opinions.
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`13.
`
`I have applied the following legal principles provided to me by
`
`counsel in arriving at the opinions set forth in this report.
`
`A. Legal Standard for Prior Art
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify
`
`as prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to
`
`an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of
`
`the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as a book
`
`or an article published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 8
`
`

`
`an asserted patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted
`
`patent.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to
`
`an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as a book or an article published in a magazine or trade
`
`publication, constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more
`
`than one year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the
`
`asserted patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United States
`
`before the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that to qualify as prior art, a reference must contain
`
`an enabling disclosure that allows one of ordinary skill to practice the claims
`
`without undue experimentation.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior
`
`art can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`B. Legal Standard for Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been
`
`properly construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 9
`
`

`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on
`
`a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted
`
`claim, and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed
`
`in that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present or
`
`implied).
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent is anticipated if before such person’s
`
`invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who
`
`had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.
`
`23.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter
`
`partes review anticipation must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`24.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding
`
`obviousness, and understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still
`
`invalid if the 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 of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 10
`
`

`
`This reference point prevents a person of ordinary skill from using one's insight or
`
`hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes
`
`the consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the Asserted Claims, (3) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary
`
`considerations such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure
`
`of others, etc.
`
`27.
`
`I am informed that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may
`
`include (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the
`
`invention of the patent; (2) commercial success or lack of commercial success of
`
`processes covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`(4) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under
`
`the patent by others; and (6) deliberate copying of the invention. I also understand
`
`that there must be a relationship between any such secondary indicia and the
`
`invention. I further understand that contemporaneous and independent invention
`
`by others is a secondary consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 11
`
`

`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
`
`actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand
`
`that practical and common
`
`sense
`
`considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items
`
`may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able
`
`to fit the teachings of multiple publications together like pieces of a puzzle,
`
`although the prior art need not be like two puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly
`
`together. I understand that obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ
`
`under the circumstances.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven
`
`obvious by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 12
`
`

`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.
`
`32.
`
`I understand
`
`that
`
`the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods may be proven obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
`
`variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability.
`
`33.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness
`
`analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that 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.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that
`
`are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the
`
`common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 13
`
`

`
`35.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill could have
`
`combined two pieces of prior art or substituted one prior art element for another if
`
`the substitution can be made with predictable results, even if the swapped-in
`
`element is different from the swapped-out element. In other words, the prior art
`
`need not be like two puzzle pieces that must fit together perfectly. The relevant
`
`question is whether prior art techniques are interoperable with respect to one
`
`another, such that that a person of skill would view them as a design choice, or
`
`whether a person of skill could apply prior art techniques into a new combined
`
`system.
`
`36.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are
`
`properly combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the
`
`understanding and knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the
`
`general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination
`
`of elements recited in the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references
`
`themselves, or any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`the invention, can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art
`
`references in the claimed manner.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness
`
`analysis requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the
`
`prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 14
`
`

`
`38.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter
`
`partes review obviousness must be shown by a preponderance evidence.
`
`D. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`39.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction and patent claims, and understand that a patent may include two types
`
`of claims, independent claims and dependent claims. An independent claim stands
`
`alone and includes only the limitations it recites. A dependent claim can depend
`
`from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to all of the
`
`limitations recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`40.
`
`It is my understanding that in proceedings before the USPTO
`
`the claims of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification from the perspective of one of skill in the
`
`art. It is my further understanding that claim terms of an expired patent are given
`
`the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, in view of the specification and file history. I understand that the
`
`standard used for expired patents is similar to that used in district court litigation,
`
`and that this standard is sometimes referred to as the Phillips standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 15
`
`

`
`41.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction
`
`of a term under the Phillips standard, but it cannot be narrower.
`
`42.
`
`In comparing the claims of the ’772 patent to the prior art, I
`
`have carefully considered the ’772 patent and its file history in light of the
`
`understanding of a person of skill at the time of the alleged invention. I have also
`
`considered the constructions set forth by Patent Owner in the copending litigation
`
`against Petitioner together with the Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation of the
`
`claims based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand a claim term, one should look to those sources available that
`
`show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim
`
`language to mean. Such sources include the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the patent’s specification, the prosecution history of the patent (all
`
`considered “intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence concerning relevant
`
`scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one looks
`
`primarily to the intrinsic patent evidence, including the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 16
`
`

`
`45.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external
`
`to the patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent
`
`claims when the intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary
`
`and accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. In making this determination, the claims, the patent specification,
`
`and the prosecution history are of paramount importance. Additionally, the
`
`specification and prosecution history must be consulted to confirm whether the
`
`patentee has acted as its own lexicographer (i.e., provided its own special meaning
`
`to any disputed terms), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered any
`
`claim scope.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the
`
`rights conferred by the patent. The claims particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention. Because the
`
`patentee is required to define precisely what he claims his invention to be, it is
`
`improper to construe claims in a manner different from the plain import of the
`
`terms used consistent with the specification. Accordingly, a claim construction
`
`analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`Additionally, the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be
`
`highly instructive. Likewise, other claims of the patent in question, both asserted
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 17
`
`

`
`and unasserted, can inform the meaning of a claim term. For example, because
`
`claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a
`
`term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other
`
`claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the
`
`meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the purported
`
`invention. I understand that the purpose of claim construction is to understand
`
`how one skilled in the art would have understood the claim terms at the time of the
`
`purported invention.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed
`
`to read a claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
`
`disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification. For this reason, the words of the claim must be interpreted in view
`
`of the entire specification. The specification is the primary basis for construing the
`
`claims and provides a safeguard such that correct constructions closely align with
`
`the specification. Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be
`
`determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually
`
`invented and intended to envelop with the claim as set forth in the patent itself.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that it is improper to place too much emphasis on
`
`the ordinary meaning of the claim term without adequate grounding of that term
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 18
`
`

`
`within the context of the specification of the asserted patent. Hence, claim terms
`
`should not be broadly construed to encompass subject matter that, although
`
`technically within the broadest reading of the term, is not supported when the
`
`claims are read in light of the invention described in the specification. Put another
`
`way, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation that is
`
`consistent with the specification and the prosecution history. Art incorporated by
`
`reference or otherwise cited during the prosecution history is also highly relevant
`
`in ascertaining the breadth of claim terms.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that the role of the specification is to describe and
`
`enable the invention. In turn, the claims cannot be of broader scope than the
`
`invention that is set forth in the specification. Care must be taken lest word-by-
`
`word definition, removed from the context of the patent, leads to an overall result
`
`that departs significantly from the patented invention.
`
`52.
`
`I understand that claim terms must be construed in a manner
`
`consistent with the context of the intrinsic record. In addition to consulting the
`
`specification, one should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if
`
`available. The prosecution file history provides evidence of how both the Patent
`
`Office and the inventors understood the terms of the patent, particularly in light of
`
`what was known in the prior art. Further, where the specification describes a claim
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 19
`
`

`
`term broadly, arguments and amendments made during prosecution may require a
`
`more narrow interpretation.
`
`53.
`
`I understand that while intrinsic evidence is of primary
`
`importance, extrinsic evidence, e.g., all evidence external to the patent and
`
`prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`learned treatises, can also be considered. For example, technical dictionaries may
`
`help one better understand the underlying technology and the way in which one of
`
`skill in the art might use the claim terms. Extrinsic evidence should not be
`
`considered, however, divorced from the context of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Evidence beyond the patent specification, prosecution history, and other claims in
`
`the patent should not be relied upon unless the claim language is ambiguous in
`
`light of these intrinsic sources. Furthermore, while extrinsic evidence can shed
`
`useful light on the relevant art, it is less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that in general, a term or phrase found in the
`
`introductory words of the claim, the preamble of the claim, should be construed as
`
`a limitation if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life,
`
`meaning, and vitality to the claim. Conversely, a preamble term or phrase is not
`
`limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim
`
`body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 20
`
`

`
`invention. In making this distinction, one should review the entire patent to gain
`
`an understanding of what the inventors claim they actually invented and intended
`
`to encompass by the claims.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that language in the preamble limits claim scope
`
`(i) if dependence on a preamble phrase for antecedent basis indicates a reliance on
`
`both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention; (ii) if reference
`
`to the preamble is necessary to understand limitations or terms in the claim body;
`
`or (iii) if the preamble recites additional structure or steps that the specification
`
`identifies as important.
`
`E. Legal Standard for Priority Date
`
`56.
`
`I further understand that the “critical date” for a patent is one
`
`year prior to its filing date. It is my understanding that the critical date is
`
`significant because patents, systems, or documents that are public prior to the
`
`critical date, if they disclose each and every limitation of the claims, will invalidate
`
`a patent regardless of whether the inventors invented the claim.
`
`57.
`
`I further understand that the “priority date” of a patent is the
`
`date on which it is filed, or the date on which an earlier-filed patent application is
`
`filed if the patentee claims the benefit of priority to that earlier-filed patent
`
`application. I further understand that the priority date is significant because
`
`patents, systems, or documents that are public less than one year prior to the
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Samsung, Exh. 1006, p. 21
`
`

`
`priority date may invalidate the claims. My understanding is that, for such prior art
`
`references, a patentee may attempt to show that the claimed invention was
`
`conceived prior to the publication date of the prior art reference.
`
`58.
`
`I understand that a patent may be valid over prior art that was
`
`published or was publicly available before the priority date but after the critical
`
`date. To do so, it is my understanding that patentee must prove with corroborating
`
`evidence that the named inventors conceived of the claimed invention before the
`
`prior art, and were diligent in reducing the claimed inventions to practice.
`
`III.
`
` LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`59.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’772 patent at the time of the claimed inventions
`
`(which I take to be July 2008), I considered several things, including various