UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OpenTV, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. ______
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT BRADNER
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,233,736 CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-3
`AND 8-12
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1006
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`I. Engagement and Compensation .....................................................................................4
`II. Qualifications and professional experience................................................................5
`A. Employment .................................................................................................................6
`B. Publications...................................................................................................................7
`C. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)........................................................8
`D. Activities During the Relevant Time Frame .........................................................9
`III. Relevant Law...................................................................................................................9
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art.......................................................................... 14
`V. Relevant Time Period For Determining Obviousness .......................................... 15
`VI. Text Formatting Used in this Declaration.............................................................. 15
`VII. overview and background of the ‘736 patent....................................................... 16
`A. Networks, addresses and links............................................................................... 17
`1. Circuit-Switched Networks ................................................................................ 18
`2. Packet switched networks................................................................................... 22
`a. Addresses ........................................................................................................... 26
`b. The World Wide Web and Links.................................................................. 30
`c. Links and addresses in the '736 Patent ........................................................ 32
`d. Communication links in packet switched networks ................................. 34
`B. An address or link in or with a video or audio program .................................. 35
`C. Screens for displaying video or audio information and for indicating and
`displaying online information........................................................................................ 38
`VIII. Claim Construction .................................................................................................. 43
`A. The "automatically establishing limitation" ....................................................... 43
`B. The "direct access limitation" ................................................................................ 44
`C. “Indicating” (Claims 1 and 8; non-means plus function) ................................ 45
`D. The "indicating means"........................................................................................... 46
`E. The "extracting and connecting means" .............................................................. 47
`F. The "receiving means"............................................................................................. 48
`G. The "display means"................................................................................................ 49
`IX. Overview of the Prior Art.......................................................................................... 50
`A. Throckmorton............................................................................................................ 50
`B. Rhoads......................................................................................................................... 54
`C. Eisen ............................................................................................................................ 56
`X. Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are obvious over Throckmorton alone or in combination
`with Rhoads............................................................................................................................ 57
`A. Claim 1 of the '736 Patent ...................................................................................... 59
`1. The preamble of Claim 1 of the '736 Patent: .................................................. 59
`a. providing “automatic and direct access to online information”............. 60
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`b. “an address associated with an online information source provided with
`a video program” ..................................................................................................... 64
`2. The first element of claim 1: .............................................................................. 66
`a. Combining Throckmorton’s indicator and Rhoads’ indicator................ 73
`3. The second element of claim 1:......................................................................... 78
`a. Electronically extracting the address. .......................................................... 79
`b. “in response to a user initiated command” ................................................. 87
`c. “automatically establishing … a direct communications link with the
`online information source,”................................................................................... 89
`d. “ direct access to the online information”................................................... 90
`B. Claim 2 of the '736 Patent....................................................................................... 93
`C. Claim 3 of the '736 Patent....................................................................................... 96
`Indicator displayed on same system ................................................................. 97
`1.
`D. Claim 8 of the '736 Patent ...................................................................................... 98
`1. The preamble of Claim 8 of the '736 Patent: .................................................. 98
`a. “a link provided in a video program”........................................................... 99
`b. providing “automatic and direct access to online information”........... 102
`2. The first element of claim 8: ............................................................................ 106
`3. The second element of claim 8:....................................................................... 110
`a. “a user initiated command”.......................................................................... 111
`b. “automatically and directly electronically accessing said online
`information associated with said link”.............................................................. 112
`c. “direct access to the online information” .................................................. 113
`4. Claim 9 of the '736 Patent................................................................................. 116
`5. The preamble of Claim 9 of the '736 Patent: ................................................ 116
`a. providing “automatic and direct access to online information”........... 117
`b. “a video or audio program represented by an electronic signal”......... 122
`c. “a link provided in [an] electronic signal,”............................................... 122
`d. providing access “while viewing or listening to a video or audio
`program”.................................................................................................................. 125
`e. “establishing a direct digital communication link with an online
`information source”............................................................................................... 127
`6. The first element of claim 9.............................................................................. 128
`7. The second element of claim 9:....................................................................... 131
`E. Claim 10 of the '736 Patent................................................................................... 136
`1. The preamble of Claim 10 of the '736 Patent:.............................................. 136
`2. The first element of claim 10:.......................................................................... 136
`3. The second element of claim 10:..................................................................... 139
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`F. Claim 11 of the '736 Patent: ................................................................................. 140
`G. Claim 12 of the '736 Patent.................................................................................. 142
`XI. Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are obvious over Eisen in combination with Rhoads.. 146
`A. Claim 1 of the '736 Patent .................................................................................... 147
`1. The preamble of Claim 1 of the '736 Patent: ................................................ 147
`2. The first element of claim 1: ............................................................................ 151
`3. The second element of claim 1:....................................................................... 153
`B. Claim 2 of the '736 Patent: ................................................................................... 158
`C. Claim 3 of the '736 Patent: ................................................................................... 159
`D. Claim 8 of the '736 Patent .................................................................................... 161
`1. The preamble of Claim 8 of the '736 Patent: ................................................ 161
`2. The first element of claim 8: ............................................................................ 163
`3. The second element of claim 8 ........................................................................ 164
`E. Claim 9 of the '736 Patent..................................................................................... 165
`1. The preamble of Claim 9 of the '736 Patent: ................................................ 165
`2. The first element of claim 9: ............................................................................ 168
`3. The second element of claim 9:....................................................................... 169
`Apple 1005 Figure 1 (emphasis added)..................................................................... 173
`F. Claim 10 of the '736 Patent................................................................................... 173
`1. The preamble of Claim 10 of the '736 Patent:.............................................. 173
`2. The first element of claim 10:.......................................................................... 173
`3. The second element of claim 10:..................................................................... 175
`G. Claim 11 of the '736 Patent:................................................................................. 176
`Apple 1005 Figure 2 (emphasis added)..................................................................... 178
`H. Claim 12 of the '736 Patent:................................................................................. 178
`XII. Miscellaneous Statements...................................................................................... 180
`XIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 181
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 3
`
`

`
`I, Scott Bradner, hereby declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`ENGAGEMENT AND COMPENSATION
`
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. to serve as an expert in the inter partes
`
`review proceeding listed above. I have been asked to provide my insights about the
`
`technology of the patent, a technical review and an analysis of the references that
`
`form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“Petition”) of US Patent No. 6,233,736 (“the ’736 Patent”) as well
`
`as my opinions concerning the unpatentability of the '736 Patent. My billing rate
`
`for this consulting is my normal hourly consulting fee of $425 per hour. I am also
`
`reimbursed for my travel expenses, if any. My compensation does not depend on
`
`the substance of my opinions or on the institution or outcome of this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the ’736 Patent
`
`(Apple 1001) and its prosecution file history (Apple 1002) and a related
`
`application No. 10/377,482 (Apple 1009), and documents in a previous IPR related
`
`to the 736 Patent (IPR2014-00269). I have also reviewed the prior art references
`
`and other documents discussed in this Declaration, including:
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 5,818,441 (“Throckmorton”) (Apple 1003)
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 5,841,978 (“Rhoads”) (Apple 1004)
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 5,440,678 (“Eisen”) (Apple 1005)
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`d. Excerpts from Lincoln D. Stein, How to Set Up and Maintain a World
`
`Wide Web Site: The Guide for Information Providers (1995). (Apple
`
`1012)
`
`e. “How we got from 1 to 162 million websites on the internet,” Pingdom
`
`Royal (April 4, 2008) (Apple 1016)
`
`f. J. Postel, Internet Protocol. IETF RFC 791, September 1981. (Apple
`
`1010)
`
`g. T. Berners-Lee, Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying
`
`Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the
`
`Network as used in the World-Wide Web, IETF RFC 1630, June 1994.
`
`(Apple 1011)
`
`h. Peter Lewis, Prime Internet Address Will Now Cost $50 a Year, New
`
`York Times 1995-09-17. (Apple 1014)
`
`i. Excerpts from Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, Third
`
`Edition (1996) (Apple 1015)
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`3. My background and expertise in the technical issues relevant to this
`
`Declaration are as follows:
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 5
`
`

`
`A. Employment
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`4.
`
`I have worked at Harvard University since 1966. I am currently a Senior
`
`Technology Consultant in the office of the Harvard University Chief Technology
`
`Officer (CTO) where I work primarily on identity management projects. Before
`
`joining the Harvard CTO's office I was the Harvard University Technology
`
`Security Officer (UTSO) from 2008 to 2012.
`
`5. My jobs at Harvard have related to computers and networking. For the first
`
`half of my career I was a programmer then a system manager. In the mid 1980s I
`
`became interested in data networking and wound up installing and helping run
`
`Harvard's first inter-building fiber Ethernet data network in early 1986. I co-
`
`founded the New England regional Internet service provider (ISP) NEARnet in
`
`1989 and chaired its technical committee until it was handed off to a larger ISP in
`
`1995. I also designed and helped install an ISP serving the Longwood medical
`
`area network in Boston in 1991 and chaired the its technical committee from 1991
`
`to 1995. I also designed the expansion of the Harvard data network from 13
`
`buildings in 1990 to almost 100 buildings in 1993.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to the network related tasks, I also developed and deployed
`
`network-based applications including a single sign-on service that was used from
`
`the mid 1990s until two years ago. As a Senior Technical Consultant, first at the
`
`Office for Information Technology then, starting in 1996, in the office of the
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 6
`
`

`
`Assistant Provost for Information Systems, my job was to advise the Harvard
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`information technology groups on the applications of new technology at the
`
`University. From 1988 to 1999 I created and managed the Harvard Network
`
`Device Test Lab, the definitive performance testing laboratory for evaluating the
`
`performance of network equipment such as switches and routers.
`
`7.
`
`I currently teach courses on "Technology, Security, Privacy, and the
`
`Realities of the Cyber World" at the Harvard University Extension School and have
`
`supervised masters and Ph.D. theses for students in the Extension School and the
`
`University. In the past I have taught classes for undergraduate and graduate
`
`students at Harvard University and multi-day tutorials concerning the details of
`
`advanced data networking at the Interop trade show and at a number of technology
`
`companies including IBM and Nortel.
`
`8.
`
`I have also served on the technical advisory boards of about two-dozen
`
`companies in various technology fields and on the board of a telephony startup
`
`company.
`
`B.
`
`Publications
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 4 books and over 90 articles or other
`
`publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, popular
`
`publications, monographs and standards organizations. These publications span a
`
`range of topics including analyzing network hardware, Internet technology,
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 7
`
`

`
`technology policy and standards processes. In addition, between 1992 and 2013, I
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`wrote a regular column in the technical journal Network World, which was read
`
`around the world.
`
`C. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
`
`10. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a primary standards creation
`
`body for the Internet. The work of the IETF is conducted in Working Groups and
`
`IETF Working Groups are organized into Areas. Each of the technical areas in the
`
`IETF is managed by one or two Area Directors. Relevant to this case, from 1993
`
`to 2003 I served as one of the members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group
`
`(IESG), the IETF's standards approval and general management committee. At
`
`various times I served as the co-director of the IETF's Operational Requirements,
`
`IP Next Generation, Transport and Sub-IP areas.
`
`11. As a member of the IESG, my responsibility included reviewing technical
`
`documents produced by IETF working groups as part of the IETF's standards
`
`approval process, including Internet applications such as multi-media transport
`
`over the Internet. In late 1995 I was a co-director in both the IETF Operational
`
`Requirements Area and the IP Next Generation areas. As an area director I was a
`
`member of the IESG. As an IESG member my responsibility included reviewing
`
`documents that IETF working groups requested be published as IETF standards.
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`D. Activities During the Relevant Time Frame
`
`12. As described above, in addition to my work in the IETF, in late 1995 I was a
`
`Senior Technical Consultant in the office of the Office for Information
`
`Technology, Harvard University where I was involved in the design and operation
`
`of the Harvard data network and advising Harvard IT management on new
`
`technology. I was also teaching courses including Advanced Topics in Data
`
`Networking Protocols and Network Architecture at the Harvard University
`
`Extension School, and on Designing, Building and Managing Switch and Router-
`
`based Data Networks for the Networld+Interop conference at various locations
`
`around the world.
`
`13. A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`publications, awards, and professional activities, is set forth in my curriculum vitae
`
`(Apple 1007).
`
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`
`14.
`
`I am not an attorney and have not been asked to offer my opinion on the law.
`
`For the purposes of this Declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of
`
`the law that are relevant to my opinions. Some understandings of the relevant law
`
`are summarized below.
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 9
`
`

`
`I have been informed and understand that claim construction is a matter of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`15.
`
`law and that the claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim term of an expired patent
`
`in an Inter Partes Review are construed under the same standard as district court
`
`proceedings, meaning claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
`
`invention, taking into consideration the language of the claims, the specification,
`
`and the prosecution history of record. Panel Clase, Inc. v. Sunpower Corp.,
`
`IPR2014-00386 Paper 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014) (citing Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1212-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, for the purposes of
`
`my analysis this proceeding, I have applied the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the claim terms as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art, as of the priority date of the ’736 Patent, taking into consideration the
`
`language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. I also
`
`understand that indefiniteness is not a proper ground for institution of an inter
`
`partes review proceeding, while district courts may consider indefiniteness as part
`
`of claim construction or otherwise. Accordingly, I have offered opinions and
`
`reserve the right to offer additional opinions relating to claim construction and
`
`interpretation in the district court under the standards relevant to that forum.
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 10
`
`

`
` I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`17.
`
`therefore invalid if the claimed subject matter, as a whole, would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the patent
`
`based on one or more prior art references and/or the knowledge of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the claims and the
`
`prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary
`
`considerations, if any, of non-obviousness (such as unexpected results, commercial
`
`success, long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, copying by others, and
`
`skepticism of experts).
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be combined with other
`
`references to disclose each element of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I
`
`understand that a reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and that this knowledge may be used to combine
`
`multiple references. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`presumed to know the relevant prior art.
`
`19.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference could have been combined with
`
`other art or other information to a person having ordinary skill in the art, I
`
`understand that the following principles may be considered (though they are not a
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 11
`
`

`
`complete list of all the reasons that claimed subject-matter may be found to be
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`obvious):
`
`a. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`b. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`c. The use of a known technique to improve similar items or methods in
`
`the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`d. The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable
`
`results;
`
`e. Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed;
`
`f. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle; and
`
`g. An analysis of obviousness considers whether a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have a “reasonable expectation of success”—not
`
`“absolute predictability” of success—in achieving the claimed
`
`invention by combining prior art references.
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`h. The obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed and understand that whether a prior art reference
`
`invalidates a patent claim as obvious is determined from the perspecitve of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. While there is no requirement that the prior art
`
`contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, a suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`invnetion may come from the prior art as a whole, or individually, as filtered
`
`through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. In addition, the inferences and
`
`creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ are also relevant to
`
`the determination of obviousness.
`
`21. When a work is available in one field, design alternatives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation and would see the
`
`benefit of doing so, that variation is likely to be obvious. In many fields, there may
`
`be little discussion of obvious combinations, and in these fields market demand—
`
`not scientific literature—may drive design trends. When there is a design need or
`
`market pressure and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue those known options.
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 13
`
`

`
`It is my understanding that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`22.
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But, I understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. This test considers express or implied teachings,
`
`suggestions, or motivations to combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the
`
`claimed invention based on the disclosures of the references, and it seeks to avoid
`
`impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`23. The technologies of the '736 patent include packet switched data networks
`
`such as the Internet as well as digital systems.
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the patent in this
`
`proceeding at the time of the alleged invention would have a Bachelors of Science
`
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science or a related
`
`field and 2 years of work experience in digital networking, and digital systems or
`
`in the alternative, equivalent experience, such as 6 years of work and/or research
`
`experience in the field of digital networking and digital systems.
`
`25.
`
`I was person having at least ordinary skill in the art in the relevant timeframe
`
`for the ’736 Patent—late 1995 and early 1996. Based on my experience,
`
`knowledge and based on my examination of the evidence in preparation for this
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 14
`
`

`
`case, I can opine on the mindset of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`relevant timeframe.
`
`V. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD FOR DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS
`
`26.
`
`I understand that anticipation and obviousness must be evaluated as of the
`
`time that the alleged invention occurred. The date that the claimed parent patent
`
`application that led to the '736 Patent application was filed, according to the face of
`
`the patent, was February 8, 1996. I also understand that OpenTV has suggested in
`
`district court that it may assert a conception date as of September 14, 1995. For
`
`the purposes of this declaration I will assume that the alleged invention occurred
`
`on the date of the filing of this claimed parent patent application, while noting that
`
`my analysis equally applies to the year time period before this date including
`
`September 1995. My analysis in this declaration assumes this time frame, even
`
`where I use a present tense to describe the prior art.
`
`VI. TEXT FORMATTING USED IN THIS DECLARATION
`
`27.
`
`In this Declaration I use bold text to delineate excerpts from the '736 Patent
`
`and bold italic text to delineate excerpts from other documents. Underlining is
`
`sometimes used for emphasis.
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`VII. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND OF THE ‘736 PATENT
`
`28. The ‘736 Patent was filed on April 3, 1998 and claims priority to an
`
`application filed on February 8, 1996. The '736 Patent is directed at facilitating
`
`access to online information resources by providing an address or link in or with a
`
`video program or audio program. The patent describes letting the user that such an
`
`address or link is available by providing an indication such as a message on a
`
`screen, a light, a sound, a vibrating wristband, or a logo shown to the user. ('736
`
`3:60-4:4.). The system will extract the address of an online information provider
`
`from the video or audio program and/or otherwise establish a direct digital
`
`connection to the online information resource if the user requests that such a
`
`connection be established through a user-initiated command. (See, e.g., '736
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 9.)
`
`29. The '736 Patent has 12 claims. Claims 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are independent
`
`claims and the remainder of the claims are dependent claims. Claims 1-3 and 8-12
`
`are challenged in the Petition.
`
`30. The following provides additional background on technology and
`
`embodiments discussed in the ’736 Patent, as both would have been understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 16
`
`

`
`A. Networks, addresses and links
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`
`31. The '736 Patent discusses online information providers that are reachable
`
`through digital networks.
`
`32. See, e.g.,
`
`The recent explosion in the usage of online information
`
`services through digital networks such as the Internet,
`
`Prodigy (R), America Online (R) and Compuserve (R), for
`
`example, indicate that the demand for access to readily
`
`available up-to-date or detailed information is increasing.
`
`'736 Patent 1:34-38.
`
`33. See also, e.g.,
`
`In addition, access controller 10 is connected to a public or
`
`private network 30 through an information signal carrier
`
`32, e.g., telephone line, coaxial cable, fiber optic link,
`
`cellular, radiotelephone, or satellite link. Network 30, which
`
`may be any private or public local area network or wide
`
`area network such as an office network, company network,
`
`public Internet or circuit-switched network is used to route
`
`address and information signals between access controller
`
`Apple Ex. 1006 – Page 17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736, Claims 1-3, 8-12
`Declaration of Scott Bradner
`
`10 and a selected one of a plurality of online information
`
`providers 34a, 34b, 34c, . . . 34n. '736 Patent 5:25-34.
`
`34.
`
`I will now discuss some background relating to data networks that would
`
`have been known by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent.
`
`1.
`
`Circuit-Switched Networks
`
`35. The technology of the digital networks used when the patent application was
`
`filed, and much of which is still in use today, evol