UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issue Date: April 08, 2014
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAIME G. CARBONELL, PH.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01159
`
`IPR2016-01159 – Ex. 2005
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issue Date: April 08, 2014
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAIME G. CARBONELL, PH.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01159
`
`IPR2016-01159 – Ex. 2005
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, Patent Owner
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ph.D., hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`A.
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Patent Owner Windy City
`
`Innovations LLC to review U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 (the “’657 Patent”), to
`
`describe the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the ’657 Patent as of April
`
`1, 1996, and to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions
`
`regarding the ’657 Patent in view of the prior art cited by Petitioner Facebook Inc.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Patent Owner’s response in this IPR
`
`proceeding. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and would be
`
`competent to testify to them if required.
`
`B.
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I received Bachelor of Science degrees in both Physics and
`
`Mathematics in 1975 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I received
`
`M.S., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from Yale University in
`
`1976, 1977, and 1979, respectively.
`
`3.
`
`I have held the position of Allen Newell Professor of Computer
`
`Science at Carnegie Mellon University from 1995 to the present. I currently also
`
`hold the title of Director of the Language Technologies Institute at Carnegie
`
`Mellon University. I first joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor of
`
`Computer Science in 1979. In 1987, I was appointed as a Professor of Computer
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Science at Carnegie Mellon.
`
`4.
`
`Since 1979 I have taught a wide variety of graduate and
`
`undergraduate courses at Carnegie Mellon that fall within the general field of
`
`Computer Science, including courses in software engineering, data mining, natural
`
`language processing, electronic commerce, and artificial intelligence. I have been
`
`involved in a number of different professional organizations and activities,
`
`including memberships in the Association of Computing Machinery (“ACM”), the
`
`Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (“AAAI”), and the
`
`Cognitive Science Society. I have also held leadership positions within
`
`professional organizations. From 1983 to 1985, I served as Chair of the ACM’s
`
`Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence (“SIGART”). From 1988 to the
`
`present, I have been a Fellow of the AAAI. From 1990 to 1992, I served on the
`
`AAAI executive committee. I have also served on a number of different
`
`government committees, including the Computer, Information Science &
`
`Engineering Advisory Committee of the National Science Foundation (2010 to
`
`2014); the Human Genome Scientific Advisory Committee to the National Institute
`
`of Health, also known colloquially as the “Watson Committee” (from 1988
`
`through 1992); and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Information Access
`
`Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (from 1997 through
`
`2001).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I am an author or co-author on more than 330 technical papers
`
`published as invited contributions and/or in peer-reviewed journals or conferences.
`
`These papers present the results of my research, which is generally directed at
`
`computer implemented algorithms and methods that relate to machine learning,
`
`including such applications as mapping protein sequences to three-dimensional
`
`shapes, predicting protein folds, detecting financial fraud, and also related to
`
`natural language processing including performing inter-lingual machine
`
`translation, parsing natural language (a.k.a. “content analysis”) and text mining and
`
`to various forms of storage and communication of data. I have served as an editor
`
`and peer-reviewer for a number of different technical journals in my field,
`
`including the Machine Learning Journal (from 1984 through 2000), the Machine
`
`Translation Journal (the 1980’s), and the Artificial Intelligence Journal (1984
`
`through 2008). I was also a co-Editor of the book series Lecture Notes in Artificial
`
`Intelligence, which was published by Springer from 1996 through 2008.
`
`6.
`
`I received a “recognition of service” award from the Association for
`
`Computing Machinery for my role as chair of the ACM’s special interest group in
`
`Artificial Intelligence (SIGART) between 1983 and 1985. In 1986, I received the
`
`Sperry Fellowship for excellence in artificial intelligence research. In 1987, I
`
`received the Carnegie Mellon University Computer Science Department’s teaching
`
`award.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have also worked as a technical consultant on Computer Science
`
`applications for a variety of industrial clients. This includes consulting on data
`
`mining applications for Industrial Scientific Corporation (data mining to improve
`
`workplace safety); Carnegie Group Inc. (artificial intelligence and natural language
`
`processing); Citicorp (financial data mining, natural language); Wisdom
`
`Technologies (financial optimization); Dynamix Technologies (large-scale
`
`algorithms with applications to Homeland Security), and Meaningful Machines in
`
`natural language processing and machine translation. I have experience in many
`
`aspects of computing technology, including communications programming and
`
`protocols, where I regularly teach two classes every year, in databases, in
`
`telecommunications methods, in network-based systems, such as master-slave
`
`control devices, whether for displaying or capturing information, and in
`
`applications areas ranging from finance and advertisement models to display-based
`
`communications and customer-contact methods and algorithms.
`
`8.
`
`I am a named inventor on a number of issued U.S. Patents, including:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,835 (“Integrated authoring and translation system”); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,995,920 (“Computer-based method and system for monolingual
`
`document development”); U.S. Patent No. 6,139,201 (“Integrated authoring and
`
`translation system”); U.S. Patent No. 6,163,785 (“Integrated authoring and
`
`translation system”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,406,443 (“Method and system for
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`multi-dimensional trading”).
`
`C. Compensation
`9. My compensation for time worked on this proceeding is not
`
`dependent on any issues related to the ’657 Patent, the outcome of this proceeding,
`
`or the substance of my opinions. My compensation for time worked on this
`
`proceeding is at my customary rate of $550/hour. I have no financial interest in, or
`
`affiliation with, the Patent Owner or any of the real parties in interest.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`In providing my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions, I
`10.
`
`considered the ’657 Patent and the prosecution history for the ’657 Patent. I also
`
`considered the materials that I refer to, that Patent Owner has filed in this case, and
`
`that I cite in this declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I also considered the Petition filed by the Petitioner in this proceeding
`
`and the relevant exhibits relied upon by Petitioner, including the expert declaration
`
`submitted by Dr. Tal Lavian.
`
`12.
`
`I also considered my own experience and knowledge, as discussed
`
`above and described more fully in my CV, in the areas of computer science,
`
`network systems, and communications programming and protocols.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`E.
`13. Counsel has informed me that a patent may not be obtained, even if
`
`the invention is not identically disclosed or described in a references that qualifies
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`as prior art, 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. Counsel has informed me that a proper
`
`determination of obviousness involves evaluating the claimed subject matter must
`
`under the following factors: the scope and content of the prior art; the difference or
`
`differences, if any, between the scope of the patent claim and the scope of the prior
`
`art; and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`14. Counsel has informed me that it is improper to inject hindsight into an
`
`obviousness analysis. To avoid hindsight, I understand that content of the prior art
`
`is determined at the time the invention was made. While difficult, I understand that
`
`it is necessary to: forget the teachings about the claimed invention, cast the mind
`
`back to the time the invention was made, and occupy the mind of one skilled in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made. I understand that it would be impermissible
`
`hindsight to find obviousness by gleaning knowledge from the applicant’s
`
`disclosure to reconstruct the claimed invention.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that obviousness determinations often involve the
`
`consideration and combination of more than one item of prior art. I understand that
`
`it can be important to ascertain if prior art references, when presented in
`
`combination, are from the same field of endeavor and to ascertain whether there is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`any reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`to combine the elements in the way the claim does. I understand that a claim
`
`generally cannot be rendered obvious by combining: art from across different
`
`fields, including outside the field of the claimed invention; art that itself teaches
`
`away from combination with other art that would otherwise provide its missing
`
`limitations; or art for which there is not at least a fully-articulable, non-conclusory,
`
`common sense reason to bridge the gap between its disclosure and the claim at
`
`issue.
`
`16. Counsel has also informed me that an obviousness determination must
`
`evaluate secondary considerations, also referred to as objective indicia or objective
`
`evidence of non-obviousness, which includes at least: the commercial success of
`
`the invention; the long felt but unresolved need to develop the invention; and any
`
`praise of the invention in the market. I understand that such objective evidence
`
`must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. That is, there
`
`must be a nexus or connection between the objective evidence and the claim itself.
`
`F.
`17.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`I understand that obviousness must be determined at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. I understand that this hypothetical person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art is considered to have the normal skills of a person in a certain
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`technical field. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of the inventor; (2)
`
`the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of
`
`the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’657 Patent
`
`would pertain would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or a
`
`related field) and at least one year of work experience in programming in computer
`
`communication methods. However, my opinions herein would not change even if
`
`the person having ordinary skill in the art were to be found to have the level of skill
`
`proposed by Dr. Lavian.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that I should perform my analyses from the viewpoint of
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`G. Roseman Reference
`It is my understanding that the Roseman reference (Ex. 1003,
`20.
`
`“Roseman”), U.S. Patent No. 6,608,636 entitled “Server Based Virtual
`
`Conferencing” is the primary reference relied on by Petitioner and Dr. Lavian in
`
`each of the instituted grounds. In general, I agree with the Board’s summary of the
`
`reference (Paper No. 7 at 10-12). I agree that Roseman is a system for “multimedia
`
`conferencing” (Id. at 10) and that the relevant embodiment of Roseman describes
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`“a picture of a video screen that is generated by a host computer and distributed
`
`to all participants in a conference.” (Id. at 11 citing Roseman at 2:16-18;
`
`emphasis added). I note that, while there are many possible implementations of
`
`conferencing software, Roseman describes a particular solution that includes two
`
`critical distinctions from the ’657 Patent. First, Roseman describes a closed system
`
`(e.g. implemented with LAN or WAN connections). Second, Roseman describes a
`
`server-based solution that requires most of the workload to be placed on the server
`
`itself.
`
`21. First, regarding the closed type of network used by Roseman,
`
`Roseman only discloses “commercially available Local Area Networks (LANs)
`
`and Wide Area Networks (WANs). (Roseman at 1:37-41; 3:15-19; 5:7-12). I note
`
`that Roseman does not disclose any form of user authentication to gain access to its
`
`system. I also note that Roseman does not describe any databases that store
`
`information associated with users or that could afford such information to other
`
`programs. For example, The Computer and Information Science and Technology
`
`Abbreviations and Acronyms Dictionary from 1994 gives examples of WANs that
`
`include a “private leased line network,” as well as a network connected by
`
`“64Kbps private lines.” (Ex. 2012 at 229.) One of ordinary skill in the early
`
`1990’s would have understood that the networks described by Roseman were
`
`typically private and access to the networks was gained either by physical access
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`(plugging in a cable to a LAN) or by logging in to a gateway server and thus
`
`verifying or establishing user access rights were not relevant in that context. The
`
`primary difference between a LAN and a WAN is that a WAN is meant to cover
`
`larger areas. However, the disclosure of a WAN network is not a disclosure of the
`
`Internet. This is an important distinction because the Internet is a public network
`
`that requires a different networking and security paradigm than a standard WAN or
`
`LAN. In the Internet public-facing paradigm, security of access to private
`
`information or private transmission of information becomes much more important
`
`and a database to maintain information related to users, such as who has
`
`authorization to access and how that authorization is verified (e.g. use id’s
`
`passwords, etc.), also becomes vital. Moreover, affording such information to
`
`other programs which establish, maintain or otherwise participate in the
`
`communication process becomes critical.
`
`22. Second, Roseman only discloses a server-based paradigm. For
`
`example, the display in Roseman (e.g. Fig. 9) is generated by the server and not
`
`by the user computers. This is another important distinction because, in the
`
`context of the ’657 Patent, certain functionality must be available on the
`
`participator computers themselves. For example, Roseman states “the host creates
`
`the conference room” and that “the host does this by creating a common image,
`
`such as that shown in Fig. 9.” (Roseman at 7:30-34). I note that this disclosure of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`an “image” indicates that the entirety of the conference software functionality
`
`exists on the server of Roseman and that any participator software would be
`
`limited to displaying images and registering button clicks. Indeed, even when
`
`Roseman describes modifying the images, the modifications are only performed by
`
`the host computer. For example, Roseman states:
`
`The table is a common display area which is shown to, and available for
`work by, each Invitee. That is, the image sent to But[sic] each Invitee can
`modify the image, because the host receives input from each Invitee, and
`modifies the image in response.
`
`(Roseman at 7:55-60). Roseman then proceeds to describe various forms of input,
`
`each of which involves modifying the display solely on the host computer, and
`
`sending static images of the display to the participants. As such, Roseman teaches
`
`away from a distributed system where functionality carried out at least in
`
`significant part by the client computers.
`
`H. Rissanen Reference
`23. Rissanen, entitled “Password Verification System,” discloses a system
`
`for storing voice templates in a database for authentication. (Rissanen at 1:29-56.)
`
`Rissanen does not disclose a general purpose database for use in other contexts.
`
`Vetter Reference
`
`I.
`24. Vetter is an article that discusses the challenges in performing
`
`videoconferencing over the Internet in the 1995 context. In particular it mentions
`
`issues relating to conferencing tools, operating systems and hardware limitations.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`More specifically, Vetter describes “video streams” that “overwhelmed the
`
`network and caused all lab work stations to ‘lock up.’” Vetter at 5. Vetter also
`
`described that available whiteboard tools were “unacceptable,” because they
`
`“sometimes took several minutes to broadcast a simple graphic image to multiple
`
`participants.” Vetter at 4-5.
`
`Pike Reference
`
`J.
`25. Pike is a document that describes the Mosaic web browser in the 1994
`
`timeframe. Pike at 1. I note that Mosaic was one of the first web browsers, and was
`
`initially released in 1993. It is my understanding that Dr. Lavian includes
`
`discussions of Pike for two purposes, (1) to establish the prevalence of URLs as
`
`uniform resource locators on the Internet, and (2) to establish that web browser
`
`software existed in the relevant time period, such that web browser software could
`
`access links and open external viewer software. Lavian Decl. at 41-46.
`
`26. While I do not disagree with Dr. Lavian’s characterizations of the
`
`Mosaic web browser, I note that neither the Roseman reference nor the claims are
`
`directed to web browsers. Moreover, early web browsers such as the 1994 Mosaic
`
`did not display video; they were incapable of displaying video because the
`
`browser’s software did not include video processing or display. Thus a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have considered a combination with the Mosaic
`
`reference at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`K. Lichty Reference
`27. Lichty describes America Online (AOL) software from a high level
`
`with a focus on user interface. I note that Lichty describes an “ignore” feature (e.g.
`
`page 269). While Lichty describes this feature at a high level, from my
`
`understanding of AOL software and from the level of skill in the art at the time,
`
`one would have understood that such ignore features were implemented locally on
`
`the user’s computer as a filter, i.e. as a user-interface or presentation feature. One
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood such features to be
`
`implemented at the server level.
`
`Tokens
`
`L.
`28. Petitioner has asserted that a token is “piece of information associated
`
`with user identity.” I also understand that the Petitioner has asserted that the
`
`“keys” disclosed in Roseman teach the “tokens” in the claimed invention.
`
`29. Dr. Lavian incorrectly states that Roseman’s keys are a “piece of
`
`information associated with a user identity.” Instead the keys represent information
`
`associated with access to a conference room, not a user, such as with a door lock of
`
`a conference room. For example, Roseman discloses that “The door lock is set to
`
`accept only the appropriate keys.” (Roseman, 10:12-13). Roseman also states “[t]o
`
`open a door with a key, the user drops the key onto the door lock. If the key is
`
`valid and the user has the authority to use the key, the door opens and the user is
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`admitted to the room.” (Roseman, 10:61-64). Multiple users can have keys to the
`
`same conference room, which is analogous with physical keys that are associated
`
`with particular locks in doors to buildings or rooms. Keeping with that same
`
`analogy, keys are not associated with whomever may possess the key at any
`
`particular time.
`
`30.
`
`In fact, Roseman teaches away from the keys being associated with a
`
`specific user as they are objects that may be exchanged between different users:
`
`“keys are distributed electronically. The key is an electronic object attached to the
`
`invitation. Keys may be copied and redistributed, if permitted, or sent to another
`
`individual, if permitted. Keys may be E-mailed to persons or to positions (i.e.
`
`Operations Shift Manager) where the responsible individual will change.”
`
`(Roseman, 9:54-59). The mere fact that “keys may be copied and redistributed”
`
`means they are not id tokens associated with specific users.
`
`31. Roseman also discloses
`
`that keys are distributed as part of
`
`invitations: “Three levels of invitations are considered.
`
`1. an invitation is for the Invitee only.
`
`2. an invitation is for the Invitee, but can be passed to a
`
`delegate, who will attend in place of the Invitee.
`
`3. an invitation is an open invitation to anyone wishing to
`
`attend.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Invitations contain ‘keys’ which conform to the above invitation. Level 1 keys may
`
`not be passed to any other person and may not be copied.” (Roseman, 9:35-44)
`
`Even in the context of “Level 1 keys,” a key is not associated with a user identity.
`
`Instead, Roseman's first level invitation offers the only suggestion of an association
`
`with specific invitee. But it is clear from the Petition that Petitioner does not rely
`
`on invitations to disclose tokens. I disagree with Dr. Lavian's conflation of the two
`
`distinct objects, as a key is distributed electronically as an attachment to an
`
`invitation. Roseman at 9:42-43; 9:54. As Roseman describes it, the invitation is
`
`akin to an envelope. After distribution, the invitation serves no purpose. Thus
`
`sending an invitation to a specific invitee is not the same as associating a key being
`
`with a specific user, as the key is separate and distinct from an invitation and is
`
`only attached to an invitation for distribution purposes. When a key being
`
`distributed as part of a Level 1 invitation, Roseman does not require recording any
`
`user information in the key to restrict transferability. It was known to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that the system could simply enforce a no-transfer or no-
`
`duplication policy of such a key to insure that always stays in the possession of the
`
`first user. For example, the transferability of the key may be an attribute of the key
`
`that is checked at the time a keyholder seeks to transfer possession of his key.
`
`Level 1 key may be insured by checking the key’s attribute to determine whether it
`
`can be transferred at the moment the current key holder attempts to transfer it. In
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`this manner the system does not need to maintain a record that associates keys with
`
`authorized individuals. Rather, when a user attempts to unlock a conference room,
`
`the system can merely check if the key is appropriate for the lock and may safely
`
`assume that the user is authorized to use the key in his possession. This use case is
`
`again analogous to physical keys and physical locks on conference rooms. Thus it
`
`is my opinion that a key itself, as described by Roseman, is not a token as
`
`construed by the Board or under any appropriate construction.
`
`M. Database
`32. As of the early 1990’s there existed several known ways to store data
`
`for access by one or more computer programs. These storage arrangements
`
`included temporary storage such as random access memory (RAM) and other
`
`forms of cached storage. Long term storage arrangements such as floppy disks,
`
`magnetic disks, optical disks, and magnetic tape were also known and used.
`
`33. The concept of a “database” was also well known in the early 1990’s
`
`and databases were used to store multimedia data among other data types.
`
`Although databases often were associated with some storage or memory, storage is
`
`not equivalent to a database, it is merely the physical medium that enables a
`
`database. Two hallmarks of a database are (1) persistence of the data, and (2)
`
`interactivity with the data via a database management system (DBMS). One
`
`exemplary source, the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Computers, describes a database
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`as “a collection of related data that contains information about an enterprise such
`
`as a university or an airline.” Macmillan Encyclopedia of Computers (Gary G.
`
`Bitter ed., Macmillan Publ. Co. 1992). Macmillan further states that “data include
`
`facts and figures that can be represented as numbers, text strings, images, or voices
`
`stored in files on disk or other media.” Macmillan then describes another criteria of
`
`a database, the database management system: “[a] database management system
`
`(DBMS) is a set of programs (a software package) that allows accessing and/or
`
`modification of the database.” Id.
`
`34. When data is stored only in volatile memory, there is often no
`
`persistence of that data. For example, if a program were to store information
`
`relating to a user in memory, that data is typically lost when the program completes
`
`its processes and exits.
`
`35.
`
` In a database, stored data is typically associated with meta-data. The
`
`meta-data could then be interactively queried, for example, using a Simple Query
`
`Language (SQL) for rapid access of information contained in the data repository. A
`
`means of accessing the information is part of a database. Standard storage either in
`
`temporary or permanent memory does not come equipped with this type of
`
`searching and retrieval architecture. Interactive queries are particularly useful when
`
`data needs to be accessed simultaneously by multiple other users and their
`
`programs. The DBMS typically handles all these queries.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`36. When individual user programs store information in internal program
`
`memory, and not in a database, that information is generally unavailable to other
`
`users and their programs. This is because operating systems generally enforce
`
`program execution consistency and enforce security protocols so that a malicious
`
`user’s program does not have access to other user programs’ data. Databases were
`
`known to handle data consistency and security across multiple applications, and
`
`especially across multiple remote applications. Even if other user’s programs were
`
`to somehow gain access to the information stored in program memory, it would
`
`likely be raw data without any meaningful context.
`
`37. Based on the disclosure of the ’657 patent, it is my opinion that the
`
`“database” of the ’657 patent would include both persistence as well as providing a
`
`means to interact with the data such as a DBMS. This is because the claimed
`
`database is responsible for storing security information such as “tokens,” for other
`
`user programs to access. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that
`
`this type of security feature would persist in long-term memory, such as disk,
`
`enabling other user programs to access the information if an when needed. I also
`
`note that the ’657 Patent describes the tokens as existing in hierarchies of tokens.
`
`Hierarchies are typical of database storage organization, and natural schema when
`
`storing and managing access to diverse information. A database schema, which
`
`part of the metadata associated with a database, typically defines a hierarchy or
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`other relations among the data items stored in the database.
`
`38.
`
`I also understand that in institution decisions related to U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,473,552 and 8,694,657 the Board has offered a construction for database
`
` as “a collection of logically related data.” (2016-1158, Paper 7 at 10; 2016-1159,
`
`Paper 7 at 10).
`
`39. Thus it is my opinion that a database should be construed as “a
`
`collection of logically-related data which is stored with persistence and associated
`
`tools for interacting with the data such as a DBMS.” In my analysis below, I apply
`
`both my construction for a database and the one advocated by the Board in its
`
`related institution decisions.
`
`40. As discussed above, the keys in Roseman are distributed to users.
`
`Roseman does not state that they are stored anywhere let alone in a database.
`
`Petitioner focuses on the disclosure that when a user enters a room using a key the
`
`“meeting room ‘knows’ about each key and its invitation level.” (Roseman, 9:49-
`
`50.) This too does not require that a meeting room store each key that can be used
`
`to access the room. A room can “know” about a key by applying a hash function
`
`on keys––this is a way to recognize a key without actually storing it, much like we
`
`can recognize a painting such as the Mona Lisa without actually storing all of its
`
`details or being able to reproduce it. Acceptable keys would result in the hash
`
`function yielding one type of result whereas unacceptable keys would yield a
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`different type of result. In this manner, a room can “know” about a key without
`
`storing any particular keys.
`
`41. Petitioner also points to the Risannen reference as teaching the storing
`
`of keys in a database. However Risannen only suggest storing a user’s name and
`
`corresponding password in a database. In Risannen, the database is used to
`
`authenticate a user with his password to allow him permission to access the
`
`system. Hence in Risannen the collection of logically related information is of a
`
`one-to-one nature. One person’s password is used to authenticate that one person,
`
`not anyone who happens to hold a key, let alone multiple different people with
`
`copies of the same key.
`
`42. As I discussed above, one way to determine if a user can access a
`
`room would be to restrict who can pass along certain keys (e.g., Level 1 keys) and
`
`if a key is appropriate for a room allow the key-holder into the room. If on the
`
`other hand, one were to store keys in a database, even along with the key’s
`
`associated invitation level, a determination of access would not be as simple as the
`
`one-to-one lookup in Risannen.
`
`43.
`
` There may be more than one valid user for a key as Roseman
`
`discloses three types of invitations that I discussed above. However, I disagree
`
`with Petitioner’s declarant who stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined Risannen with Roseman. As discussed above, the logic used
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`in Risannen associated a user with that user’s password to allow access. In
`
`Roseman’s system a key may be validly used by more than one person. Even if one
`
`were to store a key along with its invitation level in a database, this would not be
`
`sufficient to determine if any person could use that key. For example, if the key
`
`were a Level 2 key, one would need to make sure the original recipient or a
`
`delegate were using that key to access the room. It would take substantial
`
`creativity to modify Risanen exentsively in order to perform the functions taught
`
`by Roseman.
`
`44. According to Petitioner’s expert, the keys disclosed in Roseman are
`
`even more complex making the Rissannen reference less appropriate as he states
`
`that (1) a single key may be associated with multiple rooms, (2) a single key
`
`may be associated with multiple valid users, (3) a single key may be valid at
`
`only specific times:
`
`Q: And -- and Roseman doesn’t disclose a key being associated with more
`than one meeting room, does it?
`
`A: No. I disagree.
`
`Q: It shows one specific key being associated with multiple rooms?
`
`A: Yes.
`(See, e.g., Lavian March 8, 2017 Dep. Tr. at 18:11-17.)
`
`Q: A level -- would you agree that a level three key can be associated with
`more than one individual?
`
`A: Yes.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 25:24-26:2.)
`
`Q: Is it correct that a key can work for a specific room but only during
`specific times?
`
`A: That's one example on paragraph 10, line 8.
`(Id. at 40:23-41:1.)
`
`45. When Petitioner’s declarant was asked how a software developer
`
`would keep the record of keys in Roseman he declined to offer an opinion:
`
`Q: If -- if a software developer was going to implement the Roseman system
`and would need to c
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
