UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01661
`
`Patent 9,055,416
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`1
`
`PATENT OWNER'S EXHIBIT 2001
`
`

`
`I, Rajeev Surati, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have more than twenty (20) years of experience in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, and electronic messaging.
`
`2.
`
`I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from
`
`1988 to 1999, during which time I earned Bachelor of Science (1992), Master of
`
`Science (1995), and Doctor of Philosophy (1999) degrees in electrical engineering
`
`and computer science.
`
`3.
`
`I am the inventor of US Patent No. 5,943,478, entitled “System for
`
`Popup Messaging over the Internet,” which describes a two-way messaging system
`
`like AOL Instant Messenger and MIT’s Zephyr service built at Internet scale.
`
`4.
`
`In 1996, I founded a company called Flash Communications, which
`
`focused on technology related to US Patent No. 5,943,478 and associated
`
`technology that I had developed related to pop-up two-way messaging over the
`
`Internet. Flash Communications was sold to Microsoft Corporation in 1998, and
`
`Flash Communications’ messaging technology was incorporated into Microsoft’s
`
`Messenger service and Microsoft Exchange 2000 Instant Messaging Server.
`
`5. While working at Microsoft between 1999 and 2000, I implemented
`
`an XML-based protocol that formed a basis for the Extensible Messaging and
`
`Presence Protocol (XMPP), which is now an IETF standard for the Exchange
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Instant Messaging Server. I participated internally with the program management
`
`team on helping specify this protocol for the IETF standardization process.
`
`6.
`
`Between 2000 and 2004, I worked as a consultant and investor at
`
`Nexaweb Corporation, where I helped implement several two-way messaging
`
`features over HTTP.
`
`7.
`
`Also in 2000, I started a company known as photo.net, which was a
`
`large online photography community where I worked with many consumer
`
`electronics manufacturers in the digital camera business. I also implemented a
`
`number of multimedia transformation systems in implementing some of the first
`
`photo sharing systems for the internet on photo.net. Notably, the website in
`
`outputting HTML and WML formatted documents allowed me to experience and
`
`understand many of the issues related to layout and format and style sheets
`
`discussed in this declaration.
`
`8.
`
`In 2004, I founded another company, Scalable Display Technologies
`
`(SDT). I have been the President and Chairman of SDT since its founding. SDT
`
`operates in the audio-video domain and has licensed software and firmware to
`
`various companies including Sony, Hitachi and NEC. I also implemented a
`
`distributed multimedia content playback system and spend a great deal of time
`
`dealing with multimedia transcoding and rendering systems.
`
`9.
`
`I am on the advisory boards of several technology companies,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`including: UnifySquare, which is a unified communications/realtime collaboration
`
`consultancy that focuses on telephony and instant messaging systems that
`
`Microsoft sells (Lync, an outgrowth of the company I sold Microsoft); Paneve,
`
`which develops general purpose ASIC coupled with compiler technology;
`
`Nexaweb, which develops realtime web application frameworks using HTTPS;
`
`Antix Labs, which develops compiler technology for universal gaming platform;
`
`Permabit, which develops content addressable storage; and Evoque, which is an
`
`ecommerce enabling platform publisher.
`
`10.
`
`I have received several awards for my contributions as an inventor
`
`and entrepreneur, including the Global Indus Technovator Award 2009 and
`
`Laureate of 2009 Computer World Honors Program.
`
`11. Additional information regarding my qualifications is set forth in my
`
`current curriculum vita, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner, the Patent Owner, or the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on
`
`an hourly basis at the rate of $350 per hour. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`the outcome of these proceedings or the content of my opinions.
`
`II. MATERIAL CONSIDERED
`
`13. The analysis provided in this Declaration is based on my education as
`
`well as my experience in the field of computer systems, generally, and electronic
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`messaging systems, in particular. In addition to relying upon my knowledge based
`
`on written materials and other information that was known in 2005, I have
`
`considered the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,416, No.
`
`IPR2016-01661 (the “Petition”). I have also considered the exhibits to the Petition
`
`(Exs. 1001-1020), which include a Declaration of David Klausner.
`
`III. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to consider the Petition and offer my opinion on
`
`whether claims 1-12 are obvious over Bellordre [Ex. 1003] in view of Gang [Ex.
`
`1004], Coulombe [Ex. 1005], Laumen [Ex. 1006], and Doron [Ex. 1007]. In
`
`particular, for purposes of Patent Owner’s preliminary response, I have been asked
`
`to consider the meaning of several claim terms that appear in claim 1, as they
`
`would have been understood by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant
`
`time.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that claim terms are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction that is consistent with the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears and the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the appropriate time.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that a patent is obvious 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`deemed obvious simply because each of its elements was, independently, known in
`
`the prior art. Instead, it is my understanding that a party contending that a patent
`
`claim is obvious in view of a combination of references must show that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field would have had a reason to combine the
`
`elements disclosed in the references in the manner claimed. I also understand that
`
`the mere fact that it is technically possible to combine references is not enough of a
`
`reason to combine them.
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that a patent challenger’s reason for combining
`
`references must include some rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion
`
`of obviousness. Although the obviousness analysis is not confined by a formalistic
`
`conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, I understand that it
`
`does require identifying a reason or motivation that would have prompted a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
`
`claimed invention does.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that a prior art reference must be considered in its
`
`entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed
`
`invention. Accordingly, I understand that it is improper to rely on isolated
`
`teachings of the prior art without considering the overall-context within which the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`teachings are presented. I have also been informed that the failure to consider the
`
`prior art references as a whole in assembling the elements of a claimed invention is
`
`indicative of impermissible hindsight.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention of the ’416 patent (i.e., in 2005) is a person with a bachelor’s degree
`
`in either electrical engineering or computer science, at least two years of experience
`
`designing and implementing messaging systems between user devices, and at least
`
`one year of experience working with format encoding and layout of images or
`
`video.
`
`21. At the time of the invention of the ’416 patent, I was a person of more
`
`than ordinary skill in the art defined above based on my qualifications and
`
`experience. However, my opinions have been rendered based on the perspective of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention.
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed the Klausner Declaration [Ex. 1002] and note that his
`
`proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is similar to my own. Applying his
`
`proposed level of ordinary skill in the art would not alter my opinions as expressed
`
`herein.
`
`V. ANALYSIS
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`two disputed claim terms from the ’416 patent, as they would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A.
`
`24.
`
`“metadata related to the media item”
`
`I understand from counsel and from my review of the Petition and Mr.
`
`Klausner’s declaration that the Petition interprets the phrase “metadata related to
`
`the media item” to mean “data related to the media item.” (See Petition at 9.) In
`
`my opinion, that interpretation is not correct. On the contrary, a POSITA would
`
`know that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “metadata” is consistent with
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art, such that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “metadata related to the media item” is “data
`
`about the media item” because “metadata” means “data about data.”
`
`25. The context of the claim language in the ’416 patent supports my
`
`opinion. Claims 1 and 13, specifically, require: “based on parsing the media item
`
`from the communication, [enable] storing, in one or more electronic storage
`
`devices accessible by the communication system, the media item and metadata
`
`related to the media item.” (emphasis added). Within this claim language, a
`
`POSITA would understand that there is a difference between a media item and
`
`metadata related to that media item. Specifically, the media item would be
`
`considered the “data” to which the “metadata” relates.
`
`26. The specification of the ’416 patent also confirms my opinion. A
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`POSITA would consider the specification to be consistent with the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term “metadata,” because “metadata” is a common, well-
`
`understood term in the field of the ’416 patent (and in computing generally) that
`
`means “data about data.” This is also consistent with the dictionary definitions that
`
`Mr. Klausner referenced in his declaration, i.e. “data that describes other data” or
`
`“data about data.” (See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 33.)
`
`27. The specification is consistent in referring to “metadata” in a way that
`
`shows it is “data about data,” such as a piece of data’s author, size, or type. I have
`
`compiled relevant citations from the specification that relate to “metadata” below:
`
` “Some messages may also comprise metadata describing, for
`
`example, a structure and/or semantics of the contained media items.
`
`The metadata may carry rules and instructions (e.g. how the message
`
`or parts thereof shall be delivered, played, forwarded, stored, etc.), a
`
`counter and any other information which may aid in protecting or
`
`initiating commercial or non commercial interactions with the
`
`message. The metadata may also include tags associated with the
`
`message (e.g. for future filing and/or searching of messages and
`
`content elements thereof, etc.), “threads” providing association with
`
`other messages, etc. The metadata may include information related to
`
`digital rights pertaining to the message or parts thereof and/or any
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`other predestinated rule.” (Ex. 1001 at 10:62-11:7 (emphasis added).)
`
` “In certain embodiments of
`the
`invention
`the present
`destination device may recognize a presence of metadata (e.g.
`related to digital rights) and send request to the messaging
`system.” (Ex. 1001 at 12:54-57 (emphasis added).)
` “In certain embodiments of the present invention the system is
`configured to store in the storage device 27 one or more media
`items contained in the message, while to store at least part of
`metadata related to the message (e.g. tags, threads, etc.) in the
`database 26.” (Ex. 1001 at 14:16-20 (emphasis added).)
` “The calculations may further include sender's and/or receiver's
`preferences (e.g. related to the communication devices, message
`format and layout, etc.); settings comprised in the message (e.g.
`in metadata) and/or system and related to delivery instructions,
`digital rights management, etc.” (Ex. 1001 at 15:53-58
`(emphasis added).)
` “The delivery instructions or parts thereof may be received with
`the message (e.g. contained in the metadata)…” (Ex. 1001 at
`16:65-67 (emphasis added).)
` “Each type of template and/or each template is provided with
`unique identifier capable to be recognized by the messaging
`system and/or client and stored in the message metadata.” (Ex.
`1001 at 19:54-57 (emphasis added).)
` “The messaging system is configured to recognize 112 template-based
`
`messages and the template unique identifier comprised in the message
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`metadata, and to analyze 113 the content structure of the template.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 20:52-56 (emphasis added).)
`
`28. The excerpts from the specification included above consistently show
`
`that “metadata” describes other data, it is not the data itself. Said another way,
`
`metadata is data about the media item – information like structure, semantics,
`
`rules, instructions, counters, tags, threads, digital rights/protection information,
`
`settings, or identifiers – rather than some piece of the media item itself. For
`
`example, if the media item is a “video object” containing highlights of a Monday
`
`Night Football game, metadata related to the video object could be something like
`
`keyword “tags” for the video, such as “highlights,” “NFL,” “MNF,” or “Monday
`
`Night Football.” Likewise, the video might be associated with digital rights
`
`metadata that requires users to enter authorization credentials to watch the video,
`
`or contain “threads” that associate the video with an advertisement that must be
`
`viewed before the user can actually watch the requested highlight video. However,
`
`a POSITA would not consider “metadata” to be all or part of the highlight video,
`
`because that is just the “data” itself.
`
`29. Thus, a POSITA would interpret the phrase “metadata related to the
`
`media item” to mean “data about the media item,” because “metadata” means “data
`
`about data.”
`
`30. Here, I note that in the Petition (as well as Mr. Klausner’s
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`declaration), Petitioner applies an incorrect meaning of “metadata” as it relates to a
`
`prior art reference called Bellordre [Ex. 1004]:
`
`“[t]he claimed metadata in Bellordre takes the form of sequence 27,
`which is a portion extracted from the audio or video object 24…
`Because sequence 27 contains a representative extract from the
`audio or video object 24, it clearly qualifies as data related to the
`media item.” (Petition at 25-26 (emphasis added).)
`
`31.
`
`I agree with the Petition that “sequence 27” in the Bellordre reference
`
`is a piece of the audio or video object 24, but disagree that this qualifies as
`
`“metadata related to the media item” as required by the claim language. As I
`
`explained above, a POSITA would know that metadata is not the same as data.
`
`Thus, when the Petition argues that “data related to the media item” has the same
`
`meaning as the claim language that refers to “metadata related to the media item,”
`
`that is not consistent with a POSITA’s understanding of “metadata.” For example,
`
`in my football highlight example above, a portion of the highlight video would not
`
`be considered “metadata” because that is simply part of the “data” itself.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, I further note that in the Petition (and in Mr. Klausner’s
`
`declaration), Petitioner further suggests that metadata is inherently stored when a
`
`file is stored. That is not a technically accurate statement, nor do Petitioner or Mr.
`
`Klausner explain why that would be the case. Moreover, even if that were the case
`
`(and it is not), nothing would require that “metadata related to the media item” to
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`be stored “based on parsing the media item” from a communication, which is what
`
`is required by the claim language. Indeed, a POSITA would understand that the
`
`claim language separately requires storing metadata, and describes useful metadata
`
`throughout the specification, because metadata is not “inherently” stored whenever
`
`a media item is stored. In fact, even the sorts of “inherent” metadata identified in
`
`the Petition (filename, path name, storage location) of the media item would not be
`
`based on parsing as required, because these relate to new “metadata” created after
`
`the media item is received and parsed from the communication. (See Petition at
`
`29-30.)
`
`B.
`
`33.
`
`“clickable media”
`
`I understand from counsel and from my review of the Petition and Mr.
`
`Klausner’s declaration that the Petition interprets “clickable media” to include “a
`
`URL or hyperlink address.” (Petition at 33.) In my opinion, that interpretation is
`
`not correct, because it suggests that the “clickable media” in the ’416 patent could
`
`include a graphical hyperlink and a text hyperlink. On the contrary, a POSITA
`
`would know that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “clickable media” is a
`
`“graphical hyperlink, such as a small graphics image of any size and shape.”
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the primary dispute with this term is whether a
`
`POSITA would consider “text hyperlinks” to be “clickable media.” Exhibit 1016,
`
`which is cited by Petitioner, defines “hyperlink” to mean “The link is displayed
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`either as text or as an icon. On Web pages, a text hyperlink displays as underlined
`
`text, while a graphical hyperlink is a small graphics image of any size and shape.”
`
`(Ex. 1016 (emphasis added).) In my opinion, this definition is consistent with the
`
`understanding of a POSITA. A link can be textual or it can be graphical. With this
`
`distinction in mind, a POSITA would consider “clickable media” to be graphical
`
`links and not text links and thus would not consider “text hyperlinks” to be
`
`clickable media.
`
`35. The specification supports my opinion. TABLE 2, for example,
`
`shows that the term refers interchangeably to icons, images, media and thumbnails:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 21:24-22:10 (Table 2).)
`
`36. The ’416 patent refers to a variety of graphical links including
`
`“clickable media thumbnails,” “list of clickable media, reduced for device,” “list of
`
`clickable icons,” “Predefined reduced animated image,” “List of images, reduced
`
`for device,” and so on. A POSITA would associate all of these with graphical
`
`icons, and none of them with plain text URLs.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`37. This construction is also supported by the claim language, which
`
`requires “replacing [. . .] the media item with a clickable media that is reduced for
`
`the destination communication device.” (Ex. 1001 at Claims 1 & 13 (emphasis
`
`added).) A POSITA would understand that graphics can be reduced for a
`
`destination device. On the other hand, a POSITA would know that it does not
`
`make sense to reduce a text link for a destination device – there would be no
`
`reason to “reduce” text URLs that take virtually no memory, as opposed to
`
`graphics.
`
`38.
`
`In particular, a POSITA would have no reason to reduce text URLs
`
`for a destination device, nor would a POSITA consider text URLs to be “media.” I
`
`also note that the Petition relies on a disclosure in the ’416 patent that states that
`
`“media items” may include hyperlinks. (Petition at 34.) However, a POSITA
`
`would know that the ’416 patent does not define “clickable media” in this
`
`disclosure; instead, this shows merely that hyperlinks can be part of a media item.
`
`A POSITA would understand this disclosure to be consistent with my analysis,
`
`because a “graphical hyperlink” includes a hyperlink but is not a text URL.
`
`39. A POSITA would know in light of the specification and claim
`
`language that it makes sense to reduce a graphical hyperlink in the form of a
`
`thumbnail, icon, graphic, or image, so that it may be displayed properly on the
`
`destination communication device. For example, a high-resolution image might be
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`sent to some devices, while low-resolution images would be sent to less-capable
`
`devices. Thus, a POSITA would know that “clickable media” are things like icons,
`
`thumbnails, graphics, or images that could actually be reduced for a particular
`
`destination.
`
`40. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “clickable media” is
`
`“graphical hyperlink, such as a small graphics image of any size and shape.”
`
`41.
`
`In signing this Declaration, I recognize that the Declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in this proceeding. If required, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination at the appropriate time. I reserve the right to offer opinions
`
`relevant to the invalidity of the ’416 patent claims at issue and/or offer testimony
`
`in support of this Declaration. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of
`
`my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true, and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 28 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Dated: December 21, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rajeev Surati, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Curriculum Vitae
`
`Rajeev Surati Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`+1 508 472 5319
`
`raj@alum.mit.edu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`62 Putnam Ave
`Cambridge
`MA, 02139
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel:
`
`
`E-mail:
`
`Profile:
`
`MIT PhD technologist in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Broad
`
`academic and business knowledge. Invented and patented several basic internet, computer-
`related, and display technologies and subsequently formed and sold companies based on
`these technologies to large corporations. Experienced with Internet(database backed web
`sites, search, e-commerce credit card implementation, instant messaging), compilers, and
`display technologies including projector-camera systems, peer-to-peer, instant messaging,
`pub sub systems, HTTP, TCP, UDP, affiliate marketing, click-through models, subscription
`models, search optimization, caching, relational database community-based web sites, social
`networking, computer graphics, digital image warping etc. Such work in these areas I have
`done is pioneering. Additionally, I have participated in standards processes. I have a great
`understanding of the history and evolution of many of the technologies in these areas. Having
`authored at least 6 patents and 2 others in process, been a participant in patent cases, and
`been the target of infringement in my businesses, I have a great working knowledge of both
`the importance and subtleties related to IP. Lastly, because I have founded 3 successful
`companies and sold 2 companies to both Microsoft and NameMedia(godaddy.com), and
`advised several other companies, I have extensive contacts in the industry and a business
`background that encompasses building a technology business from the ground up. I am
`experienced in writing code in C++, Java, C, Postscript, C#, etc
`
`Worked on patent related cases for British Telecom, Apple, IBM, Triplay (against Facebook),
`Ford etc… as an expert related to e-commerce, telecommunication systems, database backed
`web sites, photography, real-time https, two-way and instant messaging. Have served as both
`a report writer and consultant on a multitude of cases, and been deposed in the
`process.Worked on copyright and trade secret case for a credit processing company,
`representing the Defendant. Worked on a breach of contract case for an audio company
`against a contract engineering firm. Delivered testimony in Federal Court on an Email case.
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology SB, 1992, SM, 1995, Ph.D.1999
`GPA: SB 4.9/5.0 SM: 5.0/5.0 Ph.D. 5.0/5.0 all In Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`SB Thesis: A Parallelizing Compiler Based on Partial Evaluation – Dept. Thesis Prize (later)
`--Early Days of How to fill Floating Point Pipelines
`SM Thesis: An Object System Based on Partial Evaluation
`
`
`--Getting Good Computation Throughput – with Abstraction
`Ph.D. Thesis: Scalable Technology for Large Scale Seamless Displays
`
`
`--Making Massive Resolution Display a Reality
`
`
`
`Computation and Imaging
`Position: President
`
`Consultancy providing strategic and implementation services to companies related to IP and
`business Issues as well as product development.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1/2015 – Present
`
`
`
`Expert Experience:
`
`
`Education:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Employment:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`Scalable Display Technologies
`Position:
` President, Chairman, and Co-Founder
`
`
`
` 1/2004 – October 2014
`
`World’s leading provider of technologies to build and maintain seamless tiled large displays.
`Core technology in auto-calibration of large displays. Today the company is the worldwide
`leader in auto-cal bration in the simulation and training space, largest provider of projector cam
`software on both an OEM and direct to customer basis with over 100,000 licenses sold
`worldwide. We have created a new class of products that has disrupted the high end of the
`market by over the last 10 years focussing on folding the cost of warping down from 10,000
`dollars per channel to less then 100 dollars per channel The Technology is based on my Ph.D.
`thesis and seminal projector camera patents filed while at MIT in 1998. I program/product
`managed our relationships and software architecture integrating it with NVIDIA, AMD, NEC,
`Sony, etc based on them as both customers and product channels. We have opened up a
`huge market for new classes of products for which we are a key component. I also have
`developed our whiteboard strategy which is beginning to bear fruit delivering systems with
`NEC. I have been able to bridge the divide between Japan Brands and their technology focus
`to bring products to market with their sales organizations by acting as a business/product
`management intermediary.
`
`
`
`
`
`Photo.net.
`Position:
`
`
`
`
`
`
` President, Co-Founder, Chairman
`
` 7/2000-May 2007
`
`Turned world’s largest and best amateur photographer site from a simple forum site into a
`viable growing community based business along with Philip Greenspun. Ran a preLAMP
`stack based on AOLServer, tcl, and Oracle 9 with innovative features such as: photo-sharing,
`click through advertising, digital subscriptions for vanity purposes etc. Innovated very early
`business models in this space around subscriptions, clickthroughs, banner advertising, and
`revenue sharing. Sold business quite profitably to NameMedia in 2007. I ran it while running
`another startup.
`
`
`Microsoft
`Position:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Software Development Engineer
`
`
`
`
` 7/1999 - 7/2000
`
`
`
`Worked on Exchange 2000 IM Server and MSN Messenger.
`Wrote patents on publish-subscribe architectures etc. Position created post sale of
`Flash Communications Wrote in C++, used COM etc. XML etc.
`
`
`Flash Communications
`Position:
`CTO, Co-Founder
`Founded company while in PhD program, developed market plan, core technology, and
`implementation targeted at a Microsoft acquisition. Built team, raised funding, and wrote
`designed product software with team. Company sold to Microsoft, prior to finishing my PhD
`thesis.
`
`Oak Ridge National Lab
`Position: Summer Intern
`Spectroscopy Group building Lab- on-a-Chip.
`
`2/1997 – 02/1998
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MIT AI Lab
`Position: Research Assistant
`Worked with computer science and Electrical Engineering Professors:: Thomas F. Knight,
`Gerald Jay Sussman, and Hal Abelson on a wide variety of projects. Helped build an early
`VLIW computer architecture with HP and mainly designed a special software compiler that did
`register allocation, parallelization to fill floating point pipeline. I also worked on camera
`feedback based projector systems, and on projects in the early days of the web: HTTP, TCP,
`UDP, database backed web systems etc.
`
`
`
`9/1992 – 6/1998
`
`Naval Research Labs
`Position: Summer Intern
`Worked on wavelet decomposition and classification based on said decomposition of radar
`return signal in C/C++. Wrote visualization tools that dramatically improved the investigative
`cycle time. Lots of hacking with postscript to help visualize results.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`Technology Hackers Inc
`
`Position: Electrical Engineer
`Built a 512 node 2D array of phased array microphones.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6/1992-12/1992
`
` 6/1988-8/1988, 6/1999-9/1999
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft
`Worked on Microsoft PC Client for Mail, Microsoft File, Microsoft Works (pre Windows).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Available upon request.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Technology Advisory Boards UnifySquare, Paneve (General Purpose Asic coupled with Compiler Technology),
`Nexaweb (Realtime Web Application framework using HTTPS), Antix Labs (Compiler Technology for universal gaming
`platform), Permabit (Content Addressable Storage), Evoque.
`
`Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fellow 1995-97, William A Martin Thesis
`Awards:
`Prize for Best Undergraduate Thesis in Computer Science 1992, Global Indus Technovator Award 2009, Laureate of
`2009 Computer World Honors Program, MIT 6.270 Lego Robot 1991 – Robot was named with Nuclear Capabilities on
`fields of RoboHockey.
`
`Patents:
`
`Super-resolution display
`6,456,339
`Inter-enterprise messaging system using bridgehead servers
`6,415,318
`Methods and systems for message forwarding and property notifications using electronic
`6,260,148
`subscriptions
`
`
`System for immediate popup messaging across the internet
`5,943,478
`System and method of calibrating a display system free of variation in system input
`8,817,111
`resolution
`
`
`9,215,455 System and method of calibrating a display system free of variation in system input
`
`
`resolution
`8,994,757
`System and method for providing improved display quality by display adjustment and image
`
`
`processing using optical feedback
`
`Applications:
`
` System and Method for Injection Mapping of Functions
`
`20100321382
` System and Method for Cal brating a Display System Using Manual and Semi-Manual
`Provisional
`
`Techniques.
`
`
`
` System and Method for Color and Intensity Calibrating a Display System for Practical Usage
`Provisional
`PCT/US2014/029402 System and method for calibrating a display system using a short throw camera
`
`Systems Built (Individually or as part of a team):
`Spambot: One of the Internet’s first free to use Mailing List Servers that was database backed
`Photo.net’s photo sharing system: One of the first on the internet, and given rave reviews as one of the best systems
`out in 2003.
`Photo.net’s mobile WAP interface
`MIT Supercomputing Toolkit: VLIW 8 processor system out of discrete electronic parts
`Microsoft Exchange 2000 IM Server and MSN Messenger Service
`Internet Coke Machine: 1993 – food transfer protocol (modified ftp server hooked up to micro-controlled coke machine)
`
`Skills: C++, C, Scheme, TCL, C#, Java,SQL, dabbled in PERL, python, etc. ], TCP and networking, image processing,
`firmware programming etc. Did Oracle DB management for photo.net. Very fast at learning enough to implement what
`I need done to solve a problem, E&M, machine vision, etc.
`
`References:
`
`Publications:
`Partial Evaluation for Scientific Computing: The Supercomputer Too kit Experience A. Berlin and R. Surati, Proc of
`ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, 1994
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`Exploiting the Parallelism Exposed by Partial Evaluation.
`By: Rajeev J. Surati, Andrew A. Berlin
`In: IFIP PACT, 1994
`
` A
`
` Parallelizing Compiler Based on P