UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00222
`U.S. Patent 8,243,723
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C EASTTOM II
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS ...................................... 2
`
`A. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 3
`
`B. Priority Date .......................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art......................................................... 4
`
`D. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ........................................................ 6
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT ........................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 9
`
`A. “list” ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`VI. VALIDITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 11
`
`A. No obviousness for “transmitting a signal to a client including a
`list of the recorded connectivity status for each of the nodes in the
`sub-set corresponding to the client” (Claims 1-7) ................................ 11
`1. Vouri’s distribution “on a line” ....................................................... 11
`2. Vouri’s “buddy list” ........................................................................ 13
`
`B. No obviousness for “associating a sub-set of the nodes with a
`client” (Claims 1-7) ............................................................................. 14
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 16
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 2
`
`

`

`I, Chuck Easttom, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is William Charles Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) and I
`
`have been retained by Uniloc, USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`(“Uniloc” or the “Patent Owner”) to provide my expert opinions regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723 (the “’723 patent”). In particular, I have been asked
`
`to opine on whether claims 1-7 (the “challenged claims”) of the ’723 patent
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the
`
`time the inventions described in the ’723 patent were conceived. Based on my
`
`review of the prior art then available, my understanding of the relevant of the
`
`relevant requirements of patent law, and my decades of experience in the field
`
`of computer science including communications systems, it is my opinion that
`
`the challenged claims would not have been obvious in light of the references
`
`cited in the Petition. I note that in addition to the Petition and its
`
`accompanying exhibits, in formulating my opinions I further considered the
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Leonard Forys (filed as Ex. 2002).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting
`
`rate of $300 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur
`
`during the course of this work. Apart from that, I have no financial interest in
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 3
`
`

`

`Uniloc. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study or
`
`the substance of my opinions.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`In my 25 years of computer industry experience I have had
`
`extensive experience in communications systems, including data networks in
`
`general that have messaging capabilities. I hold 40 industry certifications,
`
`which include (among others) extensive certifications in server-based
`
`communication systems. I have authored 20 computer science books, several
`
`of which deal with communications topics including messaging. I also am
`
`named inventor on seven patents.
`
`4.
`
`A more detailed description of my professional qualifications,
`
`including a list of publications, teaching, and professional activities, is
`
`contained in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`III. LEGAL STANARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS
`
`5.
`
`Although I am not an attorney and I do not offer any legal
`
`opinions in this proceeding, I have been informed of and relied on certain legal
`
`principles in reaching the opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 4
`
`

`

`A. Obviousness
`
`6.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the differences
`
`between the subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. I further understand that an obviousness analysis involves a review
`
`of the scope and content of the asserted prior art, the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and objective indicia of non-obviousness such as long-felt need, industry
`
`praise for the invention, and skepticism of others in the field.
`
`7.
`
`I have been informed that if a single limitation of a claim is
`
`absent from the cited prior art, the claim cannot be considered obvious.
`
`8.
`
`I have further been informed that it is improper to combine
`
`references where the references teach away from a proposed combination; and
`
`that the following factors are among those relevant in considering whether
`
`prior art teaches away:
`
`• whether a POSA, upon reading the reference would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant;
`
`• whether the prior art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
`
`investigation into the claimed invention;
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 5
`
`

`

`• whether a proposed combination would produce an inoperative
`
`result; and
`
`• whether a proposed combination or modification would render the
`
`teachings of a reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
`
`9.
`
`In addition, I have been informed that a proposed combination
`
`that changes the basic principles under which the prior art was designed to
`
`operate may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`10. The ’723 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/398,063, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890, filed on
`
`Dec. 18, 2003. The ’723 patent issued on August 13, 2012. For purposes of
`
`this declaration, I have assumed the priority date for the ’723 patent is Dec.
`
`18, 2003.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`11.
`
`I understand that a POSA is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date. I understand
`
`that factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art may include: (a) the type of problems encountered in the art; (b)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 6
`
`

`

`are made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and (e) the educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the qualifications
`
`of the person of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’723 patent pertains as
`
`of August 15, 2003. In my opinion, a POSA would be someone with a
`
`baccalaureate degree related to computer technology and 2 years of
`
`experience with communications technology, or 4 years of experience without
`
`a baccalaureate degree.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that Dr. Forys opines that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have had “a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or
`
`industry experience in communications systems, particularly in messaging
`
`systems, data networks including VoIP and mobile telephony, or comparable
`
`industry experience.” Pet. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 30.1 While my opinion appears to
`
`largely overlap with that offered by Dr. Forys, I disagree with Dr. Forys’
`
`definition to the extent “ordinary skill” is interpreted to require more than 4
`
`years of academic or industry experience exclusively in the fields of in VoIP
`
`1 I note that Dr. Forys’ declaration largely repeats, nearly verbatim, the same
`arguments presented in the Petition. The citations to the Petition herein are
`intended to also address the corresponding (if not identical) language in Dr.
`Forys’ declaration.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 7
`
`

`

`and mobile telephony. In any event, I qualify as a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, even under Dr. Forys apparent interpretation.
`
`D. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that, for purposes of this Inter Partes
`
`Review (IPR), the terms in the claims of the ’723 patent are to be given their
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification of the
`
`’723 patent as understood by a POSA on the priority date. I have used this
`
`standard throughout my analysis.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT
`
`15. The ’723 patent, titled “System and method for instant VoIP
`
`Messaging,” generally is directed to “a system and method for enabling local
`
`and global instant VoIP messaging over an IP network, such as the Internet,
`
`with PSTN support.” Ex. 1001, 1:14-18.
`
`16. The Background section of the ’723 patent provides a historical
`
`context by noting that “Traditional telephony is based on a public switched
`
`telephone network (i.e., ‘PSTN’).” 1:20-30. According to the ’723 patent,
`
`“[c]ircuit switching provides a communication path (i.e., dedicated circuit) for
`
`a telephone call from the telephone terminal to another device 20 over the
`
`PSTN, including another telephone terminal. During the telephone call, voice
`
`communication takes place over that communication path.” Id.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 8
`
`

`

`17. The ’723 patent further explains “An alternative to the PSTN is
`
`Voice over Internet Protocol (i.e., ‘VoIP’), also known as IP telephony or
`
`Internet telephony.” 1:31-33. Because legacy circuit-switched devices were
`
`unable to communicate directly over packet-switched networks, media
`
`gateways (114) were designed to receive circuit-switched signals and
`
`packetize them for transmittal over packet-switched networks, and vice versa.
`
`1:61-2:17. The conversion performed by media gateways (e.g., 114 and 118)
`
`highlights the fact that packetized data carried over packet-switched networks
`
`(e.g., IP network 102) are different from and are incompatible with an audio
`
`signal carried over a dedicated packet-switched circuit. 1:25-30.
`
`18. The ’723 further recognized that “notwithstanding the foregoing
`
`advances in the VoIP/PSTN voice communication and voice/text messaging,
`
`there is still a need in the art for providing a system and method for providing
`
`instant VoIP messaging over an IP network. More particularly, there is a need
`
`in the art for providing local and global instant voice messaging over VoIP
`
`with PSTN support.” 1:43-49.
`
`19. FIG. 5 of the ’723 patent (copied below) is an illustration of an
`
`example global instant voice messaging (IVM) system 500 that includes both
`
`a global IVM server system 502 and a local IVM server 202 operating on the
`
`Internet and a local IP network, respectively. 15:26-30.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the Board instituted trail only for challenged
`
`Claims 1-7 and denied institution of the challenge against dependent Claim 8.
`
`Claim 1, the only challenged independent claim, is copied below:
`
`1. A method for instant voice messaging over a packets-
`switched network, the method comprising:
`
`monitoring a connectivity status of nodes within the
`packet-switched network, said connectivity status
`being available and unavailable;
`
`recording the connectivity status for each of the nodes;
`
`associating a sub-set of the nodes with a client;
`
`transmitting a signal to a client including a list of the
`recorded connectivity status for each of the nodes in
`the sub-set corresponding to the client;
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 10
`
`

`

`receiving an instant voice message having one or more
`recipients;
`
`delivering the instant voice message to the one or more
`recipients over a packet-switched network;
`
`temporarily storing the instant voice message if a
`recipient is unavailable; and
`
`delivering the stored instant voice message to the
`recipient once the recipient becomes available.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the
`
`construction of the term “list” as would be understood by a POSA using the
`
`BRI.
`
`A.
`
`“list”
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand from the context of the
`
`claim language as a whole, when read in light of the rest of ’723 patent
`
`specification, that the term “list” must include the connectivity status of more
`
`than one node.
`
`23.
`
`Independent Claim 1 recites the term “list” in the limitation
`
`“transmitting a signal to a client including a list of the recorded connectivity
`
`status for each of the nodes in the sub-set corresponding to the client.” I find it
`
`significant that “nodes” is explicitly recited in the plural in the phrase “the
`
`nodes in the sub-set.” A plain reading of “nodes” in the plural confirms the
`
`“sub-set” must contain more than one node. It follows that “a list of the
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 11
`
`

`

`recorded connectivity status for each of the nodes” (in the plural) requires a
`
`“list” that includes the connectivity status of more than one node.
`
`24. This plain reading of the claim language is consistent with the
`
`statement in ’723 patent specification that in certain embodiments “[t]he IVM
`
`client 208 displays a list of one or more IVM recipients on its display.” Ex.
`
`1001, 7:61-64. In my opinion, that quotation invokes commonly-used
`
`shorthand to describe alternative embodiments. Written in expanded form,
`
`those alternative embodiments are also accurately represented as a “list” of
`
`either one IVM recipient (in the singular) or IVM recipients (in the plural). I
`
`understand the claim language to refer exclusively to the latter embodiment
`
`by reciting “each of the nodes in the sub-set”—i.e., “nodes” in the plural.
`
`25.
`
`I further note that Claim 1 recites “one or more recipients,” which
`
`conveys to a POSA that Claim 1 uses the phrase “one or more” when the intent
`
`is to invoke both the singular and the plural. The absence of the qualifying
`
`phrase “one or more” before the “nodes” term confirms the “list” must include
`
`the connectivity status of more than one node. My opinions set forth below
`
`are based on this understanding of the “list” term.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 12
`
`

`

`VI. VALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`A. No obviousness for “transmitting a signal to a client
`including a list of the recorded connectivity status for each of the
`nodes in the sub-set corresponding to the client” (Claims 1-7)
`
`26. The Petition relies on two passages of Vouri in presenting
`
`alternative theories of obviousness for the “transmitting” limitations. In my
`
`opinion, neither passage renders the claim language in question obvious for
`
`the reasons explained below.
`
`1.
`
`Vouri’s distribution “on a line”
`
`27.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Forys opinion that Vouri’s disclose of
`
`“distributing connectivity information ‘on a line’ means to distribute the
`
`information to other users connected to the network.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 125.
`
`28. Vouri describes its Short Voice Message (SVM) presence
`
`service with reference to Figure 7, copied below.
`
`
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 13
`
`

`

`29. A POSA would understand Vouri’s use of directional arrows to
`
`indicate which direction information is distributed. As shown in Figure 7,
`
`presence information is not distributed to a “user agent” or “UA” device (276,
`
`278) of either end user. Rather, as the accompanying description states,
`
`presence information is distributed from SVM presence service 248 “on a line
`
`252” to SVM watcher 256. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 43, 47. Vouri refers exclusively to
`
`the line 252, connecting SVM presence service 248 and SVM watcher 256, in
`
`describing the distribution of presence information. The SVM watcher 256 is
`
`not a user-facing “client” and thus does render obvious the claimed
`
`“transmitting” step. It appears that Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Forys, agrees
`
`with me at least on these points. Ex. 2002 66:8−14 (“Q. Now, it talks about
`
`distributing something on a line 252. Correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. Can you
`
`circle in Figure 7 the line that is being addressed there? A. So it is a line that
`
`is coming from the box 248 down to the box 256.”); id., 67:2−68:21 (“SVM
`
`watcher 278 is at the user device.”).
`
`30. Yet another point of distinction is that the transmitted “list”
`
`(when properly construed) must itself include the connectivity status of more
`
`than one node. Vouri discloses, however, that its “SVM presence server 248”
`
`distributes presence information to SVM watcher 256 one value at a time. Ex.
`
`1005 Fig. 7, ¶¶43-44.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 14
`
`

`

`2. Vouri’s “buddy list”
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, Vouri’s single-sentence description of its “buddy
`
`list” does not render obvious the “transmitting” step for at least three reasons.
`
`32. First, Vouri does not disclose or suggest its “buddy list” records
`
`the connectivity status of more than one node and that the “buddy list” is
`
`transmitted, in its entirety, to the “client” as claimed. These observations
`
`appear to be undisputed in both the Petition and its attached declaration.
`
`33. Second, Vuori does not disclose or suggest its “buddy list” is “a
`
`list of the recorded connectivity status for each of the nodes ….” The only
`
`sentence in Vouri to even mention a “buddy list” discloses that “the intended
`
`recipient has effectively acquiesced to availability by previously joining a
`
`‘buddy list.’” Ex. 1005 ¶35. A POSA would understand the phrase
`
`“acquiesced … availability” as referring to a predetermined relationship status
`
`between people, which is distinguishable from the real-time “available” or
`
`“unavailable” “connectivity status” of “nodes” as claimed. This distinction is
`
`illustrated by way of an example scenario. Because Vouri’s “buddy list”
`
`merely indicates those whom a potential recipient had preauthorized for
`
`messaging (regardless of the connectivity status of that intended recipient’s
`
`device), it follows that the “buddy list” in Vouri would continue to indicate
`
`the prior “acquiesced … availability” even when an intended recipient’s
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 15
`
`

`

`device goes offline. This example further illustrates the inherent distinction
`
`between a relationship status and a “connectivity status” as claimed.
`
`34. Third, Vouri’s “buddy list” does not render obvious the
`
`requirement that the “list” must record the connectivity status for multiple
`
`nodes within a packet-switched network as claimed. The only sentence in
`
`Vouri to even mention the “buddy list” makes no reference to implementation
`
`via a packet-switched network, let alone enables such an implementation; and
`
`the Petition does not argue otherwise. In fact, none of the nodes identified in
`
`the Petition are within a “packet-switched network” as claimed.
`
`B. No obviousness for “associating a sub-set of the nodes with
`a client” (Claims 1-7)
`
`35.
`
`I disagree with the conclusion in the Petition and its attached
`
`declaration that Vouri’s “buddy list” teaches or suggests the “associating”
`
`limitations.2
`
`36. The claim language “associating a sub-set of the nodes with a
`
`client” invokes all the various limitations for the claimed “nodes” (in the
`
`plural) addressed above for the “transmitting” limitations. Accordingly, the
`
`above-identified deficiencies of Petitioner’s “buddy list” theory taints
`
`2 I understand the Board has already rejected Petitioner’s alternative theory
`that Vouri’s disclosure of GSM base station subsystems 68 and 70 teaches or
`suggests sub-sets of nodes associated with a client.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 16
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s analysis for the “associating” limitations. In short, as explained
`
`above, the Petition at least fails to prove: (1) that Vouri’s “buddy list” includes
`
`the connectivity status of more than one node and that the “buddy list” is
`
`transmitted, in its entirety, to the “client” as claimed; (2) that Vouri’s “buddy
`
`list” records the “connectivity status for each of the nodes”; and (3) that
`
`Vouri’s “buddy list” records the connectivity status for multiple nodes within
`
`a “packet-switched network” as claimed.
`
`37.
`
`I also conclude there is no obviousness for “associating a sub-set
`
`of the nodes” (in the plural) “with a client” (in the singular). I understand that
`
`Petition has argued Vouri’s “buddy list” belongs to the intended recipient.
`
`While I find no such association in the single-sentence description of the
`
`“buddy list,” even if Petitioner’s characterization had been correct, a POSA
`
`would not have been motivated to distribute the intended recipient’s entire
`
`“buddy list” to the user who wishes to transmit a message. Doing so would
`
`violate the privacy of the intended recipient for no reason, as the sender would
`
`not need to know who else the intended recipient may have preauthorized for
`
`messaging.
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 17
`
`

`

`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`38. For the reasons set forth herein, Claims 1-7 of the ’723 patent are
`
`not rendered obvious by in light of the references and testimony cited in the
`
`Petition.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that, in signing this Declaration, the Declaration will
`
`be used as evidence in an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board concerning the validity of the ’723 patent. I understand that I
`
`may be subject to cross-examination in the proceeding. I will appear for such
`
`cross-examination during the time allotted for cross-examination and at a time
`
`and location convenient for myself and the parties.
`
`40.
`
`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 Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United
`
`States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 22, 2016
`
`
`______________________________
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, |PR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 19
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck)
`Website: www.ChuckEasttom.com
`Email: chuck@chuckeasttom.com
`
`Education
`
`University Degrees
`
`• B.A. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Major Communications with
`Minors in Chemistry and Psychology. Extensive coursework in science
`(chemistry, physics, and biology) as well as neuroscience (neurobiology of
`memory, cognitive science, etc.). Also, additional coursework in computer
`science including programming and database courses.
`• M.Ed. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Coursework included technology
`related courses such as digital video editing, multimedia presentations, and
`computer graphics. A statistics course was also part of the coursework.
`• M.B.A. Northcentral University Emphasis in Applied Computer Science.
`Extensive course work in graduate computer science including graduate courses
`in: C++ programming, C# programming, Computer Graphics, Web Programming,
`Network communication, Complex Database Management Systems, and Artificial
`Intelligence. Approximately 30 graduate hours of graduate computer science
`courses. Additionally, a doctoral level statistics course was included. A semester
`research project in medical software was also part of the curriculum. I also took
`several research courses beyond the requirements for the degree.
`
`
`
`Industry Certifications
`
`The following is a list of computer industry certifications I have earned.
`
`
`
`Hardware and Networking Related Certifications
`
`1. CompTIA (Computer Technology Industry Associations) A+ Certified
`
`2. CompTIA Network + Certified
`
`3. CompTIA Server+ Certified
`
`4. CompTIA I-Net+ Certified
`
`
`
`Operating System Related Certifications
`
`5. CompTIA Linux + Certified
`
`6. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Windows Server 2000 Professional
`Certification Number: A527-9546
`
`7. Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator (MCSA) Windows Server 2000
`Certification Number: A527-9556
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`8. Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) Windows Server 2000 Certification
`Number: A527-9552
`
`9. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Windows Server 2008 Active
`Directory Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`10. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Windows 7 Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`11. Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) Windows 7 Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`12. Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate Windows 7 Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`13. National Computer Science Academy Windows 8 Certification Certificate #:
`4787829
`
`
`
`Programming and Web Development Related Certifications
`
`14. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Visual Basic 6.0 Desktop Applications
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`15. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Visual Basic 6.0 Distributed Applications
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`16. Microsoft Certified Application Developer (MCAD) - C# Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`17. Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT 2005-2012) Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`18. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Visual Studio 2010 Windows
`Application Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`19. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Visual Studio 2010 Data Access
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`20. National Computer Science Academy HTML 5.0 Certification Certificate #:
`4788000.
`
`21. National Computer Science Academy ASP.Net Certification Certificate #: 4788342
`
`22. Certified Internet Webmaster (CIW) Associate CIW0163791
`
`
`
`Database Related Certifications
`
`23. Microsoft Certified Database Administrator (MCDBA) SQL Server 2000 Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`24. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Implementing SQL Server 2008
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`25. Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) SQL Server Administration Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`
`
`Security and Forensics Related Certifications
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`26. CIW Certified Security Analyst CIW0163791
`
`27. EC Council Certified Ethical Hacker v5 (CEH) ECC942445
`
`28. EC Council Certified Hacking Forensics Investigator v4 (CHFI) ECC945708
`
`29. EC Council Certified Security Administrator (ECSA) ECC947248
`
`30. EC Council Certified Encryption Specialist (ECES)
`
`31. EC Council Certified Instructor
`
`32. CISSP – Certified Information Systems Professional #387731
`
`33. ISSAP – Certified Information Systems Architect #387731
`
`34. CCFP – Certified Cyber Forensics Professional #387731
`
`35. Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI) – American College of Forensic Examiners
`ACFEI Member ID 116830
`
`36. Forensic Examination of CCTV Digital VTR Surveillance Recording Equipment –
`American College of Forensic Examiners ACFEI Member ID 116830
`
`37. Oxygen Phone Forensics Certified
`
`38. Access Data Certified Examiner (ACE)
`
`39. OSForensics Certified Examiner (OSFCE)
`
`40. Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC) - American College of Forensic Examiners
`ACFEI Member ID 116830
`
`Software Certifications
`
`41. National Computer Science Academy Microsoft Word 2013 Certification Certificate
`#: 5078016
`
`42. National Computer Science Academy Microsoft Word 2000 Certification Certificate
`#: 5078187
`
`
`
`Licenses
`
`Texas State Licensed Private Investigator. Registration Number 827827. Associated with
`Allegiant Investigations & Security License Number: A18596
`
`
`
`Publications
`
`Books
`
`1.
`Easttom, C. (2003). Moving from Windows to Linux. Newton Center, MA:
`Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`Easttom, C., Hoff, B. (2006). Moving from Windows to Linux, 2nd Ed. Newton
`2.
`Center, MA: Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`
`3.
`Easttom, C. (2003). Programming Fundamentals in C++. Newton Center, MA:
`Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`4.
` Easttom C. (2002). JFC and Swing with JBuilder 8.0. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`Publishing.
`
`5.
`Easttom, C. (2002). JBuilder 7.0 EJB Programming. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`Publishing.
`
`6.
`Easttom, C. (2001). Beginning JavaScript, 1st Edition. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`Publishing.
`
`7.
`
`Easttom, C. (2002). Beginning VB.Net. Plano, Texas: WordWare Publishing.
`Easttom, C. (2001). Advanced JavaScript, 2nd Edition. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`8.
`Publishing.
`
`9.
`Easttom, C. (2005). Introduction to Computer Security. New York City, New
`York: Pearson Press.
`
`10.
`Easttom, C. (2006). Network Defense and Countermeasures. New York City,
`New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2005). Advanced JavaScript, 3rd Edition. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`11.
`Publishing.
`
`12.
`Easttom, C., Taylor, J. (2010). Computer Crime, Investigation, and the Law.
`Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
`
`13.
`Easttom, C. (2013). Essential Linux Administration: A Comprehensive Guide for
`Beginners. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
`Easttom, C. (2011). Introduction to Computer Security, 2nd Edition. New York
`14.
`City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2012). Network Defense and Countermeasures, 2nd Edition. New
`15.
`York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2013). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 2nd Edition.
`16.
`Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`17.
`Easttom, C. (2014). CCFP Certified Cyber Forensics Professional All-in-One
`Exam Guide. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
`
`18.
`Easttom, C., Dulaney, E. (2015). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: SY0-401.
`Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`19.
`Easttom, C. (2015). Modern Cryptography: Applied Mathematics for Encryption
`and Information Security. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
`Easttom, C. (2016). Computer Security Fundamentals, 3rd Edition. New York
`20.
`City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2017). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 3rd Edition.
`21.
`Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett. (book completed will be available mid
`2017).
`
`22.
`Easttom, C., Dulaney, E. (2015). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: SY0-501.
`Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press. (book completed, will be published in the fall of
`2017).
`
`23.
`Easttom, C. (2017). The Complete Guide to Penetration Testing. New York City,
`New York: Pearson Press. Will be published in late 2017.
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Uniloc v. Apple, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Papers, presentations, & articles.
`
`1. Easttom, C. (2010). RSA and its Challenges. EC Council White Paper.
`
`2. Easttom, C. (2010). Finding Large Prime Numbers. EC Council White