UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GROUPCHATTER, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Nos. 7,969,959, 8,199,740, 8,588,207, and 9,014,659
`Issued: Jun. 28, 2011, June. 12, 2012, Nov. 19, 2013, and Apr. 21, 2015
`Filed: Dec. 16, 2005, Jun. 6, 2011, May 21, 2012, Nov. 8, 2013
`Inventors: James M. Dabbs, III et al.
`Titled: Method and apparatus for efficient and deterministic group alerting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Bruce Deer Regarding
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,969,959, 8,199,740, 8,588,207, and 9,014,659
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`1, Bruce Deer, do hereby declare and state, 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 ofthe United States
`
`Code.
`
`Dated: Novembergg2016
`
`Bruce Deer
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ........................................................................................ 7
`C.
`Compensation ................................................................................................................. 11
`D.
`Information Considered .................................................................................................. 11
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ........................................................... 12
`A.
`Anticipation .................................................................................................................... 13
`B.
`Obviousness ................................................................................................................... 14
`III. THE CHALLENGED PATENTS .................................................................................. 19
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the Challenged Patents ...................................... 19
`B.
`Effective Filing Date Of The Challenged Claims .......................................................... 22
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................................ 23
`IV. GENERAL ISSUES RELATED TO MY PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............... 24
`A.
`The Claims of the Challenged Patents I Am Addressing In This Report ...................... 24
`B.
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims .................................................................... 24
`(i)
`“mobile device” means “a wireless device that can be in motion during normal use,
`such as a pager, cell phone, or wireless personal data assistants (PDA), or portable computer
`running WiFi” in this review ................................................................................................ 25
`(ii)
`“responder device” means a “mobile device capable of responding” in this
`proceeding ............................................................................................................................. 27
`(iii) “recipient” means “a user who receives a message via a mobile device” in this review
`
`28
`(iv)
`“alerting” means “notifying” in this review ............................................................... 29
`(v)
`“type of message” refers to whether a message is a group message, an individual
`message sent to one pager, or an individual message received from one pager ................... 30
`(vi)
`“network client” means a “device that can initiate a broadcast group message” ....... 31
`(vii) Means-plus-function limitations ............................................................................. 32
`C.
`Prior Art References ....................................................................................................... 37
`(i) Gutman ....................................................................................................................... 38
`(ii) LaPorta........................................................................................................................ 40
`(iii) Brabec ......................................................................................................................... 41
`(iv) Motorola Wireless Application Development Document .......................................... 41
`(v) ReFLEX Paper ............................................................................................................ 42
`V. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF ’959 PATENT ... 43
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 3
`
`

`
`Comparison of Gutman To Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22, and 29-30 of the
`A.
`’959 Patent ................................................................................................................................ 43
`(i)
`Claim 1 of the ’959 Patent .......................................................................................... 43
`(ii) Claim 2 of the ’959 Patent .......................................................................................... 64
`(iii) Claim 3 of the ’959 Patent .......................................................................................... 64
`(iv) Claim 8 of the ’959 Patent .......................................................................................... 65
`(v) Claim 10 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 65
`(vi) Claims 13 and 22 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................... 67
`(vii)
`Claim 17 of the ’959 Patent .................................................................................... 68
`(viii) Claims 14, 18, and 21 of the ’959 Patent ................................................................ 70
`(ix) Claim 20 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 72
`(x) Claim 29 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 73
`(xi) Claim 30 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 74
`B.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of The Knowledge Of A Person Of Ordinary Skill In
`The Art To Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22, and 29-30 of the ’959 Patent .................. 82
`(i)
`Claims 1-3, 8, 13, 20, 22, and 30 of the ’959 Patent .................................................. 82
`(ii) Claim 10 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 84
`(iii) Claim 17 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 85
`(iv) Claims 14, 18, and 21 of the ’959 Patent .................................................................... 85
`(v) Claim 29 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 87
`C.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of LaPorta To Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22,
`and 29-30 of the ’959 Patent ..................................................................................................... 87
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered LaPorta in Conjunction With
`Gutman .................................................................................................................................. 87
`(ii) Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22, and 29-30 of the ’959 Patent ....................... 90
`(iii) Claim 17 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 90
`D.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of Brabec To Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22,
`and 29-30 of the ’959 Patent ..................................................................................................... 91
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Brabec in Conjunction With
`Gutman .................................................................................................................................. 91
`(ii) Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22, and 29-30 of the ’959 Patent ....................... 93
`(iii) Claim 17 of the ’959 Patent ........................................................................................ 95
`VI. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF ’740 PATENT 95
`A.
`Comparison of Gutman To Claims 1-5, 10-16, 20, and 21 of the ’740 Patent .............. 96
`(i)
`Claim 1 of the ’740 Patent .......................................................................................... 96
`(ii) Claim 11 of the ’740 Patent ...................................................................................... 117
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 4
`
`
`
`

`
`(iii) Claims 2 and 12 of the ’740 Patent........................................................................... 124
`(iv) Claims 3 and 13 of the ’740 Patent........................................................................... 125
`(v) Claims 4 and 14 of the ’740 Patent........................................................................... 126
`(vi) Claims 5 and 15 of the ’740 Patent........................................................................... 127
`(vii)
`Claims 10, 20, and 21 of the ’740 Patent .............................................................. 127
`(viii) Claim 16 of the ’740 Patent .................................................................................. 129
`B.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of The Knowledge Of A Person Of Ordinary Skill In
`The Art To Claims 1-5, 10-16, 20, and 21 of the ’740 Patent ................................................ 130
`C.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of LaPorta To Claims 1-5, 10-16, 20, and 21 of the
`’740 Patent .............................................................................................................................. 132
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered LaPorta in Conjunction With
`Gutman ................................................................................................................................ 132
`(ii) Claims 1-5 and 11-16 of the ’740 Patent .................................................................. 133
`(iii) Claims 10, 20, and 21of the ’740 Patent .................................................................. 133
`D.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of Brabec To Claims 1-5, 10-16, 20, and 21 of the
`’740 Patent .............................................................................................................................. 135
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Brabec in Conjunction With
`Gutman ................................................................................................................................ 135
`(ii) Claims 1-5 and 11-16 of the ’740 Patent .................................................................. 135
`(iii) Claims 10, 20, and 21of the ’740 Patent .................................................................. 136
`VII. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF ’207 PATENT
`
`138
`Comparison of Gutman To Claims 1-3, 8-9, and 11 of the ’207 Patent ...................... 138
`A.
`Claim 1 of the ’207 Patent ........................................................................................ 138
`(i)
`(ii) Claim 3 of the ’207 Patent ........................................................................................ 157
`(iii) Claim 8 of the ’207 Patent ........................................................................................ 158
`(iv) Claims 2 and 9 of the ’207 Patent............................................................................. 165
`(v) Claim 11 of the ’207 Patent ...................................................................................... 165
`B.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of The Knowledge Of A Person Of Ordinary Skill In
`The Art To Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 of the ’207 Patent.......................................................... 167
`C.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of LaPorta To Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 of the ’207
`Patent 169
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered LaPorta in Conjunction With
`Gutman ................................................................................................................................ 169
`(ii) Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 of the ’207 Patent .................................................................... 169
`(iii) Claim 11 of the ’207 Patent ...................................................................................... 170
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 5
`
`
`
`

`
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of Brabec To Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 of the ’207
`D.
`Patent 171
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Brabec in Conjunction With
`Gutman ................................................................................................................................ 171
`(ii) Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 of the ’207 Patent .................................................................... 171
`(iii) Claim 11 of the ’207 Patent ...................................................................................... 172
`VIII.
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF ’659 PATENT
`
`173
`Comparison of Gutman To Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 16 of the ’659 Patent .............. 173
`A.
`Claim 1 of the ’659 Patent ........................................................................................ 173
`(i)
`(ii) Claim 10 of the ’659 Patent ...................................................................................... 194
`(iii) Claims 2 and 11 of the ’659 Patent........................................................................... 202
`(iv) Claims 3 and 12 of the ’659 Patent........................................................................... 202
`(v) Claims 4 and 13 of the ’659 Patent........................................................................... 203
`(vi) Claims 8 and 16 of the ’659 Patent........................................................................... 204
`B.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of The Knowledge Of A Person Of Ordinary Skill In
`The Art To Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 16 of the ’659 Patent .................................................. 205
`C.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of LaPorta To Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 16 of the
`’659 Patent .............................................................................................................................. 206
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered LaPorta in Conjunction With
`Gutman ................................................................................................................................ 207
`(ii) Claims 1-4, and 10-13 of the ’659 Patent ................................................................. 207
`(iii) Claims 8 and 16 of the ’659 Patent........................................................................... 208
`D.
`Comparison of Gutman In View Of Brabec To Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 16 of the ’659
`Patent 209
`(i) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Brabec in Conjunction With
`Gutman ................................................................................................................................ 209
`(ii) Claims 1-4, and 10-13 of the ’659 Patent ................................................................. 209
`(iii) Claims 8 and 16 of the ’659 Patent........................................................................... 210
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 211
`X. APPENDIX A: Materials Considered By Bruce Deer ................................................... 212
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by counsel for General Electric Co. as an expert
`
`witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinions about the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,969,959 to James M. Dabbs, III et al (“the ’959 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,199,740 to James M. Dabbs, III et al (“the ’740 Patent”) (Ex. 1002), U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,588,207 to James M. Dabbs, III et al (“the ’207 Patent”) (Ex. 1004),
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 9,014,659 to James M. Dabbs, III et al (“the ’659 Patent,”)
`
`(Ex. 1003) (collectively, the “Challenged Patents”). I also have been asked to
`
`provide my opinions on the patentability of claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22,
`
`and 29-30 of the ’959 Patent, claims 1-5, 10-16, 20, and 21 of the ’740 Patent,
`
`claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 of the ’207 Patent, and claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 16 of the
`
`’659 Patent (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”). The following is my written
`
`report on these topics.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`2. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1010.
`
`3.
`
`Since 2007 I have been an independent consultant in the wireless
`
`communications and technology sector. Prior to 2007 I was President and CEO of
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 7
`
`

`
`SkyTel, a division of Verizon which developed and deployed wireless
`
`communication networks.
`
`4.
`
`Having gained my degree in Electrical Engineering from Mississippi
`
`State University in 1979, I joined Lockheed Aerospace in 1980 as a systems
`
`engineer. I worked at Lockheed Aerospace until 1994 in a number of roles in
`
`technical, research and project management teams, during which period I obtained
`
`(in 1984) an M.S. in Electrical Engineering (with an emphasis on
`
`telecommunications) from the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. At
`
`Lockheed Aerospace I worked on and led several projects involving wireless
`
`communications systems related to military data links between ground-based
`
`narrowband radios and airborne platforms. These projects involved the
`
`transmission of digital data streams containing targeting and coordination
`
`information between ground units and tactical aircraft.
`
`5.
`
`In 1994 I joined the US-based paging infrastructure company Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, Inc., which operated under the name
`
`‘SkyTel’,1 where I worked on the development and enhancement of the company’s
`
`existing messaging systems, including paging networks in the US and overseas. I
`
`was also responsible for developing the software aspects of the paging system
`
`1 Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, Inc. changed its name to SkyTel
`
`in 1998.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 8
`
`
`
`

`
`infrastructure for the rollout of the first two-way paging communication system in
`
`the US, which employed Motorola’s ReFlex protocol. During this period I was
`
`also involved in the development of enhanced message handling functionality over
`
`the two-way messaging platform, including development and deployment of fax
`
`message forwarding functionality and a fully-featured wireless e-mail system. My
`
`role in these projects involved the development (including both designing and
`
`writing the necessary software code) of messaging infrastructure software
`
`applications in order to implement the relevant underlying communication
`
`protocols.
`
`6.
`
`In 1996 I was promoted to Vice-President and Chief Technical
`
`Officer, and during the period to 2001 I directed all technical development
`
`operations for SkyTel, which were focussed upon continued development and
`
`improvement of the company’s two-way messaging technologies. During this time
`
`I was involved in a project working in partnership with Motorola to advance its
`
`ReFlex two-way communications protocol – directing the merger of two variants
`
`of the protocol into a single compatible protocol, resulting in significant
`
`efficiencies once implemented.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 9
`
`
`
`

`
`7.
`
`From 2001 to 2004 I held the role of Senior VP and Chief Operations
`
`Officer of SkyTel and the Broadband Solutions division of MCI,2 directing the
`
`development of wireless broadband systems. I was also a member of the national
`
`Wireless Emergency Response Team (WERT) formed due to the September 11
`
`2001 terrorist attacks to address technology and communications interoperability
`
`issues. In 2004 I was promoted to President and Chief Executive Officer, during
`
`which period I was responsible for further development of the company’s wireless
`
`communication systems. In 2006 I also testified before the Federal
`
`Communications Commission Independent Panel regarding the effectiveness of
`
`communications systems in the immediate aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
`
`8.
`
`In 2007 I retired from SkyTel and became an independent consultant,
`
`offering project management, technical operations, engineering, software and
`
`systems development assistance to companies, with a focus on emerging
`
`businesses in the telecommunications sector. I was also President and CEO of a
`
`start-up company developing wireless communication technologies for vehicle
`
`
`2
`In 1999 SkyTel was acquired by WorldCom, which then was renamed MCI.
`
`During this period the company’s wireless operations (SkyTel and
`
`WorldCom Wireless Broadband Solutions) were managed by the same
`
`executive management team, but operated separately.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 10
`
`
`
`

`
`tracking and traffic congestion management using wireless technology from 2007
`
`until 2012.
`
`9.
`
`As described above, I have significant working knowledge of paging
`
`communication protocols, including the Motorola ReFlex protocol.
`
`C. Compensation
`10.
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`11. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`12.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 11
`
`
`
`

`
`13. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`14.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the Challenged Patents, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles
`
`that counsel has explained to me.
`
`15. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`16.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding that General Electric has the
`
`burden of proving that the claims of the Challenged Patents are anticipated by or
`
`are obvious from the prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 12
`
`
`
`

`
`that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is
`
`more likely true than not.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims,
`
`after being construed in this manner, are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to make the claim “obvious” to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is set forth
`
`below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`21.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether the
`
`Challenged Claims of the Challenged Patents are anticipated by the prior art.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 13
`
`
`
`

`
`23.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, I understand that inherency may be established if missing
`
`descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`26.
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 14
`
`
`
`

`
`27.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the Challenged Claims would have been considered obvious
`
`at the time of the effective filing date of the Challenged Patents, which I
`
`understand Patent Owner contends is the December 16, 2004 filing date of U.S.
`
`Provisional App. No. 60/636,094 (“the ’094 Application”) (Ex. 1014).
`
`29.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`
`
`
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`31.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 16
`
`
`
`

`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`
`
`Petitioner General Electric Co. – Exhibit 1009, p. 17
`
`
`
`

`
`36.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior