Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`TITLE: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`
`DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`001
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, Cover
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 1
`A.
`Summary of My Opinions .................................................................. 1
`B.
`Qualifications and Experience ........................................................... 1
`C. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 5
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 6
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 7
`A.
`“token” .............................................................................................. 8
`B.
`“pointer” ............................................................................................ 9
`IV. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS OF THE
`’657 PATENT............................................................................................ 10
`A.
`Brief Description and Summary of the Prior Art .............................. 11
`1.
`Roseman [Ex. 1003] .............................................................. 11
`2.
`Rissanen [Ex. 1004] ............................................................... 15
`3.
`Vetter [Ex. 1005] ................................................................... 17
`4.
`Pike [Ex. 1006] ...................................................................... 18
`5.
`Lichty [Ex. 1007] ................................................................... 19
`Each Limitation of Claims 189, 334, 342, 348, 465, 580, 584
`and 592 Is Disclosed by the Prior Art .............................................. 20
`1.
`Claim 189 .............................................................................. 20
`a.
`“A method of communicating via an Internet
`network by using a computer system including a
`controller computer and a database which serves as
`a repository of tokens for other programs to access,
`thereby affording information to each of a plurality
`of participator computers which are otherwise
`independent of each other, the method including:”
`(Claim 189, Preamble) ................................................. 20
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`002
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. i
`
`

`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`“affording some of the information to a first of the
`participator computers via the Internet network,
`responsive to an authenticated first user identity”
`(Claim 189[a]) ............................................................. 37
`“affording some of the information to a second of
`the participator computers via the Internet
`network, responsive to an authenticated second
`user identity” (Claim 189[b]) ....................................... 42
`“determining whether the first user identity and the
`second user identity are able to form a group to
`send and to receive real-time communications”
`(claim 189[c]) .............................................................. 42
`“determining whether the first user identity is
`individually censored from sending data in the
`communications, the data presenting at least on of
`a pointer, video, audio, a graphic, and multimedia
`by determining whether a respective at least one
`parameter corresponding to the user identity has
`been determined by an other of the user identities”
`(claim 189[d]) .............................................................. 45
`“if the user identities are able to form the group,
`forming the group and facilitating sending the
`communications that are not censored form the
`first participator computer to the second
`participator computer, wherein the sending is in
`real time and via the Internet network, and wherein
`the communications which are received and which
`present an Internet URL, facilitating handling the
`Internet URL via the computer system so as to find
`content specified by the Internet URL and
`presenting the content at an output device of the
`second participator computer” (claim 189[e]) .............. 57
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`003
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. ii
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`g.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`“if the user identity is censored from sending of
`the data, not allowing sending the data that is
`censored from the first participator computer to the
`second participator computer.” (claim 189[f]) .............. 61
`Claim 334 (two client software alternatives) .......................... 61
`Claim 342 (data presenting a human communication of
`sound) .................................................................................... 66
`Claim 348 (access to a member-associated image) ................. 67
`4.
`Claim 465 (Apparatus Corresponding to Claim 189) ............. 68
`5.
`Claims 580, 584, 592 (Corresponding Dependent Claims) ..... 71
`6.
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 74
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`004
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. iii
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`I, Tal Lavian, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A.
`1.
`
`Summary of My Opinions
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 purports to describe a computerized
`
`technique for facilitating real-time communication between individuals using
`
`computers connected via the Internet. As I will explain below, the challenged
`
`claims do not recite any feature that would have been regarded as novel or non-
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. By April 1996 (the earliest priority
`
`date of the ’657 patent), real-time collaboration over computer networks was well-
`
`known, including video/audio conferencing, whiteboarding, and messaging. One
`
`of these references, U.S. Patent No. 6,608,636 to Robert D. Roseman, was filed
`
`more than four years before the earliest priority date for the ’657 patent. Roseman
`
`discloses a networked “virtual conferencing” system that discloses all of the
`
`supposedly inventive features of the ’657 patent. As I will explain below, all of the
`
`challenged claims would have been obvious based on the prior art.
`
`B. Qualifications and Experience
`I have more than 25 years of experience in the networking,
`2.
`
`telecommunications, Internet, and software fields. I received a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 2006 and obtained a
`
`Master’s of Science (“M.Sc.”) degree in Electrical Engineering from Tel Aviv
`1
`
`
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`005
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 1
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`University, Israel, in 1996. In 1987, I obtained a Bachelor of Science (“B.Sc.”) in
`
`Mathematics and Computer Science, also from Tel Aviv University.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently employed by the University of California at Berkeley
`
`and was appointed as a lecturer and Industry Fellow in the Center of
`
`Entrepreneurship and Technology (“CET”) as part of UC Berkeley College of
`
`Engineering. I have been with the University of California at Berkeley since 2000
`
`where I served as Berkeley Industry Fellow, Lecturer, Visiting Scientist, Ph.D.
`
`Candidate, and Nortel’s Scientist Liaison, where some positions and projects were
`
`done concurrently, others sequentially.
`
`4.
`
`I have more than 25 years of experience as a scientist, educator and
`
`technologist, and much of my experience relates to computer networking
`
`technologies. For eleven years from 1996 to 2007, I worked for Bay Networks and
`
`Nortel Networks. Bay Networks was in the business of making and selling
`
`computer network hardware and software. Nortel Networks acquired Bay
`
`Networks in 1998, and I continued to work at Nortel after the acquisition.
`
`Throughout my tenure at Bay and Nortel, I held positions including Principal
`
`Scientist, Principal Architect, Principal Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, and
`
`led the development and research involving a number of networking technologies.
`
`I led the efforts of Java technologies at Bay Networks and Nortel Networks. In
`
`
`
`2
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`006
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`addition, during 1999-2001, I served as the President of the Silicon Valley Java
`
`User Group with over 800 active members from many companies in the Silicon
`
`Valley.
`
`5.
`
`Prior to that, from 1994 to 1995, I worked as a software engineer and
`
`team leader for Aptel Communications, designing and developing mobile wireless
`
`devices and network software products. From 1990 to 1993, I worked as a
`
`software engineer and team leader at Scitex Ltd., where I developed system and
`
`network communications tools (mostly in C and C++).
`
`6.
`
`I have extensive experience
`
`in communications
`
`technologies
`
`including routing and switching architectures and protocols, including Multi-
`
`Protocol Label Switching Networks, Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private
`
`Networks, and Pseudowire technologies. Much of my work for Nortel Networks
`
`(mentioned above) involved the research and development of these technologies.
`
`For example, I wrote software for Bay Networks and Nortel Networks switches
`
`and routers, developed network technologies for the Accelar 8600 family of
`
`switches and routers, the OPTera 3500 SONET switches, the OPTera 5000
`
`DWDM family, and the Alteon L4-7 switching product family. I wrote software
`
`for Java based device management including software interface to the device
`
`
`
`3
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`007
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 3
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`management and network management for the Accelar routing switch family
`
`network management system.
`
`7.
`
`I am named as a co-inventor on more than 80 issued patents and I co-
`
`authored more than 25 scientific publications, journal articles, and peer-reviewed
`
`papers. Furthermore, I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”).
`
`8.
`
`I currently serve as a Principal Scientist at my company Telecomm
`
`Net Consulting Inc., where I develop network communication technologies and
`
`provide research and consulting in advanced technologies, mainly in computer
`
`networking and Internet technologies. In addition, I serve as a Co-Founder and
`
`Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of VisuMenu, Inc., where I design and develop
`
`architecture of visual IVR technologies for smartphones and wireless mobile
`
`devices in the area of network communications.
`
`9.
`
`Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration, which provides a more complete
`
`description of my educational background and work experience. I am being
`
`compensated for the time I have spent on this matter at the rate of $400 per hour.
`
`My compensation does not depend in any way upon the outcome of this
`
`
`
`4
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`008
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 4
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`proceeding. I hold no interest in the Petitioner (Facebook, Inc.) or the patent
`
`owner (Windy City Innovations, LLC).
`
`C. Materials Considered
`10. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the field of computer systems, as well as the
`
`documents I have considered including U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 (“’657 patent”)
`
`[Ex. 1001], which states on its face that it issued from an application filed on
`
`September 20, 1999, which in turn claims priority to back to an earlier application
`
`filed on April 1, 1996. For purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed April
`
`1996 as the relevant priority date.
`
`11.
`
`I reviewed various documents dated prior to April 1996 describing the
`
`state of the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’657 patent. As explained
`
`below, some of these documents are relied upon as actually disclosing the
`
`limitations of the ’657 patent, while others are being relied upon primarily for
`
`background purposes. The prior art documents that I rely upon in this Declaration
`
`as actually disclosing the limitations of the claims are:
`
`Exhibit No.
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`Title of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,608,636 to Robert D. Roseman
`EP 0621532 A1 to Eugene Rissanen, published on April 13, 1994
`Ronald J. Vetter, Videoconferencing on the Internet, Computer,
`IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 28, No. 1, at pp. 77-79 (Jan. 1995)
`5
`
`
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`009
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 5
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1006
`1007
`
`Title of Document
`Excepts from Mary Ann Pike et al., Using Mosaic (1994)
`Excerpts from Tom Lichty, The Official America Online for
`Macintosh Membership Kit & Tour Guide (2d ed. 1994)
`
`
`This Declaration also cites the following additional prior art documents for
`
`purposes of describing the relevant technology, including the relevant state of the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’657 patent:
`
`Exhibit No.
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Title of Document
`Tim Berners-Lee et al., Request for Comments (RFC) 1738,
`Uniform Resource Locators (URL), Dec. 1994
`James Coates, A Mailbox in Cyberspace Brings World to Your PC,
`Chicago Tribune, Mar. 1995
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`12.
`
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’657 patent should be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is April 1996.
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of April 1996
`
`would possess at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science (or equivalent degree or experience) with practical experience or
`
`coursework in the design or development of systems for network-based
`
`communication between computer systems. This could have included, for
`
`
`
`6
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`010
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 6
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`example, experience implementing systems for communicating over Local Area
`
`Networks (LANs) and Wide Area Networks (WANs), such as the Internet.
`
`14. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’657 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of April 1996.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed by counsel that invalidity analysis is a two-step
`15.
`
`process. In the first step, the scope and meaning of a claim is determined by
`
`construing the terms of that claim. In the second step, the claim as interpreted is
`
`compared to the prior art. Thus, before I address the application of the prior art to
`
`the claims of the ’657 patent in Part IV below, I provide constructions for certain
`
`terms in those claims.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the ’657 patent expired on April
`
`1, 2016. I have been informed by counsel that a claim in an expired patent subject
`
`to inter partes review must be construed by applying the claim construction
`
`principles outlined by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`which is similar to the manner in which the scope of a claim is determined in
`
`litigation. I apply this standard in my analysis below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`011
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 7
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`“token”
`
`A.
`17. Each independent claim recites a database that provides a “repository
`
`of tokens” used to perform user authentication. Claim 189, for example, recites a
`
`“database which serves as a repository of tokens for other programs to access.”
`
`The written description accordingly describes a “token” as a piece of information
`
`associated with user identity. As explained in the specification:
`
`With regard to the arbitrating of the controller computer 3 is directed
`by the controller computer program 2 to use “identity tokens”, which
`are pieces of information associated with user identity. The pieces of
`information are stored in memory 11 in a control computer database,
`along with personal information about the user, such as the user’s age.
`
`(’657, 7:49-54 (underlining added).) The specification goes on to describe several
`
`purposes for tokens, including “to control the ability of a user to gain access to
`
`other tokens in a token hierarchy arbitration process” (‘657, 7:60-61), “to control a
`
`user’s group priority and moderation privileges, as well as controlling who joins
`
`the group, who leaves the group, and the visibility of members in the group” (’657,
`
`8:2-4), and “to permit a user’s control of identity, and in priority contests between
`
`2 users, for example, a challenge as to whether a first user can see a second user.”
`
`(’657, 8:7-9.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`012
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 8
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`18. Based on the definitional language in the written description, I have
`
`construed “token” as a “piece of information associated with user identity.”
`
` “pointer”
`
`B.
`19. The term “pointer” appears in independent claims 189 and 465.
`
`“Pointers” are well‐known in computer science and exist at all levels of computer
`
`system design – from the lower microprocessor levels to the higher levels where
`
`application programs execute. To persons of ordinary skill in the art, a “pointer” is
`
`simply a piece of information that “points to,” or references, other information.
`
`20. The written description provides only the following mention of
`
`pointers, which identifies a Uniform Resource Locator as an example of a pointer:
`
`The present invention comprehends communicating all electrically
`communicable multimedia information as Message 8, by such means
`as pointers, for example, URLs. URLs can point to pre-stored audio
`and video communications, which the Controller Computer 3 can
`fetch and communicate to the Participator Computers 5.
`
`(’657, Ex. 1001, 5:11-16.) Based on this description, the term “pointer” should be
`
`construed as a “piece of information that points to or references other
`
`information.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`013
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 9
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`IV. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS OF THE
`’657 PATENT
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the prior art references and materials
`
`listed in Part I.C above. In my opinion, each and every limitation of claims 189,
`
`334, 342, 348, 465, 580, 584 and 592 is disclosed by the following references: (1)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,608,636 to Robert D. Roseman (“Roseman”) [Ex. 1003]; (2) EP
`
`0621532 A1 to Eugene Rissanen, published on April 13, 1994 (“Rissanen”) [Ex.
`
`1004]; (3) Ronald J. Vetter, Videoconferencing on the Internet, IEEE Computer,
`
`Vol. 28, No. 1, at pp. 77-79 (Jan. 1995) (“Vetter”) [Ex. 1005]; and (4) Mary Ann
`
`Pike et al., Using Mosaic (1994) (“Pike”) [Ex. 1006].
`
`22. As shown below, each limitation of the challenged claims is disclosed
`
`by the prior art discussed in this Declaration. In particular: (1) method claims 189,
`
`334, 342, and 348 are obvious over Roseman in view of Rissanen and Vetter, in
`
`further view of Pike (URLs). Most of my analysis will focus on independent claim
`
`189 and selected dependent claims, to which I turn first below. The remaining
`
`claims discussed in this declaration, i.e., claims 465, 580, 584 and 592 are
`
`“apparatus” claims that recite substantially the same requirements as the method
`
`claims mentioned above, so in the interests of brevity, I will refer back to my
`
`analysis of the method claims where appropriate.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`014
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 10
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that Roseman qualifies as prior art because it issued
`
`from an application filed on May 13, 1992, which is several years before the
`
`earliest application to which the ’657 patent can claim priority (April 1, 1996). I
`
`am also informed that Vetter, Rissanen, and Pike qualify as prior art because they
`
`were published more than one year before April 1, 1996.
`
`24. Before explaining how the prior art applies to the claims, I will briefly
`
`summarize each piece of art and provide an overview of how I have applied it.
`
`A. Brief Description and Summary of the Prior Art
`Roseman [Ex. 1003]
`1.
`25. Roseman, entitled “Server Based Virtual Conferencing,” discloses a
`
`system for creating a virtual conference room that allows participants to
`
`collaborate in real time over a computer network. My Declaration cites Roseman
`
`for the majority of the limitations in the challenged claims, and relies on the other
`
`references (Vetter, Rissanen and Pike) only for a few limitations to the extent not
`
`disclosed in Roseman.
`
`26. The virtual conferencing system in Roseman “allows multiple
`
`persons, at different locations, to hold a conference, by providing many of the
`
`conveniences which the participants would have if present together in the same
`
`physical room.” (Roseman, 1:19-23.) Roseman describes “a virtual conferencing
`
`
`
`11
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`015
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 11
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`system which allows multiple persons to view, and also manipulate, a common
`
`video display, which is simultaneously displayed at their different locations.”
`
`(Roseman, 1:28-31.) Each conference participant has his or her own “local
`
`computer.” (Roseman, 1:34-35, 2:64-65.) The local computers “have associated
`
`video cameras, speaker-type telephones, and pointing devices (such as ‘mouses’).
`
`When a conference is established, the local computers become connected to a host
`
`computer, via commercially available Local Area Networks (LANs) and Wide
`
`Area Networks (WANs).” (Roseman, 1:36-41; see also id. 3:14-19.)
`
`27. A user in Roseman creates a virtual conference room by clicking an
`
`appropriate icon, identifying the participants of the conference room and providing
`
`other information such as the rules that govern the conference. (Roseman, 3:22-
`
`56.) Once the parameters of the conference are established, the host computer
`
`“creates the conference room. The host does this by creating a common image,
`
`such as that shown in FIG. 9. The common image includes a picture of each
`
`invitee, a ‘table,’ and the room decor.” (Roseman, 7:30-34.) An example of the
`
`Roseman virtual conference room is shown in Figure 9 below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`016
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 12
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`(Roseman, Fig. 9.)
`
`28. Roseman explains that when a meeting participant enters a virtual
`
`conference room with other participants, “the data connection is made. Audio and
`
`video connections are made if supported by the user, the room and the other users.
`
`A small picture of each user is displayed in the meeting room to indicate
`
`presence.” (Roseman, 11:11-14.) Once inside the conference room, “[o]bjects
`
`(documents) can be shared in the conference room by placing them on the table.
`
`This might be done by dragging an icon . . . onto the table.” (Roseman, 11:18-22.)
`
`Additionally, the user can click on the picture of another participant to engage in a
`
`private voice conversation, or drag a textual note onto the picture of another
`
`
`
`13
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`017
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 13
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`participant to send a private text message. (Roseman, 9:16-31.) Other
`
`communication features are described in my discussion of the claims below.
`
`29. Roseman also discloses a security mechanism in which users must be
`
`invited and have an appropriate “key” to enter the conference room. (Roseman,
`
`e.g., 9:34-55, 10:61-64 (“To open a door with a key, the user drops the key onto
`
`the door lock. If the key is valid and the user has the authority to use the key, the
`
`door opens and the user is admitted to the room.”).) “The meeting room ‘knows’
`
`about each key and its invitation level. Persons with improper keys are not
`
`admitted to the room.” (Roseman, 9:49-51.) These conference room “keys,” as I
`
`will explain below, correspond to the “tokens” recited in the independent claims.
`
`30. Roseman also discloses a database that stores the keys for the
`
`conference room. In particular, Roseman explains that “[t]he meeting room
`
`‘knows’ about each key and its invitation level.” (Roseman, 9:49-50.) The
`
`“meeting room,” in turn, is stored on the host computer. (Roseman, 9:61-63
`
`(“Meeting Facilitator (or Requestor) creates [sic] meeting room on a host computer
`
`which is accessible to all Invitees.”) (underlining added), see also id. 12:16-18
`
`(“The conference room itself is actually a combination of stored data and computer
`
`programs.”).) More details about Roseman are set forth below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`018
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 14
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`Rissanen [Ex. 1004]
`2.
`31. The challenged independent claims of the ’657 patent recite “a
`
`database which serves as a repository of tokens for other programs to access.”
`
`As I noted above, the “keys” in Roseman disclose the claimed “tokens,” and those
`
`keys are stored on the central host computer. But Roseman does not use the word
`
`“database” to describe the storage of keys by the host. In the event it is argued that
`
`Roseman fails to disclose a “database” that stores the keys, as recited by the
`
`claims, this requirement would have been trivially obvious over Rissanen.
`
`32. Rissanen, entitled “Password Verification System,” discloses a
`
`technique for user authentication using passwords stored in a database. My
`
`Declaration relies on Rissanen as an alternative basis to teach “a database which
`
`serves as a repository of tokens for other programs to access,” in the event it is
`
`argued that Roseman alone does not disclose this limitation. Rissanen discloses
`
`storing user passwords in a database, and subsequently using those stored
`
`passwords to verify user identity when users subsequently attempt to log-on.
`
`(Rissanen, Ex. 1004, 1:21-28 (“Some business computer systems are arranged to
`
`initially record and store passwords assigned to users. In response to a prompt by
`
`the system for the user’s password, the user enters the password onto a keyboard
`
`and the system compares the keyboard entered password with the stored passwords
`
`
`
`15
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`019
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 15
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`and enables the user to access the system when the entered password matches the
`
`previously stored password.”) (underlining added).) Rissanen also discloses that
`
`user login and password information may be stored in a database. (Rissanen, 2:22-
`
`29 (“In accordance with an embodiment of the preferred invention, a computer
`
`controlled database is linked to a telecommunication network with which users are
`
`provided password controlled access. Users are initially entered into a password
`
`database stored in the computer system by assigning each user an account code and
`
`a password, such as consisting of a number of numerical digits.”) (underlining
`
`added).) Although Rissanen also describes a technique for using spoken voice
`
`passwords, I have cited it for basic teachings relating to database storage of
`
`passwords of any form.
`
`33. As I will explain in detail below, the user and password information in
`
`the database in Rissanen is analogous to the conference room “key” in Roseman.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
`
`Roseman and Rissanen to produce the virtual conferencing system of Roseman in
`
`which the conference room keys are stored in a database serving as a repository of
`
`tokens (keys) for other programs to access, as taught in Rissanen.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`020
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 16
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`Vetter [Ex. 1005]
`
`3.
`34. Certain independent claims of the ’657 patent require that information
`
`be transmitted “via the Internet.” Roseman discloses using “commercially
`
`available” Wide Area Networks (WANs) to communicate with participator
`
`computers, but does not specifically disclose that those WANs include the Internet.
`
`(Roseman, Ex. 1003, 1:37-41, see also id. 3:14-19.)
`
`35. Vetter, entitled “Videoconferencing on the Internet,” discloses
`
`software tools for enabling videoconferencing over the Internet. I have cited
`
`Vetter for the proposition that using the Internet to send information to meeting
`
`participant computers in Roseman would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Vetter discloses that “[v]ideoconferences are becoming
`
`increasingly frequent on the Internet,” and that “[r]eadily available software tools
`
`enable real-time audio and video channels as well as shared whiteboards that allow
`
`groups to collaborate on distributed group work more easily than ever . . .” (Vetter,
`
`Ex. 1005, at p. 77.)
`
`36. As I will explain below, the recitation of the “Internet” does not
`
`provide any non-obvious distinction over Roseman. Vetter confirms adding
`
`transmission over the Internet to Roseman would have been obvious to a person of
`
`
`
`17
`
`Facebook Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`021
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, Ex. 1002, p. 17
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`ample motivations to combine Roseman with Vetter.
`
`Pike [Ex. 1006]
`4.
`37. Pike, entitled Using Mosaic, is a book describing NCSA Mosaic, one
`
`of the early browsers for accessing the World Wide Web. (Pike, Ex. 1006, at 1-2.)
`
`I have cited Pike in connection with claims that recite that the information
`
`communicated between computers can include a “pointer” that allows the content
`
`to be produced on demand, or recite that communicated content may be invoked
`
`with a Uniform Resource Locator (URL).
`
`38. As explained below, Roseman discloses a pointer in the form of a
`
`clickable icon that, when clicked by a meeting participant, presents a document,
`
`message or other content to the user. (Roseman, Ex. 1003, e.g., 14:53-57 & 14:59-
`
`62 (icon representing document placed on t