`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAN R. OLSEN JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Page 1 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 1
`II.
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 4
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 5
`V.
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................... 6
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’149 PATENT ........................................................... 9
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 10
`A. Graham ............................................................................................... 10
`B. Milton ................................................................................................. 12
`Toshio ................................................................................................. 13
`C.
`D. Deshpande .......................................................................................... 14
`E. MacPhail ............................................................................................ 14
`IX. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES OR SUGGESTS ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF CLAIMS 1-17 OF THE ’149 PATENT ............................ 14
`A. Graham Discloses or Suggests the Features of Claims 1, 5, 7, 9,
`13, 15, and 17 ..................................................................................... 16
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 16
`2.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 31
`3.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 32
`4.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 34
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 37
`6.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 37
`7.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 38
`B. Graham and Milton Disclose or Suggest the Features of Claims
`1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 ...................................................................... 41
`1.
`Claims 1, 9, 17 ......................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 51
`2.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 52
`4.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 53
`5.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 53
`6.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 54
`7.
`C. Graham and Toshio Disclose or Suggest the Features of Claims
`1-5, 9-13, and 17 ................................................................................. 54
`1.
`Claims 1, 9 and 17 ................................................................... 55
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 66
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 66
`4.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 67
`5.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 68
`6.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 68
`7.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 68
`8.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 69
`9.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 69
`D. Graham and MacPhail Disclose or Suggest the Features of
`Claims 8 and 16 .................................................................................. 69
`1.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 70
`2.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 73
`Graham, Milton, and MacPhail Disclose or Suggest the
`Features of Claims 8 and 16 ............................................................... 74
`Graham, Toshio, and MacPhail Disclose or Suggest the
`Features of Claims 8 and 16 ............................................................... 75
`G. Alternative Interpretation of “Instant Messaging” / “Instant
`Messages” / “Instant Message” .......................................................... 76
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 81
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 84
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr., declare as follows:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) as an independent
`
`expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149 (“the ’149 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001). I have been asked to consider whether certain references disclose or suggest
`
`the features recited in claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent. My opinions are set forth
`
`below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my rate of $500 per hour for the time I
`
`spend on this matter. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of
`
`my findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or
`
`any other proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`I have more than 35 years of experience in computer science and
`
`human-computer interaction (HCI). I hold a doctorate in Computing and
`
`Information from the University of Pennsylvania. For 3 ½ years I was an Assistant
`
`Professor of Computer Science at Arizona State University. I then served for 30
`
`years on the faculty of Brigham Young University, retiring as a full professor in
`
`2015. During that time at BYU, I also served as the chair of the Department of
`
`Computer Science. I took leave from BYU in 1996 to become the founding
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`director of the Human Computer Interaction Institute in the School of Computer
`
`Science at Carnegie Mellon University. I returned to BYU in 1998. I am currently
`
`the CEO of a software startup in educational technology (SparxTeq, Inc).
`
`4.
`
`During the course of my academic career, I authored over 70 papers in
`
`the field of computer science. The topics on which I have published papers are:
`
` User Interface Management Systems
`
` Syntactic representations of user interfaces
`
` Multi-user interaction across networks
`
` Induction of interaction behavior from pictures
`
` Novel interaction techniques using speech and laser pointers
`
` Interactive machine learning
`
` Interactive robotics
`
` Interactive television
`
`5.
`
`I currently hold 4 patents in human-computer interaction. I have
`
`authored 3 textbooks on the techniques of software design for human-computer
`
`interaction.
`
`6.
`
`I have had extensive involvement in professional societies, such as the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the premiere society in computing.
`
`I have served in many offices of ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Human Interaction (SIGCHI) and currently serve as its treasurer. I have been
`
`conference chair of CHI, which is the premier conference in Computer Human
`
`Interaction. I was the founding editor of ACM’s Transactions on Computer Human
`
`Interaction. I was a co-founder and active leader for the conference on User
`
`Interface Software and Technology (UIST) for the past 29 years. I have also served
`
`at the governor’s request on the Utah Science, Technology and Research (USTAR)
`
`board, which oversees and funds state economic development efforts in
`
`technology.
`
`7.
`
`I twice received best paper awards in intelligent user interfaces. In
`
`2004, I was appointed to the CHI Academy for international excellence in
`
`Computer Human Interaction research. In 2007, I was recognized as one of ACM’s
`
`Fellows for research in computer science and in 2012 received the CHI Lifetime
`
`Research Award, which is the highest award in Computer Human Interaction.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that a copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a
`
`more detailed summary of my background, experience, and publications, is
`
`provided as Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS1
`9.
`The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education,
`
`experience, and knowledge regarding graphical user interfaces.
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed the
`
`’149 patent (Ex. 1001); the prosecution file history for the ’149 patent (Ex. 1004);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 (“Graham”) (Ex. 1005); U.S. Patent No. 5,631,949
`
`(“Milton”) (Ex. 1006); Japanese Patent Application No. H03-89639 (“Toshio”)
`
`(Ex. 1007)2; U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0039340 (“Deshpande”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,661,434 (“MacPhail”) (Ex. 1009); “Inside Macintosh Volume
`
`1,” by Caroline Rose, et al. (Ex. 1013); and any other materials I refer to in this
`
`Declaration in support of my opinions.
`
`
`1 Citations to non-patent publications are to the original page numbers of the
`
`publication, and citations to U.S. Patents are to the column:line number of the
`
`patents.
`
`2 I understand Ex. 1007 is a compilation containing the Japanese-language version
`
`of Toshio (Ex. 1007 at 1-4), an English-language translation of Toshio (id. at 5-8),
`
`and an affidavit (id. at 9). All citations to Toshio are to the original page numbers
`
`of the English-language translation.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`11. My opinions have also been guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims and the
`
`specification of the ’149 patent at the time of the alleged invention, which I have
`
`been asked to initially consider was mid to late 2003 (including September 19,
`
`2003, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/504,379, to
`
`which the ’149 patent claims priority). My opinions reflect how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood the ’149 patent, the prior art to the patent,
`
`and the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`12. As I discuss in detail below, it is my opinion that certain references
`
`disclose or suggest all the features recited in claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`13. Based on my review of the types of problems encountered in the art,
`
`prior solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations were made,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field, I believe a person of ordinary skill in art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, which I was asked to assume was mid to late 2003, would have had at
`
`least a B.S. degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or equivalent
`
`thereof, and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., graphical
`
`user interfaces. More education can supplement practical experience and vice
`
`versa.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`14. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, as I have defined it here, during the relevant timeframe,
`
`i.e., mid to late 2003.
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`15. The ’149 patent and the prior art cited in this Declaration are generally
`
`directed to providing time information for messages displayed on a device. At the
`
`time of the alleged invention, a message was simply a sequence of bytes
`
`transmitted over a network, such as via email or instant messaging. The concept of
`
`a message was independent of the contents of the message, which could have
`
`included text, audio, video, images, or any other content or combination of content.
`
`For example, as email programs began to mature, the concept of a MIME-type
`
`email was developed in the 1990s, which extended the format of email to support
`
`textual and non-textual content.
`
`16.
`
`It was also well known at the time of the alleged invention that
`
`messages exchanged between devices or users could be displayed in multiple
`
`ways. One way was to display all messages that share common senders and
`
`receivers. For example, a system could filter stored messages to identify messages
`
`that share common senders and receivers and display them together ordered
`
`sequentially according to time. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known how to filter messages in such a way using, for example, SQL (Standard
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Query Language) or a simple one-loop program. Email often displayed messages
`
`in such a way (typically referred to as an email “thread”).
`
`17.
`
`It was also well known at the time of the alleged invention that date
`
`and time information could be represented in multiple ways. For example, well
`
`before the date of the alleged invention, it was known and common for time to be
`
`represented in different forms (e.g., 1:45PM and 13:45 represent the same time in
`
`two different forms), and for dates to be represented in different forms (e.g., “15
`
`January 17,” “January 15, 2017,” and “1/15/17” represent the same date in three
`
`different forms). It was also known and common at the time of the alleged
`
`invention to use a relative date/time (instead of or in addition to an absolute
`
`date/time) when speaking about some past event. For example, when faced with
`
`the need to reference a time from the day before, it was common to say “10:15
`
`yesterday.” Phrases such as “noon, 3 days ago” and “two weeks ago” were also
`
`known and commonly used well before the alleged invention. The ability and
`
`understanding of when and how to use an absolute and/or relative date/time
`
`expression was known and common well before the date of the alleged invention.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, prior to the alleged invention for the ’149 patent, the
`
`concept of, and technologies to implement such a concept, updating a display in
`
`response to a change in information was known and commonly used in the art of
`
`the ’149 patent. For example, the book “Inside Macintosh” was published by
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. in 1985. This book describes how to write software for the
`
`first Apple Macintosh computer released in 1985. The computer and Inside
`
`Macintosh were some of the most widely known references on graphical user
`
`interface (“GUI”) software design and development. Inside Macintosh describes
`
`how a window should be redrawn as a result of an “update” event. Ex. 1013 at I-
`
`278 to I-279. This basic architecture of generating an event or method call to
`
`redraw a region of the screen from underlying information has been part of GUI
`
`systems since at least that time. Ex. 1013 discloses features consistent with the
`
`understanding of the art prior to the alleged invention for the ’149 patent. Thus,
`
`how to update a screen in response to changed information was well known at the
`
`time of the alleged invention.
`
`19. For instance, an example of this screen refresh technique can be found
`
`in the redrawing of menu highlights as the mouse moves in Windows 95
`
`(published in 1995). As the mouse moves, a redraw event is generated causing the
`
`menu to be redrawn to highlight the menu item currently under the mouse.
`
`Windows 95 was one of the most widely used pieces of software at the time. Also,
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, computer animation was built around the idea
`
`of redrawing the screen on a regular basis. As time changes, the redraw of the
`
`screen was invoked to paint a new image to reflect changes in the underlying data.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`This made logos fly across the screen in Microsoft PowerPoint and many other
`
`forms of animation.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’149 PATENT
`20. The ’149 patent, titled “Handheld Electronic Device and Associated
`
`Method Providing Time Data in a Messaging Environment,” is generally directed
`
`to providing time information associated with messages displayed on a handheld
`
`device (e.g., PDAs, pagers, cellular telephones). Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 1:20-24,
`
`1:26-29, 1:39-43, 5:31-8:38. The ’149 patent explains that time information may
`
`provide “additional information depending upon the prevailing circumstances.” Id.
`
`at 7:37-40. For instance, if the time information is presented as a first time stamp
`
`that is displayed upon receiving a message (id. at 8:10-13), but the conversation
`
`did not resume until the following day, “the first time stamp 84 potentially could
`
`be configured to automatically change from being displayed as ‘2:44 pm’ on the
`
`day of communication of the non-responded-to message 80 to being displayed as,
`
`for instance, ‘2:44 pm Thursday’ or, for instance, ‘2:44 PM Sep. 17, 2004’ or, for
`
`instance, ‘2:44 pm yesterday’ on the following day, although other configurations
`
`will be apparent and will be within the concept of the invention” (id. at 7:40-50).
`
`21. The ’149 patent also explains that time information “can be
`
`configured to depict relative times, i.e., elapsed times, rather than absolute times.”
`
`Id. at 7:51-58, FIG. 10. According to the ’149 patent, such time information may
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`change as time progresses. Id. at 7:59-60. For instance, time information presented
`
`as a relative timestamp “could progressively change from saying ‘less than one
`
`minute ago’ to saying ‘one minute ago,’ ‘two minutes ago,’ ‘forty-five minutes
`
`ago,’ and the like as time progressed.” Id. at 7:61-64. A relative time may also
`
`change to an absolute time after the expiration of a given time duration. Id. at 7:64-
`
`8:3.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`22.
`I understand that a claim subject to inter partes review receives the
`
`broadest reasonable construction that would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears. I also understand that any term that
`
`is not construed should be given its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction. I followed these principles in forming my opinions in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has proposed that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term “first input,” as recited in claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17, means
`
`“any event detected by the electronic device.” I have been asked to consider and
`
`have applied this construction in my analysis.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Graham
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`24. Graham discloses a mobile device that displays a conversation of
`
`messages that “facilitat[e] non-verbal communications between users of wireless
`
`mobile devices.” Ex. 1005 at 3:25-27; see also id. at 3:55, 4:8-13, 7:1-20, 8:52-59,
`
`10:21-28, 15:1-17, FIGs. 5, 6, 13a-13d. Graham discloses automatically changing
`
`time information for messages as time elapses. For example, as an alternative to
`
`displaying an absolute time, the age of messages can be depicted as an elapsed
`
`time that changes as time progresses. Id. at Abstract, 2:20-31, 9:1-4, 9:53-54,
`
`10:29-32, 10:59-61, 11:14-18, 12:18-21, 12:54-58, 13:1-12, 16:37-41, FIG. 5. For
`
`example, the amount of elapsed time is calculated using the message’s time
`
`identifier 1040. Id. at 10:59-61. The “[t]ime identifier 1040 can be an alphanumeric
`
`character or string that identifies when the message was sent, thereby allowing the
`
`recipient mobile device to compute and display the amount of elapsed time for the
`
`received message.” Id. at 11:14-18.
`
`25. Graham also explains that a message sender may be “associated with
`
`an illuminable input key,” which may be illuminated with “different colors to
`
`denote the age of a received image message.” Id. at 13:1-6. For example, the
`
`illuminable key may be illuminated green to indicate a recent receipt of a message
`
`from a certain user. Id. at 2:24-28, 13:6-9. And, as the text message ages, the color
`
`of the key may change from green to “other colors, such as ‘yellow’ or ‘red’ to
`
`depict the advanced age” of the message. Id. at 13:6-12. One skilled in the art
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`would have understood that the use of color in this way is time information, as the
`
`color indicates how long ago a message was received.
`
`B. Milton
`26. Milton discloses automatically changing a voice message’s time
`
`information from a relative time to an absolute time after a predetermined amount
`
`of time. Ex. 1006 at 4:1-13. Milton explains that a user “can better determine his
`
`course of action” if presented with a relative timestamp for newer messages. Id. at
`
`1:60-61. If the elapsed time becomes too great, “rather than reporting the elapsed
`
`time, the system can report the actual month and day on which the message” was
`
`delivered. Id. at 1:67-2:4, 4:1-13. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, Milton
`
`discloses determining a message’s age (step 45). Id. at 3:60-63. If the message was
`
`received less than 24 hours ago (step 46),3 then the time information is converted
`
`
`3 Consistent with the description corresponding to FIG. 4 (Ex. 1006 at 3:63-4:13),
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the greater-than sign (>)
`
`in decision box 46 of FIG. 4 is a typographical error and should be a less-than sign
`
`(<). In fact, the specification repeatedly describes automatically changing a time
`
`from relative to absolute after a predetermined amount of time. Id. at 1:67-2:4,
`
`3:63-4:13, 5:19-23, 6:9-15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`to a relative time (step 47) and reported as the number of elapsed hours and
`
`minutes (step 48). Id. at 3:63-4:6. If the message was received more than 24 hours
`
`ago (step 46), then the time information is converted to an absolute time (step 49)
`
`and reported as the month and day that the message was received. Id. at 4:9-13.
`
`C.
`Toshio
`27. Toshio relates to messages displayed on a selective call receiver, such
`
`as a pager. Ex. 1007 at 229. Toshio explains that it was known to associate a time
`
`with a message, but that “over several days, the message is displayed in a state
`
`where it is impossible for the user to know which date the message came” and the
`
`“display of time is confusing to a user, which is problematic.” Id. at 230. This is
`
`because the message’s “time is effective only for that day” and becomes less
`
`meaningful the next day. Id. Therefore, Toshio provides a display function that is
`
`“useful when displaying an incoming message on a day after the message was
`
`received.” Id. In particular, Toshio determines if “date has been updated” and, if
`
`so, “the fact that the day the message was received is not today is memorized and
`
`displayed along with the incoming message and the receipt time.” Id. For example,
`
`when the date changes, Toshio displays “the number of elapsed days of a message
`
`along with an incoming message and the time” the message was received. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Toshio also explains that the display of the number of elapsed days “does not need
`
`to be a complicated one.” Id. at 231. “[A] simple mark may be used as long as
`
`identification is possible.” Id.
`
`D. Deshpande
`28. Deshpande discusses communication between computing devices,
`
`including mobile devices, and more particularly non-SMS instant message
`
`communication between such devices. Ex. 1008 at ¶¶[0001], [0003]-[0009],
`
`[0016], [0028], [0039]. For example, Deshpande describes that a device receiving
`
`an instant message may select whether to receive the instant message as text or
`
`speech. Id. at Abstract.
`
`E. MacPhail
`29. MacPhail addresses problems related to “displays having diverse sizes
`
`and capacities.” Ex. 1009 at 2:8-50. For instance, MacPhail discloses displaying a
`
`timestamp only upon request by a user, such as in response to a pointer being
`
`placed over the time-stamped object. Id. at 9:64-10:11, 12:60-63. The pointer may
`
`be moved “using a pointing device such as a mouse or trackball.” Id. at 9:66-67.
`
`IX. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES OR SUGGESTS ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF CLAIMS 1-17 OF THE ’149 PATENT
`30.
`I have reviewed Graham, Milton, Toshio, and MacPhail, and as
`
`described below, it is my opinion that Graham alone or in combination with one or
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`more of Milton, Toshio, and MacPhail discloses or suggests all of the features of
`
`claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, as described below in section IX.A, Graham discloses
`
`or suggests all of the features of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17, where the claimed
`
`“first time information” and “second time information” are each disclosed as a
`
`relative time (or color). In my opinion, as described below in section IX.D, the
`
`combination of Graham and MacPhail discloses or suggests all of the features of
`
`claims 8 and 16.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, as described below in section IX.B, the combination of
`
`Graham and Milton discloses or suggests all of the features of claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-
`
`15, and 17, where the claimed “first time information” is disclosed as a relative
`
`time and the claimed “second time information” is disclosed as an absolute time. In
`
`my opinion, as described below in section IX.E, the combination of Graham,
`
`Milton, and MacPhail discloses or suggests all of the features of claims 8 and 16.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, as described below in section IX.C, the combination of
`
`Graham and Toshio discloses or suggests all of the features of claims 1-5, 9-13,
`
`and 17, where the claimed “first time information” is disclosed as an absolute time
`
`and the claimed “second time information” is disclosed as a relative time. In my
`
`opinion, as described below in section IX.F, the combination of Graham, Toshio,
`
`and MacPhail discloses or suggests all of the features of claims 8 and 16.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`I was also asked to consider whether all of the features of claims 1-17
`
`34.
`
`are disclosed or suggested if the terms “instant messaging,” “instant messages,”
`
`and “instant message” are interpreted to exclude SMS messages. Under this
`
`interpretation, as described below in section IX.G, each of the combinations
`
`described in sections IX.A-F, as modified based on the disclosure of Deshpande,
`
`discloses or suggests all of the features of claims 1-17.
`
`A. Graham Discloses or Suggests the Features of Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13,
`15, and 17
`I reviewed Graham and, in my opinion, it discloses or suggests all of
`
`35.
`
`the features of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 of the ’149 patent, where the
`
`claimed “first time information” and “second time information” are each disclosed
`
`as a relative time (or color).
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a)
`
`[1a] “A method of displaying an instant messaging
`conversation on a display of an electronic device, the
`method comprising:”
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a “method of displaying an instant messaging
`
`conversation on a display of an electronic device” is the preamble to claim 1 of the
`
`’149 patent. I have been asked to assume that the preamble is a claim limitation.
`
`Under that assumption, Graham discloses these features.
`
`37. For example, Graham describes a “mobile device” (“electronic
`
`device”), which is “any device capable of connecting to a wireless network,” such
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`as a “cellular telephone,” “smart phones,” “PDA,” “handheld computers,”
`
`“personal computers,” etc. Ex. 1005 at 4:3-20; see also id. at Abstract, 1:64-66,
`
`3:24-27, 7:1-20, 8:52-57, 10:21-22, FIGs. 1, 4-6. As shown in FIG. 4, Graham’s
`
`mobile device includes a display 456 (“a display”) (id. at 7:13-20; see also id. at
`
`8:14-19, 8:58-60, 10:21-25, FIGs. 4-6), which is used for displaying “non-verbal
`
`communications between users of wireless mobile devices” (id. at 3:24-27; see
`
`also id. at Abstract, 1:15-18, 1:64-66, 2:35-39, 7:2-8, 8:52-55, 10:21-28, 11:20-61,
`
`12:22-24, 12:62-66, 13:4-12, 14:15-24, 15:1-17, FIGs. 5-9, 12-14).
`
`38. One type of communication described in Graham is “mixed media
`
`messages,” which “refer[s] to messages having textual and image contents,” but
`
`may “include only textual content in one case, and include only image content in
`
`another case.” Id. at 14:17-22; see also id. at Abstract, 2:35-49, 14:22-15:56. A
`
`mixed media message “may also include audio, video and other media contents.”
`
`Id. at 14:22-25; see also id. at 2:37-39. As shown in FIG. 13d (annotated below),
`
`mixed media messages communicated between users of mobile devices are
`
`displayed as one “thread of communications,” such that messages sent to
`
`(annotated in blue) and received from (annotated in red) another device are
`
`displayed together chronologically. Id. at 15:11-14; see also id. at FIGs. 13a-13d.
`
`In my opinion, such a thread of communications between users of devices is a
`
`messaging conversation, similar to the messaging conversations described in the
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`’149 patent (e.g., Ex. 1001 at 5:10-16, Fig. 4), and consistent with the use of the
`
`word “thread” by those skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`39. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have understood that any disclosure in Graham, or any of the
`
`other prior art references I discuss in this Declaration, related to the display of a
`
`single message could have been extended to a conversation of messages to achieve
`
`the same objective, given the primary difference between displaying a single
`
`message and a conversation of messages is simply the number of messages
`
`displayed on the device. See also my analysis in section V.
`
`40. Graham explains that users of mobile devices can communicate using
`
`messages via a telecommunications carrier or service provider. Ex. 1005 at 7:28-
`
`31; see also id. at 4:22-30, 7:2-6. For example, a device may “send and receive
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 21 o