`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VIDSTREAM, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`______________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES OLIVIER
`
`
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VidStream LLC
`IPR2017-01131
`VidStream LLC | Ex. 2002
`Page 1 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Experience
`
`1. My name is James Olivier, I am at least 18 years old and qualified to
`
`testify in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by VidStream LLC as a technical expert to provide
`
`information and my opinion regarding U.S. Pat. No. 8,464,304 (“the ’304 Patent”).
`
`I am being compensated at my customary hourly for my work in connection with
`
`this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor Telecommunications and Network
`
`Engineering Program Southern Methodist University’s Graduate School of
`
`Electrical Engineering, where I teach MPLS enabled applications to graduate
`
`students. One of the primary MPLS enabled applications I teach is the transport of
`
`video over various network architectures, i.e. broadcast video over IP/MPLS,
`
`hierarchical video-on-demand library distribution using BGP, Video Content
`
`Delivery Networks, CDN’s and MPLS-based networks supporting triple-play
`
`services. This class also covers video bandwidth reservations using RSVP and
`
`traffic engineering for video transport. In addition, this class also covers
`
`professional real-time broadcast TV distribution over MPLS, MPLS-VID and
`
`typical Internet video streaming applications, which involve the sending of low-
`
`bandwidth video streams to end users’ PCs without any quality guarantees. I am
`
`also the owner of Olivier Consulting, where I provide consulting services for
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`advanced network / product design along with IP consulting and am also a member
`
`of
`
`the
`
`technical staff of McAlexander Sound where
`
`I specialize
`
`in
`
`Telecommunications Architecture / Software.
`
`4.
`
`I have three degrees from The Ohio State University. I have a Ph.D.
`
`from The Ohio State University in Electrical Engineering with minors in Discrete
`
`Mathematics, Computer Science and Microelectronics, a Masters in Electrical
`
`Engineering with a minor in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, and a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering. I have published papers in the areas of
`
`coding theory and multiprocessor computer systems.
`
`5.
`
`I have extensive experience in the design and development of
`
`networked video systems. I have been involved in the development and design of
`
`equipment for networked video since my start at AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1990,
`
`where I worked as a Member of Technical Staff. It was there where I first began my
`
`work with video networking products such as an Asynchronous Transfer Mode
`
`‘ATM’ based set top box and monitored networked video transport standard setting
`
`bodies such as the ATM Forum and DAVIC, the Digital Audio-Visual Council.
`
`6.
`
`At DSC during the years 1995 - 1996, I was the Senior Manager in
`
`charge of a Broadband Intelligent Network ‘BB-IN’ based video on demand delivery
`
`system, which was demonstrated at SuperComm, a U.S. telecommunications trade
`
`show. While at DSC, I was also their corporate representative to the ATM Forum,
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`participating in bi-monthly standards body development, which included standards
`
`for video transport.
`
`7.
`
`At Samsung during the years 1996 -1999, I was a Principal Engineer
`
`for wireless broadband services over Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
`
`(UMTS). I worked at Samsung Telecommunications America designing their next
`
`generation cellular switch, a UMTS switch. While at Samsung, I was also their
`
`corporate representative to the International Telecommunication Union, (“ITU”),
`
`which is the agency of the United Nations responsible for information and
`
`communication technologies. I was Samsung’s corporate representative to the 3GPP
`
`standards body. It was there that I participated in the development of standards for
`
`advanced wireless networks, including networked video transport.
`
`8.
`
`At Marconi during the years 1999 – 2002, I worked on several systems
`
`for the access video market, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) networks and
`
`Hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) networks. These systems were triple play systems
`
`which provide voice, video and data. Also at Marconi, I was responsible for the web
`
`site design of the Network Management System for the entire North American
`
`Access product division.
`
`9.
`
`At Navini Networks during the years 2002 - 2003, I was responsible for
`
`the design and development of a sign on web site which managed and authorized
`
`users for different services in a broadband CDMA network. This system consisted
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`of multiple Apache Web Servers providing the web pages to the users and a
`
`centralized key storage facility to manage the various keys needed to authorize the
`
`different services. In addition, I was responsible for the layer 2 and layer 3 aspects
`
`of the video transport within the Navini System.
`
`10. Since 2003, I have been a member of the technical staff at McAlexander
`
`Sound as well as the sole consultant at Olivier Consulting. In these roles, I have
`
`provided Technology Research and Intellectual Property investigations into a
`
`number of different network technologies, which allows me to interact with
`
`engineers and their managers.
`
`11. For example, consulting at Telstrat, I lead technology investigations
`
`related to the research, specification, design, and architecture of Telstrat’s Next
`
`Generation Access Product, which delivered video, including analog, digital, HDTV
`
`and IPTV. Consulting at Crane Aerospace, I investigated scalability, address
`
`assignment, access, and security for a large Wireless Sensor Network.
`
`12.
`
`I have opined on the meaning of claim terms to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art on numerous occasions. For example, I provided opinions on the meanings
`
`of claim terms in QPSX Developments 5 Pty Ltd. v. Nortel Networks, Inc and In the
`
`Matter of Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phone and Tablets II, USITC
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-905.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`13. My CV is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which shows my education and
`
`experience in more detail.
`
`14. Because of my background, training, and experience, I am qualified as
`
`an expert to explain the background of the technology encompassed by the ‘304
`
`Patent as well as on the meaning that the claim terms of the ’304 Patent discussed
`
`herein would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in 2011
`
`reading the claims in light of the specification and file history. The opinions I
`
`express in this declaration are from the perspective of such a POSITA in 2011.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the ’304 Patent and its file history. I have also
`
`reviewed the materials cited herein. For the references on which the Grounds raised
`
`in the Petition rely, I have been asked to analyze those references as if they qualify
`
`as prior art but I have not independently undertaken to determine, and therefore
`
`express no opinion as to, whether those references legally qualify as prior art to the
`
`’304 Patent. In addition to the documents filed with the Petition, I have also
`
`reviewed and considered the following documents:
`
`16. Ex. 2003 is a true and correct copy of an archived webpage I visited on
`
`June 21, 2018 that is entitled “Review GSM phone Nokia 6270.” As shown in the
`
`footer and header, this webpage was archived by the Wayback Machine at
`
`web.archive.org on February 5, 2006. See Ex. 1016 at ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`17. Ex. 2004 is a true and correct copy of an archived webpage I visited on
`
`June 21, 2018 that is entitled “Nokia E50 Hands-on Preview.” As shown in the
`
`footer and header, this webpage was archived by the Wayback Machine at
`
`web.archive.org on May 30, 2006. See Ex. 1016 at ¶ 5.
`
`18. Ex. 2005 is a true and correct copy of an archived Nokia webpage I
`
`visited on June 24, 2018 that lists the specifications of the Nokia 6630 camera phone.
`
`As shown in the footer and header, this webpage was archived by the Wayback
`
`Machine at web.archive.org on December 29, 2004. See Ex. 1016 at ¶ 5.
`
`19. Ex. 2006 is a true and correct copy of a webpage I visited on June 21,
`
`2018 that is entitled “Nokia 6630 (Nokia Charlie) Detailed Tech Specs” and
`
`indicates on page 3 that its contents were added on October 10, 2007. Internet
`
`reviews of products are commonly referred to and relied upon by persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as an easily-accessible reference for how the characteristics of
`
`consumer electronics such as cell phones are perceived by users.
`
`20. Ex. 2007 is a true and correct copy of a webpage I visited on June 23,
`
`2018 that is entitled “Nokia 6630 – smartphone – GSM / UMTS Series Specs.” This
`
`webpage was published by CNET, a well-known magazine that focuses on consumer
`
`electronics and is recognized in the art as a reputable publication. It is a source that
`
`is commonly referred to and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art as an
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`easily-accessible reference for characteristics of consumer electronics such as cell
`
`phones.
`
`21. Ex. 2008: Transcript of Deposition of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`
`II. The ’304 Patent
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (“the ’304 Patent”), entitled
`22.
`
`“Content Creation and Distribution System,” by Inventors Mark A. Harwell,
`
`Christopher W. Wyatt, and Ryland M. Reed, now assigned to VidStream, LLC,
`
`which was filed on July 18, 2011 and issued on June 11, 2013. The ’304 Patent is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/013,775, which was filed on
`
`January 25, 2011.
`
`23. Rather than provide an additional overview of the ’304 Patent, there is
`
`one particular feature worth addressing that is largely neglected in Dr. Houh’s
`
`declaration and the Petition. For example, claim 1 recites that “the instructions are
`
`provided to the client computing device by the server system and cause the video
`
`data to be captured in accordance with predetermined constraints and the
`
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate defined by the instructions.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 27:63-67 (Claim 1). Independent claims 17, 22, and 26 each recite
`
`variations of this feature.
`
`24. The specification describes several variations. For example:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`Implementations of the present disclosure are directed to systems and
`methods of creating and distributing crowd-sourced or other user-
`generated video content. Video content is captured on a user device
`and formatted according to predetermined constraints using a web
`application or an installed application. The video content, for example,
`can be requested for inclusion in a television program. By formatting
`the video content according to predetermined constraints, the video
`content can be transcoded into a format appropriate for inclusion in a
`linear
`television programming schedule using an automated
`transcoding workflow corresponding to the predetermined format to
`ensure that the transcoded video file complies with requirements of a
`particular television broadcaster or television uplink facility. The video
`can also be automatically transcoded into one or more additional
`formats appropriate for alternative distribution media (e.g., Internet
`distribution or inclusion in a movie production).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:10-26 (emphasis added). As another example:
`
`When the content creation sub-system is implemented as a thin client
`application or a specialized application installed on a user device, the
`application can enforce predetermined constraints on the captured
`video. Such constraints can help ensure that the video is in condition
`to be rapidly transcoded for insertion into a linear programming time
`slot. For example, the application can encode the video and
`accompanying audio data at a sufficient bit rate and resolution, among
`other things, to ensure that the video file can be transcoded to produce
`video of sufficient quality to be televised and/or to be distributed on the
`Internet (i.e., in accordance with minimum quality requirements of the
`television producer or other distributor).
`
`Id. at 10:56-11:1 (emphasis added).
`
`25. This approach was unique at the time the application leading to the ’304
`
`Patent was filed. The Examiner agreed, and specifically pointed to this feature in
`
`his explanation of the reasons for allowance:
`
`A search of the art has been performed and while it is known in the art
`to format uploaded video into a particular format or requiring a specific
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`frame rate for uploading, sending an instruction down to the client
`device which forces the uploading video to use a specific frame rate has
`not been found.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 62/329.
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed each of claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-17, 19-26, and 28-30 of
`
`the ’304 Patent that Petitioner is challenging in its petition.
`
`III. Understanding of Applicable Legal Principles
`I have been informed that a patent typically includes a number of
`27.
`
`figures and a “written description” of those figures, which together form the
`
`“specification” of the patent.
`
`28.
`
`I have also been informed that the claims of a U.S. Patent appear at the
`
`end of the document, following the specification, and that these claims set forth the
`
`boundaries of the invention. I have further been informed that the clauses that make
`
`up a claim are known as “claim elements” or “claim limitations.”
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that an issued patent results from a patent
`
`application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and that the process of
`
`filing a patent application through to obtaining an issued patent may also be known
`
`as “prosecution.” I understand that during the application process, the Patent Office
`
`reviews the application and may reject the claims over patents, published patent
`
`applications, technical papers, and other printed publications that together are known
`
`as “prior art.” I further understand that a patent applicant may respond to these
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`rejections by amending the claims or by making arguments as to why the prior art
`
`does not teach one or more claims of the patent. I further understand that if the
`
`Patent Office is persuaded that these amendments or arguments make the claimed
`
`invention novel and nonobvious over the cited prior art, the Patent Office will allow
`
`the application to issue as a patent.
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed that the paper record of the application,
`
`rejections by the Patent Office, arguments and amendments by the applicant, and
`
`other documents associated with the application are known as the “file history” or
`
`“prosecution history.”
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if it is obvious over the
`
`prior art, i.e., if a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have viewed the claimed invention as obvious. Obviousness may be shown by
`
`considering more than one item of prior art in combination with others or based on
`
`a single prior art reference in combination with the general state of the art. However,
`
`a claim is not rendered obvious merely because the various limitations of the claim
`
`can be found piecemeal in the prior art. Obviousness requires a conclusion that a
`
`person of skill at the time of the patent at issue would have had some reason to
`
`combine the piecemeal prior art in some way that would lead to the subject matter
`
`claimed in the patent. In evaluating whether such a reason exists, I understand that
`
`it can be useful to consider whether the evidence shows one or more of the following:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results
`
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the reason to select and combine features, the
`
`predictability of the results of doing so, and a reasonable expectation of success may
`
`be found in the teachings of the prior art references themselves, in the nature of any
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`need or problem in the field that was addressed by the patent, in the knowledge of
`
`persons having ordinary skill in the field at the time, as well as in common sense or
`
`the level of creativity exhibited by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I further
`
`understand that there need not be an express or explicit suggestion to combine
`
`references. In determining the differences between the invention covered by the
`
`patent claims and the prior art, I understand that the prior art references are not
`
`looked at in isolation. Rather, the claimed invention as a whole must be considered,
`
`and it must be determined whether or not it would have been obvious in light of all
`
`of the prior art.
`
`33. Additionally, it is my understanding that certain types of modifications
`
`to the prior art may be considered non-obvious modifications under the law. For
`
`example, a non-obvious modification may be one where the prior art teaches away
`
`from a particular combination of elements, or one where a proposed combination
`
`changes the basic operating principle of the prior art being modified.
`
`34. The obviousness of a patent is assessed from the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. Such a person is
`
`presumed to know all prior art within that field. The person of ordinary skill faced
`
`with a problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem
`
`and also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`IV. Pertinent Art and Level of Ordinary Skill
`I understand and have been instructed that some of the factors that guide
`35.
`
`the definition of a person of ordinary skill are (1) the education level of those
`
`working in the field, including the inventor, (2) the sophistication of the technology,
`
`(3) the types of problems encountered in the art, (4) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems, and (5) the speed at which innovations are made may help establish the
`
`level of skill in the art.
`
`36. Based on my experience and understanding of the patent, the relevant
`
`art for the ’304 Patent is the video recording and publishing across a communication
`
`network.
`
`37. Based on my experience, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have had a combination of technical education and experience that
`
`would have given such a person a first-hand understanding of the types of tools,
`
`particularly web-based tools, used in video recording and publishing across a
`
`communication network.
`
`38. The technology addressed in the ’304 Patent was moderately
`
`sophisticated and would have required some experience to fully appreciate and
`
`understand. The problem addressed and solved by the ’304 Patent is “ensur[ing]
`
`that video files are received in one or more preselected formats and in accordance
`
`with predetermined parameters, which can facilitate automated transcoding . . . into
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`one or more formats appropriate for selected types of distribution.” See ’304 Patent
`
`at 7:3-10.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion based on the analysis of the above factors, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’304 Patent would have had a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science and
`
`about two years of experience in the area of networked video, or equivalent
`
`experience and education.
`
`40.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of networked video would have possessed in May 2012,
`
`especially as to the design of Internet based delivery of video. Specifically, my
`
`experience in the industry while consulting with engineers practicing in the industry
`
`during the relevant timeframe has allowed me to become personally familiar with
`
`the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the area of networked
`
`video.
`
`41.
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Houh’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (Ex. 1003, ¶ 44) and note that his definition is very similar to mine.
`
`Regardless, applying his definition instead of mine would not change my opinions
`
`offered herein. At the time of the filing of the application for the ’304 Patent, in July
`
`2011, and at the time of the filing of the earlier application to which the ’304 Patent
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`claims priority, in January 2011, I was a person of more than ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`I understand and have been instructed that claim construction is a matter
`42.
`
`of law to be performed by the court. I further understand and have been instructed
`
`that claim terms should be construed as one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood them in light of the surrounding claim language, other claims, the
`
`specification, and its file history, which are generally referred to as intrinsic
`
`evidence. I also understand and have been instructed that cited references are
`
`considered intrinsic evidence. I also understand and have been instructed that
`
`extrinsic evidence, which is evidence outside of the file history, such as dictionaries
`
`and technical articles, may be relied upon to, for example, show how one skilled in
`
`the art would have understood the claim language at the time of the invention.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that the claims Twitter is challenging in this proceeding
`
`are claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-17, 19-26, and 28-30 (the “Challenged Claims”), of which
`
`claims 1, 17, 22, and 26 are independent.
`
`44.
`
`I have been informed that, in this proceeding, the claims are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification as they
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I have further
`
`been informed that, under the BRI standard, words of a claim are given their plain
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`meaning unless that would be inconsistent with the specification and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`45.
`
`I have also been informed that on May 9, 2018, the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and that the proposed
`
`rules would amend the rules for IPR proceedings by replacing the current broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation claim construction standard for interpreting unexpired
`
`patent claims to an approach that follows Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Phillips standard”).
`
`46.
`
`I have been informed that, under the Phillips standard, the words of a
`
`claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`application.
`
`47.
`
`I have further been informed that, under the Phillips standard, the
`
`ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading
`
`the entire patent. Thus, the Phillips standard requires that a claim term be read in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification, and that the specification
`
`is considered the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. In addition
`
`the specification, intrinsic evidence such as the prosecution history and extrinsic
`
`evidence such as dictionaries may be consulted.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`48.
`
`I have been informed that it is not reasonable to interpret individual
`
`words of a claim without considering the context in which those words appear. I
`
`have also been informed that it is the use of a particular claim term in the context of
`
`the written description and by those of skill in the art that correctly reflects both the
`
`“ordinary” and “customary” meaning of the term in the claims.
`
`A.
`49.
`
`“predetermined constraints” (claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 17, 19, 22, 26)
`
`I understand that Dr. Houh contends that “predetermined constraints”
`
`should be construed to mean “parameters, rules, or restrictions provided to ensure
`
`compliance and compatibility with system requirements or goals, including but not
`
`limited to video length, video format type, video image resolution, video
`
`transmission bit rate, etc.” Ex. 1003 at ¶50.
`
`50.
`
`I disagree that this term needs construction because a POSITA would
`
`have no difficulty understanding the meaning of the term in view of the intrinsic
`
`record, and Dr. Houh’s construction does not appear to inform any of his opinions.
`
`51. Additionally, I disagree with Dr. Houh’s construction to the extent it
`
`could be interpreted to mean that “predetermined constraints” must include all of the
`
`listed examples of constraints. Specifically, “predetermined constraints” does not
`
`require video length, video format type, video image resolution, and video
`
`transmission bit rate. To the contrary, the specific recitation in the claims of frame
`
`rate indicates that (1) “predetermined constraints” does not require any particular
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`types of constraints, and (2) video length, video format type, video image resolution,
`
`and video transmission bit rate are not required by the term itself.
`
`52. Dr. Houh does not seem to disagree on this second point, as the analysis
`
`in his declaration does not attempt to show the presence of all of the listed types of
`
`possible constraints. A more-appropriate version of Dr. Houh’s definition would
`
`therefore be: “parameters, rules, or restrictions provided to ensure compliance and
`
`compatibility with system requirements or goals, including examples of which may
`
`include but are not limited to video length, video format type, video image
`
`resolution, video transmission bit rate, etc.” While I do not necessarily agree with
`
`the remainder of Dr. Houh’s construction (e.g., it is not clear why Dr. Houh believes
`
`“predetermined constraints” are necessarily provided to ensure compliance with
`
`“system requirements or goals” or what “goals” is intended to mean), those
`
`disagreements would not meaningfully change the points analyzed below so I do not
`
`address those points in detail here.
`
`B. Other claim terms
`53. While I do not necessarily agree with the rest of Dr. Houh’s
`
`interpretations of claim terms (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 51-55), the points on which I disagree
`
`would not meaningfully change the points analyzed below so I do not address those
`
`points in detail here.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`VI. Lahti Does Not Disclose a Server Providing Instructions to a Client
`Computing Device to Cause Video Data to be Captured In Accordance
`With Predetermined Constraint(s) Defined By the Instructions
`
`54. Rather than providing another overview of Lahti, there is one particular
`
`mistake in Dr. Houh’s interpretation that is critical to all grounds raised in the
`
`petition and Dr. Houh’s testimony in support thereof. In particular, Each of Dr.
`
`Houh’s opinions on (and the grounds raised in the Petition for IPR of) the ’304 Patent
`
`depend on Dr. Houh’s conclusion that “Lahti teaches that the MobiCon app provides
`
`parameters by which the mobile device on which the application is executing
`
`captures video data, and those parameters expressly include a frame rate.” Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶ 97 (addressing claim element 1[c]), ¶ 134 (addressing claim 8), ¶ 175
`
`(addressing claim element 26[c]), ¶ 389 (addressing claim element 17[b]), ¶ 458
`
`(addressing claim element 22[c]). However, Dr. Houh’s assertion is mistaken and
`
`ultimately incorrect.
`
`55. Lahti does not disclose or even reasonably suggest that Lahti’s
`
`MobiCon application governs or impacts in any way the parameters by which the
`
`mobile device captures video data. More particularly, Lahti does not disclose or
`
`reasonably suggest that the MobiCon application governs or impacts in any way the
`
`frame rate by which the mobile device captures video data.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`56. Dr. Houh cites only one passage of Lahti to support his conclusion that
`
`“Lahti teaches that the MobiCon app provides parameters by which the mobile
`
`device on which the application is executing captures video data, and those
`
`parameters expressly include a frame rate:”
`
`Then, MobiCon’s main screen is displayed (Screenshot 3), where the
`user can choose to view and edit personal information, to load video
`clips, or to capture a new clip (Screenshot 4). A new video clip is
`captured in Capture Screen using Mobile Media API and it is recorded
`according to 3GPP specification using AMR coding for audio and
`H.263 at 176x144 pixels size at 15 frames per second for video. After
`a video is captured or loaded (Screenshot 5), the user is presented the
`Edit Screen (Screenshot 6) that ends the user authentication and video
`capturing scene.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 97 (quoting Ex. 1006 at 6), ¶ 134 (same), ¶ 175 (same), ¶ 389 (same),
`
`¶ 458 (same).
`
`57. There are several problems with Dr. Houh’s reliance on this passage.
`
`A. Lahti does not say MobiCon impacts video-capture parameters
`58. First, the passage on which Dr. Houh relies does not actually say what
`
`Dr. Houh interprets it to mean, namely that the MobiCon app governs the recited
`
`video parameters. The fact that this passage does not state that the MobiCon app
`
`impacts those video parameters is important because all digital video data captured
`
`by camera phones (or by standalone digital cameras for that matter) inherently has a
`
`format (e.g., H.263), a resolution (e.g., 176x144), and a frame rate (e.g., 15 frames
`
`per second). Additionally, it was not uncommon for camera phones in 2006 to
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 47
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`natively capture video data in accordance with the 3GPP (Third Generation
`
`Partnership Project) specification, which governs the capture and transmission of
`
`media on mobile networks. For example, .3gp is a multimedia file container format
`
`that was developed by the 3GPP and is consistent with the 3GPP specification. For
`
`this reason, Lahti’s listing of the 3GPP specification, H.263 coding, a 176x144 pixel
`
`resolution, and 15 frames per second is equally consistent with natively capturing
`
`video.
`
`59. Furthermore, Lahti does not distinguish between videos captured
`
`through the Mobile Media API or videos captured using the native video capture
`
`capabilities. Figure 4 shows that the video to be processed, can be either captured,
`
`or loaded. “Then, MobiC