UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VIDSTREAM, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`______________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES OLIVIER
`
`
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VidStream LLC
`IPR2017-01133
`VidStream LLC | Ex. 2002
`Page 1 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`
`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. 8,601,506 (the “’506 Patent”).
`
`I am compensated on an hourly basis 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, 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 advanced network / product
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`participating in bi-monthly standards body development, which included standards
`
`for networked 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 also 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 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)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 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,601,506 (“the ’506 Patent”) as well as on the meaning that the claim terms of the
`
`’506 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 ’506 Patent and its file history. I have also
`
`reviewed the materials cited herein. 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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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
`
`easily-accessible reference for characteristics of consumer electronics such as cell
`
`phones.
`
`21. Ex. 2008: Transcript of Deposition of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`
`The ’506 Patent
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed the ’506 Patent, entitled “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 August 10,
`
`2012 and issued on December 3, 2013. The ’506 Patent claims priority to, and is a
`
`continuation of, application No. 13/185,471, now U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304, filed
`
`on July 18, 2011. The ’506 Patent also claims priority to, and is a continuation -in-
`
`part of application No. 13/013,775, filed on January 25, 2011, now abandoned. I
`
`have also reviewed the ’506 Patent’s file history. I have also reviewed the materials
`
`cited herein.
`
`23. Rather than provide an additional overview of the ’506 Patent, there is
`
`one particular feature worth emphasizing 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 video length defined by the instructions.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 28:2-7 (Claim 1). Independent claims 23 and 26 each recite variations of this
`
`feature.
`
`24. The specification describes several variations. For example:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 9:15-31 (emphases 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 10:61-11:6 (emphasis added).
`
`The client application (i.e., either thin client application or installed
`application) can also enforce restrictions on the length of a video that
`is captured for submission. For example, if a video is generated in
`response to a specific request for video or other content submissions,
`users may be directed to a particular web page associated with the
`request. By accessing the thin client through that web page and/or by
`delivering parameters to a locally installed application on the user
`device, a video length restriction can be enforced (i.e., the user can be
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`prevented from capturing or submitting videos that do not comply with
`the length restrictions). In some implementations, the content creation
`sub-system can allow recordings of various durations suitable for
`including in time slots of linear programming (e.g., 15 seconds, 30
`seconds, etc.).
`
`Id. at 11:25-39 (emphases added).
`
`25. This approach was unique at the time the application leading to the ’506
`
`Patent was filed. The Examiner agreed, and identified this feature in his explanation
`
`of the reasons for allowance:
`
` Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30-33 and 35-41
`are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method,
`device or system for a server sending instructions to a client causing
`video data to be captured by the client in accordance with
`predetermined constraints included in the instructions including a
`predefined length of the captured video in accordance with a time slot
`in a linear television programming broadcast; the server transcoding the
`video data into a format appropriate for inclusion in the linear television
`programming broadcast; and transferring the transcoded video data to
`a distribution server for distribution, as recited in the claims.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 22-23/273 (emphases added).
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed each of the claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, and 29-30
`
`of the ’506 Patent that Petitioner is challenging in its petition.
`
` Understanding of Applicable Legal Principles
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a patent typically includes a number of
`
`figures and a “written description” of those figures, which together form the
`
`“specification” of the patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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:
`
`• 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`• “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
`
`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,
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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.
`
` Pertinent Art and Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`35.
`
`I understand and have been instructed that some of the factors that guide
`
`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.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`36. Based on my experience and understanding of the patent, the relevant
`
`art for the ’506 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 ’506 Patent was moderately
`
`sophisticated and would have required some experience to fully appreciate and
`
`understand. The problem addressed and solved by the ’506 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
`
`one or more formats appropriate for selected types of distribution.” See Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:8-14.
`
`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 ’506 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.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 January 2011,
`
`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 Twitter’s expert Henry H. Houh’s definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 38-42) and note that his definition is
`
`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 priority
`
`application for the ’506 Patent, in January 2011, I was a person of more than ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
` Claim Construction
`
`42.
`
`I understand and have been instructed that claim construction is a matter
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, and 29-30 (the “Challenged Claims”), of which claims
`
`1, 23, 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`patent claims to an approach that follows Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Phillips standard”). 1
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`1 The current proposed rules are described in USPTO Docket No. PTO-P-2018-
`0036.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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, 6, 7, 13, 23, 26)
`
`I understand that Dr. Houh contends that “predetermined constraints”
`
`should be construed to mean “parameters, rules, or restrictions that ensure
`
`compliance or compatibility with system requirements or goals, including but not
`
`limited to video length, video format type, video image resolution, video frame rate,
`
`or video transmission bit rate, etc.” Ex. 1003 at ¶46.
`
`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 video
`
`length indicates that (1) “predetermined constraints” does not require any particular
`
`types of constraints, and (2) video length, video format type, video image resolution,
`
`frame rate, and video transmission bit rate are not required by the term itself.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 that 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 frame rate, or 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 ¶¶ 47-53), the points on which I disagree
`
`would not meaningfully change the points analyzed below so I do not address those
`
`points in detail here.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
` The cited art does not disclose video data captured “in accordance with
`predetermined constraints” that “include a video length defined by the
`instructions” received from a server (claims 1, 23, and 26)
`
`54. All independent claims of the ’506 Patent include capturing video data
`
`in accordance with predetermined constraints defined at a server, including a video
`
`length. Specifically, Claim 1 includes the element: “wherein 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 video length defined by the instructions.”
`
`Claim 23 similarly claims “wherein the user interface is provided in accordance
`
`with instructions received from a server system and the instructions cause the
`
`content to be captured in accordance with predetermined constraints that
`
`include a video length defined by the instructions.” Also, independent claim 26
`
`claims “one or more servers operable to . . . provide instructions for use by the
`
`user devices for capturing video data in accordance with predetermined
`
`constraints, wherein the predetermined constraints include a video length
`
`defined by the instructions.” None of the art identified by Dr. Houh individually
`
`or in combination discloses capturing video according to predetermined
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 75
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`constraints that include a video length. As explained more fully below, my
`
`opinions are as follows:
`
`(a) Lahti does not disclose capturing video to predetermined constraints;
`
`(b) Lahti teaches away from recording according to a predetermined
`constraint of video length;
`
`(c) Dr. Houh incorrectly applies the teachings of Conway to Lahti;
`
`(d) Dr. Houh has provided insufficient basis for combining Lahti and
`Conway;
`
`(e) Conway does not teach capturing video according to a predetermined
`constraint of video length;
`
`teach capturing video according
`(f) Current TV does not
`predetermined constraint of video length; and
`
`to a
`
`(g) Novak teaches away from recording according to a predetermined
`constraint of video length.
`
`A. 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
`
`55. 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 suppo