`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01133
`Patent 8,601,506
`
`_________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration on behalf of Petitioner Twitter,
`
`Inc. in connection with these proceedings. (Exhibit 1003.) Since submitting Ex.
`
`1003, I have reviewed Patent Owner’s Response (“Response”), and accompanying
`
`exhibits, including the Declaration of James Olivier (“Olivier Declaration”, Ex.
`
`2002). I have also reviewed Ex. Nos. 2003-2007, submitted with Dr. Olivier’s
`
`declaration. I have also reviewed Dr. Olivier’s deposition transcript, which I
`
`understand is being filed and referenced in these proceedings as Ex. 1051. I
`
`provide this supplemental declaration to address some technical inaccuracies and
`
`mischaracterizations set forth in the Response and Dr. Olivier’s testimony in both
`
`IPR2017-1131 and IPR2017-1133.
`
`2.
`
`In connection with preparing this supplemental declaration, and in
`
`addition to the materials identified in Ex. 1003 and above in ¶ 1, I have reviewed
`
`the following materials bearing Exhibit Nos. that I understand are being filed and
`
`referenced in the proceedings to which this supplemental declaration accompanies.
`
` Ex. 1033 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from
`
`www.fonearena.com describing characteristics of the Nokia E50 mobile
`
`phone. As shown in the footer, this webpage was archived by the
`
`Wayback Machine at web.archive.org on October 21, 2006.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1036 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from phys.org titled
`
`“Samsung Starts Selling World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone”
`
`dated October 10, 2006.
`
` Ex. 1037 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from
`
`www.letsgodigital.org titled “Samsung SCH-V770 7 Megapixel digital
`
`camera phone” dated March 10, 2008.
`
` Ex. 1043 is a true and correct copy of a web page from
`
`www.symbian.com identifying SDKs. As shown in the footer, this
`
`webpage was archived by the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org on
`
`February 9, 2006.
`
` Ex. 1044 is a true and correct copy of a web page from
`
`www.symbian.com identifying Symbian phones. As shown in the footer,
`
`this webpage was archived by the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org
`
`on December 20, 2006.
`
` Ex. 1045 is a true and correct copy of a web page from www.wired.com
`
`titled “By Open Sourcing Symbian, Nokia Kicks Off The Mobile Age”
`
`dated June 24, 2008. Wired is a reputable source for information on
`
`technology and electronic devices, and which is commonly referred to
`
`and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1047 is a webpage from www.symbian.com titled “Class CCamera”.
`
`As shown in the footer, this webpage was archived by the Wayback
`
`Machine at web.archive.org on February 8, 2008.
`
` Ex. 1048 is a webpage from www.symbian.com titled “Class CCamera”.
`
`As shown in the footer, this webpage was archived by the Wayback
`
`Machine at web.archive.org on September 17, 2006.
`
` Ex. 1049 is an article from www.samsung.com titled “SAMSUNG
`
`Launches the World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone” and dated
`
`October 10, 2006. This webpage was published by Samsung, a well-
`
`known mobile phone manufacturer and is recognized in the art as a
`
`reputable source of publicly information regarding the products that it
`
`manufactures and sells. 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 Samsung products, including mobile
`
`phones.
`
` Ex. 1050 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from
`
`www.photographyblog.com titled “Samsung SCH-B600 10 Megapixel
`
`Camera Phone” and dated October 10, 2006. As shown in the footer, this
`
`webpage was archived by the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org on
`
`April 5, 2009.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Olivier defined a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) as having “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.” (Ex. 2002, ¶ 39). Dr.
`
`Olivier then goes on to define timeframe for the relevant knowledge of a POSITA
`
`as January 2011. (Id., ¶¶ 40, 41). Below, I respond to certain aspects of Dr.
`
`Olivier’s POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`Although Dr. Olivier and I agree about the general education level a
`
`POSITA would have, we disagree on the specific areas of knowledge of a
`
`POSITA. As I explained in my initial declaration, a POSITA would have
`
`“approximately two years of experience in network architecture and multimedia
`
`systems, including creating and distributing multimedia.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 44). Dr.
`
`Olivier states that a POSITA “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.” (Ex 2002, ¶39). While these appear to be similar, I disagree with Dr.
`
`Olivier’s opinions regarding the knowledge of a POSITA at the relevant
`
`timeframe.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`For example, in the early 2000s, mobile devices, including phones and
`
`other video recording devices, such as camcorders, had become commonplace. A
`
`POSITA would have had knowledge of such devices, including the software tools
`
`that were associated with the devices. In the relevant timeframe, a POSITA would
`
`have known that such devices operated through operating system technology. Such
`
`devices were designed such that application developers could create applications to
`
`take advantage of modern day technical capabilities. Tools that developers had
`
`access to included operating system application programming interfaces (“APIs”)
`
`and software development kits (“SDKs”). A POSITA would have had knowledge
`
`of these tools for a wide variety of devices and operating systems.
`
`6.
`
`This is consistent with the teachings of the ’506 and ’304 patents
`
`(“challenged patents”), which are directed, inter alia, to systems and methods for
`
`capturing videos on a client computing device, which includes mobile phones with
`
`a mobile application (see ’506 patent Fig. 1 item 122, Fig. 18, 10:17-19, 12:24-30,
`
`12:43-50, 13:1-10, 14:50-53, 14:59-63, 23:65-24:20, 25:3-10; ’304 patent Fig. 1
`
`item 122, Fig. 18, 10:11-14, 12:19-25, 12:38-45, 12:63-13:5, 14:43-46, 14:53-56,
`
`23:58-24:12, 24:62-25:2), and uploading the video to a server where it is
`
`transcoded for distribution and transferred to a distribution server. Furthermore the
`
`challenged patent discloses that “[r]egardless of device or operating system, users
`
`from virtually any commercially viable system are able to recode and upload video
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`that can be transcoded into broadcast quality video files and/or into video files
`
`appropriate for Internet distribution.” (’506 patent at 18:30-34; see also ’304 patent
`
`at 18:22-26). The patent further discloses that “native capabilities of the user
`
`computing device 120 can be accessed to receive captured video and audio data
`
`through an API on the computing device 120.” (’506 patent at 12:30-32; ’304
`
`patent at 12:25-27).
`
`7.
`
`Throughout the 2000’s I was personally familiar with various phone
`
`manufactures including Nokia, Samsung, and Apple. I also was familiar with the
`
`various major operating systems for smart phones throughout the mid-to-late
`
`2000’s, including Android, Windows Mobile, iPhone OS/iOS, and Symbian.
`
`Symbian had a dominant share of the smartphone operating system market in the
`
`early to mid-2000’s and maintained a large share through 2010 and 2011.1 In the
`
`context of the patents and claims at issue here, a POSITA would have been
`
`familiar with the pertinent technology and application development tools from the
`
`pre-January 2011 timeframe, including mobile operating systems, APIs, and SDKs.
`
`Dr. Olivier agrees that a POSITA would have knowledge of tools which include
`
`APIs including “a package that sits on top of the operating system.” Ex 1051,
`
`
`1 See, for example, https://www.statista.com/statistics/219966/global-
`smartphone-market-shareforecast-of-symbian-and-microsoft/ and
`https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/symbian-captures-88-market-share/ and
`http://www.metrics2.com/blog/2007/03/26/nokia_leads_smarphone_market_with_
`56_share_symbian.html; see also Exhibit 1045.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`34:9-10, see also Ex. 2002, ¶37 and Ex. 1051, 32:7-34:18, 37:17-38:18. Dr.
`
`Olivier further acknowledges that the Mobile Media API referenced in Lahti (Ex.
`
`1006, p. 6) was a “Java-based API that’s provided in some products in this era.”
`
`Ex. 1051, 68:21-23 see also 68:5-69:4. A POSITA wound understand that tthe
`
`Mobile Media API would indeed be a package that sits on top of the operating
`
`system.
`
`8.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Olivier’s opinion that a POSITA would lack
`
`detailed knowledge of the Symbian operating system. (Ex. 1051, 115:9-18). Dr.
`
`Olivier admits that Nokia devices he relied on use the Symbian operating system.
`
`(Ex. 1051, 119:16-121:25). It is nonsensical to suggest that a POSITA would not
`
`know about Symbian or be unable to find detailed information about Symbian
`
`APIs and SDKs.
`
`9.
`
`Second, although I agree that the relevant timeframe is January 2011,
`
`Dr. Oliver appears to have ignored the years following the publication of the Lahti
`
`paper. His declaration discusses certain Nokia devices from the 2004-2006, but
`
`says nothing about pertinent technical advancements between 2006 and 2011, or
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2011 would understand Lahti. This is
`
`significant because capabilities of camera phones evolved during this period. For
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`example, the Apple iPhone 4 became available on June 24, 20102, and was capable
`
`of recording HD 720p (1280x720) video at up to 30 frames per second3. The
`
`Nokia N8, based on the Symbian operating system, began shipping by October 1,
`
`20104, and was also capable of recording HD 720p video5. The data generation
`
`rate of video at full HD 720p resolution and frame rate is roughly 100 times the
`
`data generation rate of video at 176x144 resolution and 15 frames per second,
`
`representing orders-of-magnitude improvements to video capture data recording in
`
`the time from 2006 to 2011.
`
`10. These facts further support how I, and any other POSITA, would have
`
`understand Lahti at the time of the alleged invention in 2011. However, as
`
`discussed below, even when understood solely on the basis of technology as it
`
`existed in 2006, Dr. Olivier’s opinion is wrong and takes a much too narrow view
`
`of Lahti’s teachings.
`
`11. Dr. Olivier appears to have allowed the supposed capabilities of three
`
`Nokia mobile phones from the 2004-2006 timeframe to have influenced his
`
`
`2 See https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2010/06/07Apple-Presents-iPhone-
`
`4/
`
`3 See https://support.apple.com/kb/sp587?locale=en_US
`4 See https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=124210 and
`https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/29/nokia-n8-starts-shipping-worldwide/
`5 See https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-nokia-n8-uncompromising-
`specifications-and-functions-in-the-smartphone-world/
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`opinions. However, a POSITA in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011 would
`
`not have reached the same conclusion as Dr. Olivier.
`
`12.
`
`In fact, the exhibits allegedly describing the three Nokia devices on
`
`which Dr. Olivier rely, do not stand for the proposition that he says. For example,
`
`it is clear that the Nokia 6630 was capable of recording video using at least two
`
`different resolutions. Regarding the E50, I have reviewed additional documentation
`
`(Ex. 1033) describing the E50 beyond what Dr. Olivier reviewed that indicates that
`
`the E50 could also record video using at least two different resolutions, which
`
`undermines Dr. Olivier’s suggestion at ¶ 69 that it was only capable of recording at
`
`one resolution. This is significant because Dr. Olivier uses the capabilities of just
`
`three phones to conclude that Lahti does not teach that the MobiCon application
`
`sets the frame rate or frame size since all cameras recorded at a default setting that
`
`matches the resolution specifically listed in the Lahti reference. Dr. Olivier states
`
`that cameras defaulted to specific resolutions for recording, but bases his reasoning
`
`on a few references which simply list the available frame sizes and frame rates of a
`
`few phones, and does not rely to any documents that inform a POSITA how to
`
`capture video in any mobile phone operating system, or otherwise how a POSITA
`
`would understand the teachings of Lahti. See (Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 73-76).
`
`13.
`
`In addition, Dr. Olivier completely ignored the functionality mobile
`
`phone vendors provided via Software Developer Kits and Application
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Programming Interfaces made available through the operating system for the
`
`mobile device.
`
`14. For example, many mobile phones, including Nokia mobile phones,
`
`and the Nokia 6630 mentioned in Lahti in particular, operated on the Symbian
`
`Operating System. The Symbian Operating System provided application
`
`developers with significant functionality. As it pertains to this case and Dr.
`
`Olivier’s opinions, I discuss some here. Operating system APIs typically allow an
`
`application developer to access the capabilities, features and functions of the
`
`underlying hardware. The Symbian OS APIs are no different. I have reviewed the
`
`APIs for accessing the video recording functions in versions 7.0, 8.1 and 9.1 of the
`
`Symbian OS, as well as descriptions of the video recording API for version 9.1
`
`from publicly available books (such as Multimedia on Symbian OS Inside The
`
`Convergence Device, dated 2008) that would have been available to a POSITA
`
`prior to 2011. All of these versions of the Symbian OS had been released by 2006.6
`
`In order for a developer to create an application which records video, the developer
`
`uses the EnumerateVideoFrameRates() and EnumerateVideoFrameSizes() API
`
`functions to read the capabilities of the underlying camera. Prior to starting to
`
`
`6 See Ex. 1043.
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`record video, the developer must use the PrepareVideoCaptureL() API function7 to
`
`specify both a frame size and a frame rate at which to record. There are no default
`
`values for the frame rate or the frame size. After the video camera is prepared in
`
`such a fashion, the video capture can be started using the StartVideoCapture() API
`
`function.8
`
`15.
`
`In addition, whether in 2006 or 2011, Dr. Olivier ignored dozens if
`
`not hundreds of different mobile phone models. A quick internet search of one of
`
`the most popular mobile phone manufacturers, Samsung, indicates that by 2006 it
`
`was selling at least two mobile phones that could record video at 15-30 frames per
`
`second. (See, e.g., Ex. 1036, Ex. 1037, Ex. 1049, Ex. 1050) (describing the
`
`Samsung SCH-V770 and the Samsung SCH-B600 as each recording video at 15-
`
`30 frames per second). This is significant because Lahti, in the section titled
`
`“Implementation objectives,” teaches utilizing SDKs provided by the camera
`
`phone vendor to implement video recording. (Ex. 1006, p. 10). “Video recording,
`
`the first function, is relatively straightforward to implement with vendor provided
`
`
`7 See, Ex. 1047; Ex. 1048;
`http://web.archive.org/web/20060517210803/http://www.symbian.com:80/develop
`er/techlib/v9.1docs/doc_source/guide/Multimedia-subsystem-
`guide/N100DE/HowToUse.guide.html#OnboardCameraGuide%2eHowToUse;
`8
`http://web.archive.org/web/20050411000225/http://www.symbian.com:80/develop
`er/techlib/v70sdocs/doc_source/reference/cpp/OnboardCameraRef/CCameraClass.
`html
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`SDKs.” (emphasis in original). A POSITA would understand Lahti to be teaching
`
`that the system be implemented on a multitude of vendor phones, which even in
`
`the 2006 timeframe comprised phones with a variety of frame resolutions and bit
`
`rates.
`
`16. Dr. Olivier reasons that a POSITA would want to minimize the
`
`variables in the code of the MobiCon application that depended on the model of
`
`the camera phone on which the MobiCon application was installed. (See Ex. 2002,
`
`¶72). Dr. Olivier continues that “[a]ttempting to govern or not govern the video-
`
`capture parameters on an ad-hoc basis depending on the model of camera phone
`
`would have required additional complexity and entire code modules not only to
`
`govern the video capture parameters, but also additional code modules to govern
`
`whether or not the video-capture-parameter code modules would be activated
`
`depending on the model of camera phone” Id. and that “attempting to control those
`
`video capture parameters with the MobiCon application – even if possible – would
`
`have unnecessarily complicated the code needed to implement the MobiCon
`
`application.” (Id., ¶76). Dr. Olivier’s incorrect contrived musings are contrary to
`
`the understandings of a POSITA. For example, Dr. Olivier’s statements are
`
`contrary to what the Symbian operating system allowed at the time specifying
`
`frame rates, frame sizes, etc., which would have been easily implemented by a
`
`POSITA independently of any specific camera model without any of the complex
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`code modules Dr. Olivier claims is necessary. The APIs provided by Symbian, for
`
`example, obviate the need for applications to have complex code modules that are
`
`dependent on specific phone models. The Symbian OS APIs discussed above for
`
`preparing and starting video capture do not require the application developer to
`
`have any knowledge of a specific phone model in order to perform video capture.
`
`Indeed, one of the main points of an operating system and the APIs that the OS
`
`provides is to abstract away the lower level hardware details so that application
`
`developers do not have to have any knowledge of how a specific task is performed
`
`on a wide range of disparate hardware platforms.
`
`17.
`
`In addition, Dr. Olivier mischaracterizes the teachings of the
`
`expressed disclosure of Lahti. His conclusion that Lahti does not teach that
`
`MobiCon controls video capture is an unreasonable conclusion. In describing
`
`MobiCon, Lahti explicitly states that MobiCon’s “UIManager is a controller
`
`component,” and further that it “coordinates the video capture using the mobile
`
`phone’s camera …” (Ex. 1006, p. 5). Lahti goes on to explain that when capturing
`
`new video, “MobiCon’s main screen is displayed” and 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.” (Id., p. 6). This is all handled by
`
`MobiCon’s UIManager which is a “controller component.” Thus, Lahti teaches a
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA that MobiCon is using server-provided constraints to control the video
`
`capture process.
`
`18. Lahti emphasizes that enabling MobiCon to control the video
`
`recording capabilities of a mobile phone, and to foster the goals of the application
`
`to minimize network traffic, conserve battery power and minimize use of the CPU
`
`and memory presents difficulties because of the varying characteristics of mobile
`
`phones features and operating systems:
`
`Moreover, application developers must pay attention to
`
`the way resources are used: network traffic should be
`
`minimized, battery power should be conserved when
`
`possible, and CPU and memory ought to be utilized with
`
`frugality. These restrictions come on top of the classic
`
`mobile phone application development nightmares (device
`
`incompatibilities,
`
`network
`
`application
`
`debugging,
`
`immature SDKs, and different operating system versions
`
`with undocumented bugs) making the development of an
`
`application like MobiCon challenging.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 3) (emphasis added).
`
`19. The Response notes this passage and construes it to mean that
`
`MobiCon’s developers simply chose not to engage in these challenges at all
`
`insofar as the application relates to the capture of videos. Dr. Olivier states that “A
`
`POSITA at that time would have wanted to minimize the variables in the code of
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`the MobiCon application that depended on the model of camera phone on which
`
`the MobiCon application was installed.” (Ex. 2002, ¶72). Dr. Oliver states that
`
`“[a]ttempting to govern or not govern the video-capture parameters on an ad-hoc
`
`basis depending on the model of camera phone would have required additional
`
`complexity and entire code modules not only to govern the video capture
`
`parameters, but also additional code modules to govern whether or not the video-
`
`capture-parameter code modules would be activated depending on the model of
`
`camera phone. Thus, that a POSITA would have understood that some camera
`
`phones did not permit adjustment of video capture parameters also strongly
`
`counsels against Dr. Houh’s interpretation of Lahti’s discussion of the parameters
`
`at which video was captured.” Id. That interpretation is nonsensical.
`
`20. Phone operating systems provide APIs which allow application
`
`developers to write applications in which the specific model of phone and specific
`
`underlying hardware do not matter. I explained above about the APIs in the
`
`Symbian OS which allow an application developer to query the frame size and
`
`frame rate capabilities of the underlying hardware. This process allows the
`
`application to simply read the video recording capabilities while hiding any
`
`specific phone model from the application itself, and relieves the application of the
`
`complexity of managing video capture on a per-phone model basis. The ’304 and
`
`’506 patents themselves also discuss using the computing device’s APIs in order to
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`receive captured video using the device’s native recording capabilities: “The native
`
`recording capabilities of the user computing device 120 can be accessed to receive
`
`captured video and audio data through an API on the computing device 120.”
`
`(’506 patent at 12:30-32, see also 12:63-67; ’304 patent at 12:25-27, 12:58-63).
`
`The challenged patent discloses that the computing device 120 “can include any
`
`type of computing device such as desktop computer, a laptop computer, a handheld
`
`computer, a tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a
`
`network appliance, a camera, a smart phone, an enhanced general packet radio
`
`service (EGPRS) mobile phone, or a combination of any two or more of these data
`
`processing devices or other data processing devices.” (’506 patent at 12:3-10; ’304
`
`patent at 11:65-12:5). Other than mentioning video capture through the use of
`
`APIs, the patent specification is silent on any complexity with respect to how to
`
`manage such a capture not just on mobile phones (and all the different models
`
`thereof) but also on computers, tablets, other platforms and combinations thereof.
`
`Video Length [IPR2017-01133, Only ’506 patent]
`
`21.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Olivier’s opinion that Lahti teaches away from
`
`limiting video length. (Ex. 2002, ¶¶79-95.). Dr. Olivier reasons that “[b]ecause
`
`Lahti addresses ‘home video clips’ that one would not want to artificially limit in
`
`time, and because Lahti has already addressed the technical issues that Dr. Houh
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`contends warrant such an artificial limit, my opinion is that Lahti teaches away
`
`from limiting the duration of captured videos.” (Ex. 2002, ¶94).
`
`22.
`
`In support of his opinion, Dr. Olivier gives an example that “[i]n the
`
`home video context contemplated by Lahti, it would make little sense to capture
`
`video in predetermined lengths. For example, one would not want to hit the
`
`predetermined video length constraint just prior to their child blowing out the
`
`candles on a cake.” (Ex. 2002, ¶82).
`
`23. First, Candela and MobiCon are not limited to the home video domain
`
`upon which Dr. Olivier relies: “The Candela system was originally developed for
`
`the personal home video domain but, due to its modular and tiered architecture, it
`
`can be used as a basis for different video management applications by using some
`
`of the generic components and adding domain-specific ones.” (Ex. 1006, p. 4).
`
`24.
`
`In addition, with respect to Dr. Olivier’s statements with respect to the
`
`Candela server architecture of Lahti (Ex. 2002, ¶¶84-86, 90), limited storage is a
`
`problem with any real-world system as all of them have limitations on storage
`
`space; simply providing a server to which a user uploads videos does not solve all
`
`storage problems nor does it teach away from providing limits to video length. It
`
`was well known that video storage and management services that were available in
`
`the 2006-2010 time frame had limits on the lengths of videos. Video storage and
`
`management service operators may want to impose limits on video file sizes for
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`many reasons, including to limit the overall storage used per user, or to offer
`
`various tiered levels of service in which those who pay more are allowed to upload
`
`longer videos. Video sharing sites such as YouTube have such limits as well as
`
`partner and premium offerings in which limits on video length are relaxed.9 By
`
`2009 Flickr, a well-known photo and video upload site, allowed users to upload
`
`videos limited to 90 seconds in length, with free users subject to a limit of two
`
`videos per month, and paid users with no such restriction.10 Any such real-world
`
`limits necessitate possibly aborting a video recording at a time that a user does not
`
`desire, and it was already well known at the time to limit the duration of video
`
`uploads.
`
`25. Furthermore, Dr. Olivier also reasons that “my opinion is that Lahti
`
`teaches away from limiting the duration of captured videos.” (Ex. 2002, ¶94). Dr.
`
`Olivier also states that “Lahti…never describes a limit on the length on videos
`
`recorded using the described MobiCon software, nor does it provide any rationale
`
`for limiting video length.” (Ex. 2002, ¶81). The lack of any such statements in
`
`Lahti is not “teaching away.” Lahti does not teach away from launching rockets to
`
`
`9 See, for example, https://youtube.googleblog.com/2010/07/upload-limit-
`increases-to-15-minutes.html
`10 See, for example,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100419/https://www.flickr.com/help/limits/
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`the moon, or not launching rockets to the moon, simply because it does not
`
`mention anything about rockets.
`
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein
`
`of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and
`
`belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Dated:
`
`'8 / g} / K
`
`k ll Jh~~
`
`Signature
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`RED
`
`Page 20
`
`