Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`
`DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, PH.D.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`A. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 1
`B. Materials Considered ............................................................................ 5
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 6
`II.
`III. BASIS FOR MY OPINION AND STATEMENT OF LEGAL
`PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................. 8
`A.
`Claim Construction............................................................................... 8
`B.
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 9
`C.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 9
`1. Motivation to Combine ............................................................12
`IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .......................................14
`A.
`The Internet and TCP/IP Protocol Suite .............................................14
`B.
`Voice over IP (VoIP) ..........................................................................15
`C.
`Instant messaging (IM) .......................................................................19
`1.
`IETF in RFC 2778 – “A Model for Presence and Instant
`Messaging”...............................................................................22
`IETF RFC 2779 “Instant Messaging / Presence Protocol
`Requirements”..........................................................................23
`Prior Art Instant Messaging (“IM”) Systems ..........................24
`3.
`THE ’723 PATENT......................................................................................27
`A.
`The Specification ................................................................................27
`B.
`The Claims of the ’723 Patent............................................................29
`C.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................29
`1.
`“signal”.....................................................................................29
`
`VI. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS ........................32
`A.
`Brief Description and Summary of the Prior Art ...............................32
`1.
`Brief Summary of Zydney [Ex. 1003] .....................................32
`
`2.
`Brief Summary of Appelman [Ex. 1004]................................. 39
`
`
`2.
`
`V.
`
`- i -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`Zydney in view of Appelman Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2,
`and 3 ................................................................................................... 44
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................44
`
`(a)
`Preamble of claim 1: “A method for instant voice
`messaging over a packet-switched network, the
`method comprising:” .....................................................45
`“monitoring a connectivity status of nodes within
`the packet-switched network, said connectivity
`status being available and unavailable;” (Claim
`1[a]) ................................................................................49
`“recording the connectivity status for each of the
`nodes;” (Claim 1[b])......................................................54
`“associating a sub-set of the nodes with a client;”
`(Claim 1[c]) ...................................................................54
`“transmitting a signal to a client including a list of
`the recorded connectivity status for each of the
`nodes in the sub-set corresponding to the client;”
`(Claim 1[d]) ...................................................................56
`“receiving an instant voice message having one or
`more recipients” (Claim 1[e])........................................71
`“delivering the instant voice message to the one or
`more recipients over a packet-switched network;”
`(Claim 1[f]) ....................................................................74
`“temporarily storing the instant voice message if a
`recipient is unavailable; and” (Claim 1[g]) ...................76
`“delivering the stored instant voice message to the
`recipient once the recipient becomes available.”
`(Claim 1[h]) ...................................................................80
`Dependent Claim 2...................................................................83
`
`2.
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 3
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Preamble of claim 2: “The method for instant
`voice messaging over a packet-switch network
`according to claim 1,”....................................................83
`“wherein the instant voice message includes one or
`more files attached to an audio file.” (Claim 2[a])........83
`Dependent Claim 3...................................................................87
`(a)
`Preamble of claim 3: “The method for instant
`voice messaging over a packet-switch network
`according to claim 1, further comprising the step
`of:” .................................................................................88
`“controlling a method of generating the instant
`voice message based upon the connectivity status
`of said one or more recipient.” (Claim 3[a]) .................88
`VII. ENABLEMENT OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................95
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................97
`
`3.
`
`
`(b)
`
`- iii -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`I, Tal Lavian, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A.
`Qualifications and Experience
`1.
`I have more than 25 years of experience in the networking,
`
`telecommunications, Internet, and software fields. I received a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science, specializing in networking and communications, from the University of
`
`California at Berkeley in 2006 and obtained a Master’s of Science (“M.Sc.”)
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from Tel Aviv University, Israel, in 1996. In
`
`1987, I obtained a Bachelor of Science (“B.Sc.”) in Mathematics and Computer
`
`Science, also from Tel Aviv University.
`
`2.
`
`I am employed by the University of California at Berkeley and was
`
`appointed as a lecturer and Industry Fellow in the Center of Entrepreneurship and
`
`Technology (“CET”) as part of UC Berkeley College of Engineering. I have been
`
`with the University of California at Berkeley since 2000 where I served as
`
`Berkeley Industry Fellow, Lecturer, Visiting Scientist, Ph.D. Candidate, and
`
`Nortel’s Scientist Liaison. I have taught several classes on wireless devices and
`
`smartphones. Some positions and projects were held concurrently, while others
`
`were held sequentially.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`3.
`
`I have more than 25 years of experience as a scientist, educator, and
`
`technologist, and much of my experience relates to telecommunication, data
`
`communications, and computer networking technologies. For eleven years from
`
`1996 to 2007, I worked for Bay Networks and Nortel Networks. Bay Networks
`
`was in the business of making and selling computer network hardware and
`
`software. Nortel Networks acquired Bay Networks in 1998, and I continued to
`
`work at Nortel after the acquisition. Throughout my tenure at Bay and Nortel, I
`
`held positions
`
`including Principal Scientist, Principal Architect, Principal
`
`Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, and led the development and research
`
`involving a number of networking technologies. I led the efforts of Java
`
`technologies at Bay Networks and Nortel Networks. In addition, during 1999-
`
`2001, I served as the President of the Silicon Valley Java User Group with over
`
`800 active members from many companies in the Silicon Valley.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to that, from 1994 to 1995, I worked as a software engineer and
`
`team leader for Aptel Communications, designing and developing wireless
`
`technologies, mobile wireless devices, and network software products.
`
`5.
`
`From 1990 to 1993, I worked as a software engineer and team leader
`
`at Scitex Ltd., where I developed system and network communications tools
`
`(mostly in C and C++).
`
`- 2 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`6.
`
`I have extensive experience
`
`in communications
`
`technologies
`
`including wireless technologies, routing and switching architectures and protocols,
`
`including Multi-Protocol Label Switching Networks, Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual
`
`Private Networks, and Pseudowire technologies. Much of my work for Nortel
`
`Networks (mentioned above) involved the research and development of these
`
`technologies. For example, I wrote software for Bay Networks and Nortel
`
`Networks switches and routers, developed network technologies for the Accelar
`
`8600 family of switches and routers, the OPTera 3500 SONET switches, the
`
`OPTera 5000 DWDM family, and the Alteon L4-7 switching product family. I
`
`wrote software for Java-based device management, including a software interface
`
`for device management and network management in the Accelar routing switch
`
`family’s network management system. I have also worked on enterprise Wi-Fi
`
`solutions, wireless mobility management, and wireless infrastructure.
`
`7.
`
`I am named as a co-inventor on more than 100 issued patents and I co-
`
`authored more than 25 scientific publications, journal articles, and peer-reviewed
`
`papers. Furthermore, I am a member of a number of professional affiliations,
`
`including the Association of Computing Machinery (“ACM”) and the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) (senior member). I am also certified
`
`under the IEEE WCET (Wireless Communications Engineering Technologies)
`
`- 3 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`Program, which was specifically designed by the IEEE Communications Society
`
`(ComSoc) to address the worldwide wireless industry’s growing and ever-evolving
`
`need for qualified communications professionals.
`
`8.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have served as a Principal Scientist at my
`
`company TelecommNet Consulting Inc., where I develop network communication
`
`technologies and provide research and consulting in advanced technologies, mainly
`
`in computer networking and Internet technologies. In addition, I have served as a
`
`Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of VisuMenu, Inc. from 2010 to
`
`the present, where I design and develop architecture of visual IVR technologies for
`
`smartphones and wireless mobile devices in the area of network communications.
`
`9.
`
`I have worked on wireless and cellular systems using a variety of
`
`modulation technologies including time-division multiple-access (TDMA), code-
`
`division multiple-access (CDMA), and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
`
`(OFDM). I have additionally worked on various projects
`
`involving
`
`the
`
`transmission and streaming of digital media content.
`
`10.
`
`The above outline of my experience with communications systems is
`
`not comprehensive of all of my experience over my years of technical experience.
`
`Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum vitae, attached
`
`- 4 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`as Exhibit A to this Declaration, which provides a more complete description of
`
`my educational background and work experience.
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I have spent on this matter at the
`
`rate of $400 per hour. My compensation does not depend in any way upon the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I hold no interest in the Petitioners (Facebook, Inc.
`
`and WhatsApp Inc.) or the Patent Owner (Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.) or plaintiff
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`12.
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the telecommunications and information technology
`
`industries, as well as the documents I have considered, including U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,243,723 (“’723” or “’723 patent”) [Ex. 1001], which states on its face that it
`
`issued from an application filed on March 4, 2009, in turn claiming priority back to
`
`an earliest application filed on December 18, 2003.
`
` For purposes of this
`
`Declaration, I have assumed December 18, 2003 as the effective filing date for the
`
`’723 patent. I have cited to the following documents in my analysis below:
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`Title of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723 to Michael J. Rojas (filed March 4,
`2009, issued August 14, 2012)
`
`- 5 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`Exhibit No.
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Title of Document
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney
`et al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (“Zydney”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004) (“Appelman”)
`Excerpts from Margaret Levine Young, Internet: The Complete
`Reference (2d ed. 2002) (“Young”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October
`16, 2000, issued June 29, 2004) (“Bogard”)
`Excerpts from The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms, 7th Ed. (2000)
`Excerpts from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms, 5th Ed. (1994)
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1997)
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`13.
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’723 patent should be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is December 18, 2003. I have
`
`also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1) the types of
`
`problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto;
`
`(2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`- 6 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`14.
`
`The ’723 patent states that the perceived problem and the purported
`
`solution are generally related to the field of Internet telephony (“IP telephony”).
`
`The patent states: “More particularly, the present invention is directed to a system
`
`and method for enabling local and global instant VoIP messaging over an IP
`
`network, such as the Internet, with PSTN support.” (’723, 1:15-18.) The ’723
`
`patent purports to describe a “voice messaging system (and method) for delivering
`
`instant messages over a packet switched network.” (Id., Abstract.) The ’723
`
`patent purports to depict architectures of Internet and PSTN technologies, global
`
`and local IP networks, VoIP switches and gateways, and phone systems. The ’723
`
`patent also purports to disclose local and global instant voice messaging servers
`
`communicating over an IP network. In the Summary of the Invention, the
`
`applicant states: “The present invention is directed to a system and method for
`
`enabling local and global instant VoIP messaging over an IP network, such as the
`
`Internet.” (Id., 2:53-55.)
`
`15.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of December
`
`2003 would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of
`
`experience in development and programming relating to network communication
`
`systems (or equivalent degree or experience).
`
`- 7 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`16. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 25 years of experience in computer science and
`
`network communications, my understanding of the basic qualifications that would
`
`be relevant to an engineer or scientist tasked with investigating methods and
`
`systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of
`
`colleagues, co-workers, and employees, both past and present.
`
`17. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’723 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of December 2003.
`
`III. BASIS FOR MY OPINION AND STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`18. My opinions and views set forth in this declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience in the relevant field, as well as the materials I
`
`have reviewed for this matter, and the scientific knowledge regarding the subject
`
`matter that existed prior to December 2003.
`
`A.
`19.
`
`Claim Construction
`It is my understanding that, when construing claim terms, a claim
`
`subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`B.
`20.
`
`Anticipation
`It is my understanding that in order for a patent claim to be valid, the
`
`claimed invention must be novel. It is my understanding that if each and every
`
`element of a claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference, then the claimed
`
`invention is anticipated, and the invention is not patentable according to pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 effective before March 16, 2013. In order for the invention to be
`
`anticipated, each element of the claimed invention must be described or embodied,
`
`either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. In order for a
`
`reference to inherently disclose a claim limitation, that claim limitation must
`
`necessarily be present in the reference.
`
`Obviousness
`C.
`21. Counsel has advised me that obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 effective before March 16, 2013 is the basis for invalidity in the Petitions.
`
`Counsel has advised me that a patent claim may be found invalid as obvious if, at
`
`the time when the invention was made, the subject matter of the claim, considered
`
`as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field
`
`of the technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs. I
`
`understand that the following factors should be considered in analyzing
`
`obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between
`
`- 9 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I
`
`also understand that certain other factors known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexpected results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus”, with the invention claimed in the patent at issue. I understand that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have knowledge of all prior art. I
`
`understand that one skilled in the art can combine various prior art references
`
`based on the teachings of those prior art references, the general knowledge present
`
`in the art, or common sense. I understand that a motivation to combine references
`
`may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no requirement that there be an actual
`
`or explicit teaching to combine two references. Thus, one may take into account
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ to combine the known elements in the prior art in the manner claimed by
`
`the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid “hindsight bias” and ex post
`
`reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But this does not mean that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the obviousness inquiry does not
`
`have recourse to common sense. I understand that when determining whether a
`
`- 10 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`patent claim is obvious in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for
`
`the patent nor the stated purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary
`
`inquiry has to do with the objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims
`
`extend to something that is obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid. I
`
`understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there existed at the
`
`time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution
`
`encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that a motivation to combine
`
`various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a variety
`
`of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand that a
`
`need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide a
`
`reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together “like the pieces of a puzzle.” I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If these finite number of predictable solutions lead to the
`
`- 11 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`anticipated success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary
`
`skill and common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the
`
`fact that a combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and
`
`hence invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an
`
`invention is likely obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed
`
`near each other in a prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of
`
`inventiveness.
`
`1. Motivation to Combine
`22.
`I have been advised by counsel that obviousness may be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown
`
`by demonstrating that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`more than one item of prior art. I have been advised by counsel that a claimed
`
`invention may be obvious if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation exists that
`
`would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invalidating
`
`references. Counsel has also advised me that this suggestion or motivation may
`
`- 12 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, or from
`
`sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. Alternatively, any need or
`
`problem known in the field at the time and addressed by the patent may provide a
`
`reason for combining elements of the prior art. Counsel has advised me that when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply
`
`common sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the
`
`problem. The following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be
`
`considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined
`
`with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1) Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would have
`
`led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`- 13 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try”
`
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(6) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A.
`The Internet and TCP/IP Protocol Suite
`23. The Internet is the global packet-switched network based on a
`
`protocol suite known as Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP).
`
`The Internet originated in the late 1960s as a Department of Defense project known
`
`as ARPANET and, by the 1980s, was in use by a large number of universities and
`
`organizations. As the Internet advanced in size and speed over the years, a vast
`
`amount of research and development was invested to develop technologies and
`
`- 14 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`standards for enabling voice communications over IP networks (VoIP). These
`
`significant investments in research and development yielded approved standards
`
`and large scale implementations based on these standards prior to the year 2003.
`
`Some of these key standards are discussed in the following sections.
`
`24.
`
`The Internet is based on a globally unique address space based on the
`
`Internet Protocol (IP)1 and is able to support communications using the TCP/IP
`
`suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons. In addition, the Internet provides,
`
`uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered
`
`on the communications infrastructure. The TCP/IP protocol suite includes many
`
`different standard protocols including IP, TCP, UDP, VoIP, RTP, FTP, BGP,
`
`SMTP, DHCP, HTTP, and others. Internet standards are typically published in the
`
`form of documents known as “Requests for Comments” (RFCs), which are today
`
`maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
`
`Voice over IP (VoIP)
`B.
`25. Voice over IP (VoIP) is a family of standard technologies which
`
`allows IP networks to be used for voice applications. VoIP generally involves the
`
`
`1 See IETF Network Working Group RFC 791 (Sept. 1981), RFC 1726 (Dec.
`
`1994).
`
`- 15 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`transmission of voice “data packets” from a device at one IP address over the
`
`Internet to a device at another IP address. The ability to transmit voice data
`
`packets from one IP address to another over the Internet is one of the background
`
`technologies relevant to the ’723 patent and the claims at issue, which recite
`
`communication over a “packet-switched network.”
`
`26.
`
`The
`
`technologies
`
`that enabled VoIP and
`
`implementation of
`
`applications based on these technologies were available long before the ’723
`
`patent’s filing date. For example, an early public domain VoIP application called
`
`NetFone (Speak Freely) was released in 1991 by Autodesk. A commercial internet
`
`VoIP application was released by VocalTec in February of 1995.2
`
`27.
`
`The real-time transport protocol (RTP) is an Internet protocol for the
`
`transfer of real-time data including voice and video. Version 1.0 of RTP was
`
`published in the early 1990s, and it was approved as a standard with the
`
`publication of RFC 1889 in January 1996.
`
`28. RTP runs on top of an IP transport (depicted in the figure below).
`
`
`2 See Bulkeley, William M. “Hello World! Audible chats On the Internet,” Wall
`
`Street Journal (February 10, 1995).
`
`- 16 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`Some relevant points of the protocol design are quoted from the standard: 3
`
`This document defines RTP, consisting of two closely-linked parts:
`- The real-time transport protocol (RTP), to carry data that has
`real-time properties.
`
`- the RTP control protocol (RTCP), to monitor the quality of
`service and to convey information about the participants in an on-
`going session. The latter aspect of RTCP may be sufficient for
`“loosely controlled” sessions, i.e., where there is no explicit
`membership control and set-up, but it is not necessarily intended to
`support all of an application's control communication requirements.
`This functionality may be fully or partially subsumed by a separate
`session control protocol, which is beyond the scope of this document.
`
`Source: RFC 1889, § 1 (available at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1889.txt).
`
`Definitions
`RTP payload: The data transported by RTP in a packet, for example
`audio samples or compressed video data. The payload format and
`interpretation are beyond the scope of this document.
`
`RTP packet: A data packet consisting of the fixed RTP header, a
`possibly empty list of contributing sources (see below), and the
`
`3 All emphasis in quoted text in this Declaration has been added, unless otherwise
`
`noted.
`
`- 17 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`require an
`payload data. Some underlying protocols may
`encapsula