`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019511
`Patent 6,714,966
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT ABARBANEL IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00935, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Robert Abarbanel
`I, Robert Abarbanel, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of majority and make this declaration of my own
`
`personal knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently retired, and doing parttime consulting work as a
`
`programmer for Jonova, Inc., in Seattle.
`
`3.
`
`From 1990 to 2001, I was employed at Boeing, Inc. (“Boeing”) as
`
`member of the Computer Science group, in the Mathematics and Computer
`
`organization.
`
`4.
`
`From 1993 to 2000, I was the manager of a section of the Computer
`
`Science group in the
`
`
`
` at Boeing. During that time frame, I
`
`had direct supervision over Virgil Bourassa. As his manager, I oversaw the
`
`creation and development of “SWAN: SmallWorld Wide Area Networking”
`
`(“SWAN”). Specifically, I would receive regular progress updates, attend
`
`meetings, review reports, and observe the progression of the development of
`
`SWAN. The SWAN project began in November 1996 and was satisfactorily tested
`
`on or before September 16, 1999 in an internal program at Boeing known as
`
`
`
` I observed SWAN being implemented in
`
` on or before
`
`
`
`
`
`September 16, 1999 with a demonstration of the project that was given to the
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Based on my observations of SWAN in
`
` and my discussions
`
`with Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt, on or before September 16, 1999, SWAN was
`
`a peertopeer communication platform. It achieved high reliability and low
`
`latency which allowed for significant scalability. The system was completely
`
`distributed and allowed participants to join, depart and fail at any time.
`
`6.
`
`Based on my observations of SWAN in
`
`
`
` and my discussions
`
`with Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt, on or before September 16, 1999, the SWAN
`
`technology was an application level communication system that allowed for the
`
`simultaneous sharing of information. It was a communications library that allowed
`
`computer processes to share information across a widearea network using
`
`underlying pointtopoint network communication protocols. In one example, the
`
`SWAN communication library overlaid on an underlying TCP/IP pointtopoint
`
`network.
`
`7.
`
`Based on my observations of SWAN in
`
`
`
` and my discussions
`
`with Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt, on or before September 16, 1999, the SWAN
`
`technology was implemented as a 4regular graph that was incomplete.
`
`Specifically, each participant had a connection to at least three neighbor
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`participants. The SWAN technology would send data from an originating
`
`participant to the other participants by sending data through each of its connections
`
`to its neighbor participants. In order to continue the transfer of data, each
`
`participant would send data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other
`
`neighbor participants. A screenshot of the SWAN system as it existed on or before
`
`September 16, 1999 is shown below which demonstrates 100 participants each
`
`having 4 connections to its neighboring participants:
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt first showed me the graph in Figure 2
`
`on or before September 16, 1999, and described to me the optimized
`
`communications among nodes in this graph and the resistance to damage of the
`
`group’s functions due to failed edges.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`9.
`
`On or before September 16, 1999, the SWAN technology had many
`
`contemplated functions. This included providing a gaming environment,
`
`information delivery services and collaborative airplane design. In a gaming
`
`environment, each of the participants would be gaming participants using a gaming
`
`application and the data that was transferred from participant to participant would
`
`be gaming data. In an information delivery service, each of the participants would
`
`be interested in particular information that is being distributed using applications
`
`and the data that was transferred from participate to participant would be
`
`information delivery service data. In a collaborative airplane design system such
`
`as
`
`
`
` each of the participants would be airplane engineers and the data that
`
`was transferred from participant to participant would be CAD data.
`
`10.
`
`
`
` Based on my observations of SWAN in
`
` and my discussions
`
`with Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt, on or before September 16, 1999, SWAN was
`
`a dynamic network that used a nonrouting table based broadcast channel. SWAN
`
`used an underlying communication network that provides peertopeer
`
`communications between the participants connected to the broadcast channel. In
`
`one example, each participant to the broadcast channel could receive an indication
`
`of the four neighbor participants. The broadcast component could receive data
`
`from a neighbor participant using the communication network and send the data to
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`the neighbor participants to effect the broadcasting of the data to each participate of
`
`the broadcast channel. As shown above, the SWAN technology was implemented
`
`using a 4regular network with 100 participants which results in a noncomplete
`
`graph.
`
`11. Attached as Appendix A is a true and correct copy of the Invention
`
`Disclosure form that Virgil Bourassa and Fred Holt submitted and presented to me.
`
`As demonstrated on the first page, I was the manager of Virgil Bourassa. Each
`
`page of this document following the first contains my signature demonstrating that
`
`the invention was described to me and that I understood it. Although the date on
`
`each page that shows my signature contains the date of December 23, 1999,
`
`Appendix A contains a description of the SWAN system as it worked when it was
`
`satisfactorily tested on or before September 16, 1999 as indicated on the first page
`
`of the document based on my observations.
`
`12.
`
`I was aware that there was significant interest in the SWAN system
`
`because of its ability to provide an applicationlevel environment in which a large
`
`number of participants could collaborate. This interest was generated because of
`
`the unique design of the system which allowed participates to send data to other
`
`participants using an mregular, noncomplete graph. As demonstrated in
`
`Appendix A, this interest came from IBM, Data Connections, Ltd., Dassault
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Systems. In addition, potential licensing opportunities existed with software game
`
`vendors.
`
`13.
`
`I declare under penalty and perjury under the laws of the United States
`
`of America that this declaration is true, complete, and accurate to the best of my
`
`knowledge. I further acknowledge that willful false statements and the like are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`
`
`Executed at Seattle, WA on July 11, 2016.
`
`
`
`_________________________
`Robert Abarbanel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
