`
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`OLYMPUS CORPORATION and OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01617
`Patent No. 6,895,449
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN ALMEROTH IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,895,449: CLAIMS
`1–10, 12, 13, AND 15–18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Background and Qualifications .................................................................. - 3 - 
`
`Legal Standards and Background ............................................................. - 13 - 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................ - 13 - 
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................ - 14 - 
`
`C.  Validity ........................................................................................... - 14 - 
`
`III.  Overview of the ’449 Patent ..................................................................... - 17 - 
`
`IV.  Level of Ordinary Skill ............................................................................. - 19 - 
`
`V. 
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................... - 21 - 
`
`VI.  Analysis of Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–18 .................................................. - 22 - 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 13, and 15–18 over Murata, Schmidt and
`MS-DOS Encyclopedia .................................................................. - 22 - 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`Rationale for Combining Murata, Schmidt and MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia ........................................................................ - 22 - 
`
`Claim 1 [preamble] - “An interface device for communication
`between a host device, which comprises drivers for input/output
`devices customary in a host device and a multi-purpose
`interface, and a data transmit/receive device comprising the
`following features:” ............................................................. - 26 - 
`
`Claim 1 [1a] - “a processor;” ............................................... - 34 - 
`
`Claim 1 [1b] - “a memory;” ................................................. - 34 - 
`
`Claim 1 [1c] - “a first connecting device for interfacing the host
`device with the interface device via the multi-purpose interface
`of the host device; and” ........................................................ - 35 - 
`
`Claim 1 [1d] - “a second connecting device for interfacing the
`interface device with the data transmit/receive device,” ..... - 35 - 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Claim 1 [1e] - “wherein the interface device is configured by
`the processor and the memory in such a way that the interface
`device, when receiving an inquiry from the host device as to the
`type of a device attached to the multi-purpose interface of the
`host device, sends a signal, regardless of the type of the data
`transmit/receive device attached to the second connecting
`device of the interface device, to the host device which signals
`to the host device that it is a storage device customary in a host
`device, whereupon the host device communicates with the
`interface device by means of the driver for the storage device
`customary in a host device, and” ......................................... - 35 - 
`
`Claim 1 [1f] - “wherein the interface device is arranged for
`simulating a virtual file system to the host, the virtual file
`system including a directory structure.” .............................. - 42 - 
`
`Claim 2 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 1, in
`which the directory structure has a configuration file for setting
`and controlling functions of the interface device or an
`executable or a batch file for conducting a routine stored in the
`memory or a data file used for transferring data from the data
`transmit/receive device to the host device or a help file for
`giving help on handling the interface device.” .................... - 45 - 
`
`10.  Claim 3 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 2
`wherein the configuration file is a text file.” ....................... - 45 - 
`
`11.  Claim 6 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 1
`wherein, in response to a request from the host to read a boot
`sequence, the processor is arranged to send a virtual boot
`sequence to the host.” .......................................................... - 46 - 
`
`12.  Claim 7 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 6
`wherein the virtual boot sequence includes a starting position
`and a length of a file allocation table, an indication of a type of
`the storage device or a number of sectors of the storage device.”
` .............................................................................................. - 47 - 
`
`13.  Claim 8 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 7
`wherein, in response to a request from the host to display a
`directory of the storage device, a processor is arranged for
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`transferring the file allocation table and the directory structure
`to the host.” .......................................................................... - 49 - 
`
`14.  Claim 9 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 1
`wherein the file allocation table and the directory structure is
`transferred to the host in response to a request from the host to
`read data from or store data to the storage device.” ............ - 51 - 
`
`15.  Claim 10 -“An interface device in accordance with claim 1
`wherein the directory structure includes a data file for
`transferring data from the data transmit/receive device to the
`host device wherein the processor is arranged to interpret a
`request from the host to read the data file as a request for a data
`transfer from the data transmit/receive device to the host, so
`that data is transmitted from the second connecting device to
`the first connecting device and to the host.” ........................ - 54 - 
`
`16.  Claim 12 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 1
`wherein the file allocation table includes information on
`numbers of blocks occupied by the data file wherein the
`interface device is arranged for receiving block numbers or a
`block number range from the host when the host wants to read
`the data file, and wherein the interface device is arranged to
`start a data transfer to the host, when the block numbers or the
`block number range is received from the host.” .................. - 56 - 
`
`17.  Claim 13 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 12
`wherein the processor is arranged for formatting the data
`acquired by the second connecting device into blocks having a
`predetermined size, the predetermined size being suited for the
`storage device.” .................................................................... - 58 - 
`
`18.  Claim 15 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 1
`wherein the storage device is a hard disk.” .......................... - 59 - 
`
`19.  Claim 16 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 1
`wherein
`the memory has a data buffer for permitting
`independence in terms of time of the data transmit/receive
`device attachable to the second connecting device from the host
`device attachable to the first connecting device.” ............... - 59 - 
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`20.  Claim 17 [preamble] - “An interface device for communication
`between a host device, which comprises a multi-purpose
`interface and a specific driver for this interface, and a data
`transmit/receive device comprising the following features:”- 60
`- 
`
`21.  Claim 17 [17a] - “a processor;” ........................................... - 61 - 
`
`22.  Claim 17 [17b] - “a memory;” ............................................. - 61 - 
`
`23.  Claim 17 [17c] - “a first connecting device for interfacing the
`host device with the interface device via the multi-purpose
`interface of the host device; and”......................................... - 62 - 
`
`24.  Claim 17 [17d] - “a second connecting device for interfacing
`the interface device with the data transmit/receive device,” - 62 - 
`
`25.  Claim 17 [17e] - “where the interface device is configured
`using the processor and the memory in such a way that the
`interface device, when receiving an inquiry from the host
`device as to the type of a device attached at the multi-purpose
`interface of the host device, sends a signal, regardless of the
`type of the data transmit/receive device attached to the second
`connecting device of the interface device, to the host device
`which signals to the host device that it is a storage device
`customary in a host device, whereupon the host device
`communicates with the interface device by means of the
`specific driver for the multi-purpose interface, and” ........... - 62 - 
`
`26.  Claim 17 [17f] - “wherein the interface device is arranged for
`simulating a virtual file system to the host, the virtual file
`system including a file allocation table and a directory
`structure.” ............................................................................. - 63 - 
`
`27.  Claim 18 [preamble] - “A method of communication between a
`host device, which comprises drivers for input/output devices
`customary in a host device and a multi-purpose interface, and a
`data transmit/receive device via an interface device comprising
`the following steps:” ............................................................ - 63 - 
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`28.  Claim 18 [18a] - “interfacing of the host device with a first
`connecting device of the interface device via the multi-purpose
`interface of the host device;” ............................................... - 64 - 
`
`29.  Claim 18 [18b] - “interfacing of the data transmit/receive
`device with a second connecting device of the interface
`device;” ................................................................................ - 65 - 
`
`30.  Claim 18 [18c] - “inquiring by the host device at the interface
`device as to the type of device to which the multi-purpose
`interface of the host device is attached;” ............................. - 65 - 
`
`31.  Claim 18 [18d] - “regardless of the type of the data
`transmit/receive device attached to the second connecting
`device of the interface device,” ............................................ - 66 - 
`
`32.  Claim 18 [18e] - “responding to the inquiry from the host
`device by the interface device in such a way that it is a storage
`device customary in a host device, ” .................................... - 68 - 
`
`33.  Claim 18 [18f] - “whereupon the host device communicates
`with the interface device by means of the usual driver for the
`storage device, and” ............................................................. - 70 - 
`
`34.  Claim 18 [18g] - “wherein the interface device is arranged for
`simulating a virtual file system to the host, the virtual file
`system including a file allocation table and a directory
`structure.” ............................................................................. - 71 - 
`
`B. 
`
`Claims 4 and 5 over Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS Encyclopedia
`and Beretta ...................................................................................... - 72 - 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`for Combining Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`Rationale
`Encyclopedia and Beretta .................................................... - 72 - 
`
`Claim 4 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 2
`wherein the executable file includes a Fast Fourier Transform
`routine for transforming data acquired by the second connecting
`device into the frequency domain and for examining frequency
`domain data.” ....................................................................... - 74 - 
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`Claim 5 - “An interface device in accordance with claim 2
`wherein the executable file includes a data compression routine
`for compressing data
`to be
`transmitted from
`the data
`transmit/receive device to the host device.” ........................ - 77 - 
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Kevin C. Almeroth, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical consultant on behalf of
`
`Olympus Corporation and Olympus America Inc. I understand that the Petitioner
`
`(collectively) in the present proceeding is Olympus Corporation and Olympus
`
`America Inc. I understand that the petition also names as potential real parties-in-
`
`interest: Huawei Device USA Inc.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device
`
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd.; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.; Huawei Technologies USA,
`
`Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.; ZTE (USA) Inc; and ZTE Corporation. I have no
`
`financial interest in, or affiliation with, the Petitioner, real parties-in-interest, or the
`
`patent owner, which I understand to be Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. My
`
`compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of, or my testimony in, the
`
`present inter partes review or any litigation proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`I have drafted, reviewed or provided from my own files each of
`
`the documents in the following table (which I am informed are also identified in
`
`the Petition):
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 (the “’449 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al.
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`European Patent Office Publication Number 0 685 799 A1
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`IBM Corp., Communication Method between Devices Through
`FDD Interface 38 IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin 245
`Ray Duncan, The MS-DOS Encyclopedia (1988)
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig., 778 F.3d
`1255, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Appendix 8 of Papst’s
`Opening Claim Constr. Brief, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 6:15-cv-01095-RWS (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22,
`2016)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Decl. of Robert
`Zeidman, In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.,
`MDL No. 1880, No. 1:07-mc-00493 (D.D.C. June 3, 2016)
`Am. Nat’l Standard Inst., Inc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info. Sys’s,
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994)
`(“SCSI Specification”)
`Dave Williams, The Programmer’s Technical Reference: MS-
`DOS, IBM PC & Compatibles, Sigma Press (1990)
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/411,369
`
`Comparison of excerpts of File History for U.S. Patent
`Application No. 08/411,369 and U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to
`Beretta et al. (Ex. 1007)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`
`
`Vetterli & Nussbaumer, Simple FFT and DCT Algorithms, 6
`Signal Processing 267–78 (1984)
`Papst’s Brief, In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.,
`No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2014)
`
`Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics
`(1991)
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the application leading to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,895,449 (“the ʼ449 patent”) was Application No. 10/219,105, which was filed on
`
`August 15, 2002. The ’105 application claims priority to U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/331,002, filed June 14, 1999 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399), which
`
`claims priority
`
`to Patent Cooperation Treaty
`
`(PCT) Application No.
`
`PCT/EP98/01187 filed March 3, 1998. Ex. 1002, at 8. The ’449 patent purports to
`
`also claim priority to German Application No. 197 08 755.8 filed March 4, 1997.
`
`Id. For purposes of my analysis, I assume the time of the purported invention to be
`
`no earlier than March 4, 1997.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology:
`
`(1) a Bachelor of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with
`
`minors in Economics, Technical Communication, American Literature) earned in
`
`June, 1992; (2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`specialization in Networking and Systems) earned in June, 1994; and (3) a Doctor
`
`of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title: Networking
`
`and System Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of Services in Interactive
`
`Multimedia System, minor in Telecommunications Public Policy) earned in June,
`
`1997. During my education, I have taken a wide variety of courses as
`
`demonstrated by my minor. My undergraduate degree also included a number of
`
`courses are more typical of a degree in electrical engineering including digital
`
`logic, signal processing, and telecommunications theory.
`
`5.
`
`One of the major themes of my research has been the delivery
`
`of multimedia content and data between computing devices and users. In my
`
`research I have looked at large-scale content delivery systems and the use of
`
`servers located in a variety of geographic locations to provide scalable delivery to
`
`hundreds, even thousands, of users simultaneously. I have also looked at smaller-
`
`scale content delivery systems
`
`in which content,
`
`including
`
`interactive
`
`communication like voice and video data, is exchanged between computers and
`
`portable computing devices. As a broad theme, my work has examined how to
`
`exchange content more efficiently across computer networks, including the devices
`
`that switch and route data traffic. More specific topics include the scalable
`
`delivery of content to many users, mobile computing, satellite networking,
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`delivering content to mobile devices, and network support for data delivery in
`
`wireless network.
`
`6.
`
`Beginning in 1992, when I started graduate school, the first
`
`focus of my research was on the provision of interactive functions (VCR-style
`
`functions like pause, rewind, and fast-forward) for near video-on-demand systems
`
`in cable systems, in particular, how to aggregate requests for movies at a cable
`
`head-end and then how to satisfy a multitude of requests using one audio/video
`
`stream broadcast to multiple receivers simultaneously. Continued evolution of this
`
`research has resulted in the development of new techniques to scalably deliver on-
`
`demand content, including audio, video, web documents, and other types of data,
`
`through the Internet and over other types of networks, including over cable systems,
`
`broadband telephone lines, and satellite links.
`
`7.
`
`An important component of my research from the very
`
`beginning has been investigating the challenges of communicating multimedia
`
`content between computers and across networks. Although the early Internet was
`
`designed mostly for text-based non-real time applications, the interest in sharing
`
`multimedia content quickly developed. Multimedia-based applications ranged
`
`from downloading content to a device to streaming multimedia content to be
`
`instantly used. One of the challenges was that multimedia content is typically
`
`larger than text-only content but there are also opportunities to use different
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`delivery techniques since multimedia content is more resilient to errors. I have
`
`worked on a variety of research problems and used a number of systems that were
`
`developed to deliver multimedia content to users.
`
`8.
`
`In 1994, I began to research issues associated with the
`
`development and deployment of a one-to-many communication facility (called
`
`“multicast”) in the Internet (first deployed as the Multicast Backbone, a virtual
`
`overlay network supporting one-to-many communications). Some of my more
`
`recent research endeavors have looked at how to use the scalability offered by
`
`multicast to provide streaming media support for complex applications like
`
`distance learning, distributed collaboration, distributed games, and large-scale
`
`wireless communications. Multicast has also been used as the delivery mechanism
`
`in systems that perform local filtering (i.e., sending the same content to a large
`
`number of users and allowing them to filter locally content in which they are not
`
`interested).
`
`9.
`
`Starting in 1997, I worked on a project to integrate the
`
`streaming media capabilities of the Internet together with the interactivity of the
`
`web. I developed a project called the Interactive Multimedia Jukebox (IMJ).
`
`Users would visit a web page and select content to view. The content would then
`
`be scheduled on one of a number of channels, including delivery to students in
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Georgia Tech dorms delivered via the campus cable plant. The content of each
`
`channel was delivered using multicast communication.
`
`10.
`
`In the IMJ, the number of channels varied depending on the
`
`capabilities of the server including the available bandwidth of its connection to the
`
`Internet. If one of the channels was idle, the requesting user would be able to
`
`watch their selection immediately. If all channels were streaming previously
`
`selected content, the user’s selection would be queued on the channel with the
`
`shortest wait time. In the meantime, the user would see what content was currently
`
`playing on other channels, and because of the use of multicast, would be able to
`
`join one of the existing channels and watch the content at the point it was currently
`
`being transmitted.
`
`11. The IMJ service combined the interactivity of the web with the
`
`streaming capabilities of the Internet to create a jukebox-like service. It supported
`
`true Video-on-Demand when capacity allowed, but scaled to any number of users
`
`based on queuing requested programs. As part of the project, we obtained
`
`permission from Turner Broadcasting to transmit cartoons and other short-subject
`
`content. We also attempted to connect the IMJ into the Georgia Tech campus
`
`cable television network so that students in their dorms could use the web to
`
`request content and then view that content on one of the campus’s public access
`
`channels.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`12. More recently, I have also studied issues concerning how users
`
`choose content, especially when considering the price of that content. My research
`
`has examined how dynamic content pricing can be used to control system load. By
`
`raising prices when systems start to become overloaded (i.e., when all available
`
`resources are fully utilized) and reducing prices when system capacity is readily
`
`available, users’ capacity to pay as well as their willingness can be used as factors
`
`in stabilizing the response time of a system. This capability is particularly useful
`
`in systems where content is downloaded or streamed to users on-demand.
`
`13. As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began
`
`researching issues related to wireless devices. In particular, I was interested in
`
`showing how to provide greater communication capability to “lightweight
`
`devices,” i.e., small form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory,
`
`networking, and power) devices.
`
`14. Starting in 1998, I published several papers on my work to
`
`develop a flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol stack. The
`
`lightweight protocols we envisioned were similar in nature to protocols like
`
`Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) and Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA).
`
`15. From this initial work, I have made wireless networking—
`
`including ad hoc and mesh networks and wireless devices—one of the major
`
`themes of my research. One topic includes developing applications for mobile
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`devices, for example, virally exchanging and tracking “coupons” through
`
`“opportunistic contact” (i.e., communication with other devices coming into
`
`communication range with a user). Other topics include building network
`
`communication among a set of mobile devices unaided by any other kind of
`
`network infrastructure. Yet another theme is monitoring wireless networks, in
`
`particular different variants of IEEE 802.11 compliant networks, to (1) understand
`
`the operation of the various protocols used in real-world deployments, (2) use these
`
`measurements to characterize use of the networks and identify protocol limitations
`
`and weaknesses, and (3) propose and evaluate solutions to these problems.
`
`16. Protecting networks, including their operation and content, has
`
`been an underlying theme of my research almost since the beginning. Starting in
`
`2000, I have also been involved in several projects that specifically address
`
`security, network protection, and firewalls. After significant background work, a
`
`team on which I was a member successfully submitted a $4.3M grant proposal to
`
`the Army Research Office (ARO) at the Department of Defense to propose and
`
`develop a high-speed intrusion detection system. Once the grant was awarded, we
`
`spent several years developing and meeting the milestones of the project. I have
`
`also used firewalls in developing techniques for the classroom to ensure that
`
`students are not distracted by online content.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`17. As an important component of my research program, I have
`
`been involved in the development of academic research into available technology
`
`in the market place. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) including many content delivery-related working
`
`groups like the Audio Video Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment
`
`(MBONED) group, Source Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter-Domain
`
`Multicast Routing (IDMR) group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group,
`
`the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a
`
`member of
`
`the Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw
`
`the
`
`standardization of all things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the
`
`Chair of the Internet2 Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`18.
`
`I am an author or co-author of nearly 200 technical papers,
`
`published software systems, IETF Internet Drafts and IETF Request for Comments
`
`(RFCs).
`
`19. My involvement in the research community extends to
`
`leadership positions for several journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the
`
`Steering Committee for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital Audio
`
`and Video (NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for the
`
`International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm
`
`Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet (GI)
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Symposium. I have served or am serving on the editorial boards of IEEE/ACM
`
`Transactions on Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Networks and System Management, IEEE Network, ACM
`
`Computers in Entertainment, AACE Journal of Interactive Learning Research
`
`(JILR), and ACM Computer Communications Review.
`
`20.
`
`I have co-chaired a number of conferences and workshops
`
`including the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM
`
`International Conference on Next Generation Communication (CoNext), IEEE
`
`Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks
`
`(SECON), International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks
`
`(COMSNETS),
`
`IFIP/IEEE
`
`International Conference on Management of
`
`Multimedia Networks and Services (MMNS), the International Workshop On
`
`Wireless Network Measurement (WiNMee), ACM Sigcomm Workshop on
`
`Challenged Networks (CHANTS), the Network Group Communication (NGC)
`
`workshop, and the Global Internet Symposium; and I have been on the program
`
`committee of numerous conferences.
`
`21. Furthermore, in the courses I teach, the class spends significant
`
`time covering all aspects of the Internet including each of the layers of the Open
`
`System Interconnect (OSI) protocol stack commonly used in the Internet. These
`
`layers include the physical and data link layers and their handling of signal
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`modulation, error control, and data transmission. I also teach DOCSIS, DSL, and
`
`other standardized protocols for communicating across a variety of physical media
`
`including cable systems, telephone lines, wireless, and high-speed Local Area
`
`Networks (LANs). I teach the configuration and operation of switches, routers,
`
`and gateways including routing and forwarding and the numerous respective
`
`protocols as they are standardized and used throughout the Internet. Topics
`
`include a wide variety of standardized Internet protocols at the Network Layer
`
`(Layer 3), Transport Layer (Layer 4), and above.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, I co-founded a technology company called Santa
`
`Barbara Labs that was working under a sub-contract from the U.S. Air Force to
`
`develop very accurate emulation systems for the military’s next generation
`
`internetwork. Santa Barbara Labs’ focus was in developing an emulation platform
`
`to test the performance characteristics of the network architecture in the variety of
`
`environments in which it was expected to operate, and in particular, for network
`
`services including IPv6, multicast, Quality of Service (QoS), satellite-based
`
`communication, and security. Applications for this emulation program included
`
`communication of a variety of multimedia-based services. Within this testing
`
`infrastructure, we used a wide range of switches and routers.
`
`23.
`
`In addition to having co-founded a technology company myself,
`
`I have worked for, consulted with, and collaborated with companies such as IBM,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Hitachi Telecom, Digital Fountain, RealNetworks, Intel Research, Cisco Systems,
`
`and Lockheed Martin.
`
`24.
`
`I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM) and a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`25. Further details about my background, qualifications, and
`
`experience are included in my curriculum vitae (“CV”) submitted herewith as Ex.
`
`1004.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND BACKGROUND
`26.
`I have been informed of a number of legal standards that govern
`
`my analysis, including those discussed below. For example, a proper validity
`
`analysis includes resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,
`
`determining the scope and content of the prior art, and ascertaining the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art. I address all of these factors in my
`
`declaration below.
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`27.
`
`I have been advised that the claims of a patent are reviewed
`
`from the point of view of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the filing of the patent (“POSA”). The “art” is the field of technology to
`
`which a patent is related. I understand that the purpose of using the viewpoint of a
`
`POSA is for objectivity.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`28.
`It is my understanding that terms should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in an IPR. Under this standard, the terms should be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning to a POSA, unless the patent teaches a
`
`different meaning within the specification.
`
`29.
`
`I understand the appropriate context in which to read a claim
`
`term includes both the specification and the claim language itself.
`
`C. Validity
`30.
`I understand that the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the
`
`instituted grounds of invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand
`
`that a “preponderance” means “more likely than not.” I understand that general
`
`and conclusory assertions, without underlying factual evidence, may not support a
`
`conclusion that something is “more likely than not.”
`
`31. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence standard requires
`
`that a reasonable finder of fact be convinced that the existence of a specific
`
`material fact is more probable than the non-existence of that fact. The
`
`preponderance of the evidence standard does not support speculation regarding
`
`specific facts, and is instead focused on whether the evidence more likely than not
`
`demonstrates the existence or non-existence of specific material facts. Here, I
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`understand that Petitioner has argued that the claims at issue are obvious in view of
`
`certain prior art references.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art as
`
`to the patents-in-suit if it was known or used by others in this country, or patented
`
`or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the
`
`invention by the patent holder. I ha