`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01667
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C EASTTOM II
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS ....................................... 2
`
`A. Obviousness ............................................................................................ 3
`
`B. Priority Date ........................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.......................................................... 4
`
`D. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ......................................................... 6
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘622 PATENT ......................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 9
`
`A. “instant voice messaging application” ..................................................... 9
`
`B. “client platform system” ......................................................................14
`
`C. “communication platform system” .........................................................15
`
`VI. PETITIONERS’ CITED REFERENCES ....................................................16
`
`A. International Application WO 01/11824 (“Zydney”) .............................17
`
`B. Excerpt of Computer Networking Essentials (“Shinder”).......................21
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 (“Clark”) ......................................................22
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 (“Appelman”) ..............................................26
`
`VII. VALIDITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................29
`
`A. Zydney does not render obvious “wherein the instant voice messaging
`application includes a document handler system for attaching one or
`more files to the instant voice message” (claim 27) ...............................29
`
`
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Zydney does not render obvious “wherein the instant voice message
`includes an object field” (independent claim 3)......................................32
`
`C. No prima facie obviousness for “wherein the instant voice messaging
`application includes a message database storing the instant voice
`message, wherein the instant voice message is represented by a database
`record including a unique identifier” (dependent claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`34
`1. Zydney and Clark both lack a database record in a message
`database, where that database record includes both a unique
`identifier and an instant voice message ............................................. 35
`2. There could not have been any motivation to combine Zydney
`with Clark to devise a database record that included a unique
`identifier ........................................................................................... 37
`3. No prima facie obviousness because Petitioners’ proposed
`combination of Zydney with Clark results in messages being
`deleted once they are sent to the server ............................................. 39
`
`D. No prima facie obviousness for “a display [at the client device]
`displaying a list of one or more potential recipients” (claims 38-39) ......41
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Chuck Easttom, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is William Charles Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) and I
`
`have been retained by Uniloc, USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`(“Uniloc” or the “Patent Owner”) to provide my expert opinions regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (the ‘622 Patent). In particular, I have been asked
`
`to opine on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time
`
`the inventions described in the ‘622 patent were conceived would have found
`
`all claims, Claims 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14-23, 27-35, 38, and 39 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) as obvious in light of the following referenced cited in IPR2017-
`
`01667:
`
`• Ex. 1003, PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 (“Zydney”)
`• Excerpts from Debra Littlejohn Shinder, Computer Networking
`Essentials (“Shinder”)
`• Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 (“Clark”)
`• Ex. 1008, U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 (“Appelman”)
`
`Based on my review of the prior art then available, my
`
`2.
`
`understanding of the relevant of the relevant requirements of patent law, and
`
`my decades of experience in the field of computer science including
`
`communications systems, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims would
`
`not have been obvious in light of the proposed combinations.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting
`
`rate of $300 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur
`
`during the course of this work. Apart from that, I have no financial interest in
`
`Uniloc. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study or
`
`the substance of my opinions.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`In my over 25 years of computer industry experience I have had
`
`extensive experience in communications systems, including data networks in
`
`general that have messaging capabilities. I hold 42 industry certifications,
`
`which include (among others) networking certifications. I have authored 24
`
`computer science books, several of which deal with networking topics. I am
`
`also the sole named inventor on thirteen patents.
`
`5.
`
`A more detailed description of my professional qualifications,
`
`including a list of publications, teaching, and professional activities, is
`
`contained in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`III. LEGAL STANARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS
`
`6.
`
`Although I am not an attorney and I do not offer any legal
`
`opinions in this proceeding, I have been informed of and relied on certain legal
`
`principles in reaching the opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Obviousness
`
`7.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the differences
`
`between the subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. I further understand that an obviousness analysis involves a review
`
`of the scope and content of the asserted prior art, the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and objective indicia of non-obviousness such as long-felt need, industry
`
`praise for the invention, and skepticism of others in the field.
`
`8.
`
`I have been informed that if a single limitation of a claim is
`
`absent from the cited prior art, the claim cannot be considered obvious.
`
`9.
`
`I have further been informed that it is improper to combine
`
`references where the references teach away from a proposed combination; and
`
`that the following factors are among those relevant in considering whether
`
`prior art teaches away:
`
`• whether a POSITA, upon reading the reference would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant;
`
`• whether the prior art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
`
`investigation into the claimed invention;
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`• whether a proposed combination would produce an inoperative
`
`result; and
`
`• whether a proposed combination or modification would render the
`
`teachings of a reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, I have been informed that a proposed combination
`
`that changes the basic principles under which the prior art was designed to
`
`operate may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`11. The ’622 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/546,673, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890, filed on December 18, 2003. The
`
`’622 patent issued on May 13, 2014. I have assumed the priority date for the
`
`’622 patent is December 18, 2003.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12.
`
`I understand that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date. I understand
`
`that factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art may include: (a) the type of problems encountered in the art; (b)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations
`
`
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`are
`
`made;
`
`(d)
`
`the
`
`sophistication
`
`of
`
`the
`
`technology;
`
`and
`
`(e)
`
`the
`
`educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the qualifications
`
`of the person of ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`‘622
`
`
`patent pertains as
`
`of
`
`December 18,
`
`2003. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`is
`
`someone who would have
`
`possessed on the priority date a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science (or equivalent degree/experience) with at least two years of
`
`experience
`
`in
`
`computer
`
`programming
`
`and
`
`software
`
`development,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`development of software for communication with other computers over a
`
`network.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`
`
`I understand that
`
`Dr. Lavian
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` opines that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`
`
`is someone “a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`in
`
`computer
`
`’622
`
`patent
`
`would
`
`have
`
`possessed
`
`at
`
`least
`
`a
`
`bachelor’s
`
`degree
`
`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).”
`
`
`(Ex.
`
`1002
`
`
`
`at
`¶
`
`13-15).
`
`
`
`15.
`
`
`
`In
`
`my
`
`opinion,
`
`my
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Petitioners’
`
`opinion
`
`concerning
`
`a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art are essentially the same, and any differences
`
`are inconsequential to the dispute before the Board.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16. 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 ‘622 Patent have been based on the perspective of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as of December 2003.
`
`D. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that, for purposes of this Inter Partes
`
`Review (IPR), the terms in the claims of the ‘622 patent are to be given their
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history of ‘622 Patent as understood by a POSITA on the priority
`
`date. I have used this standard throughout my analysis.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘622 PATENT
`
`18. The ’622 patent recognized that conventional circuit-switched
`
`communications enabled traditional telephony yet had a variety of technical
`
`disadvantages that limited developing other forms of communication over
`
`such networks. According to the ’622 patent, “[c]ircuit switching provides a
`
`communication path (i.e., dedicated circuit) for a telephone call from the
`
`telephone terminal to another device 20 over the [public switched telephone
`
`network or] PSTN, including another telephone terminal. During the
`
`telephone call, voice communication takes place over that communication
`
`path.” Ex. 1001, 1:29-34.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`19. The ’622 patent expressly distinguishes circuit-switched
`
`networks from packet-switched networks (e.g., the Internet) at least in that the
`
`latter routes packetized digital information, such as “Voice over Internet
`
`Protocol (i.e., “VoIP”), also known as IP telephony or Internet telephony.”1
`
`Id., 1:35-36. Because legacy circuit-switched devices were unable to
`
`communicate directly over packet-switched networks, media gateways (114)
`
`were designed to receive circuit-switched signals and packetize them for
`
`transmittal over packet-switched networks, and vice versa. Id., 2:8-18. The
`
`conversion effected by media gateways (e.g., 114 and 118) highlights the fact
`
`that packetized data carried over packet-switched networks (e.g., IP network
`
`102) are different from, and are incompatible with, an audio signal carried
`
`over a dedicated packet-switched circuit. Id., 2:8-21.
`
`
`1 Consistent with the ’622 patent specification, the USPTO has also
`recognized there are significant differences between circuit-switched and
`packet-switched networks during the relevant timeframe. See, e.g., U.S.
`Application No. 90/012,728 and 90/012,789 (Notice of Intent to Issue Ex
`Parte Reexamination Certificate, dated April 10, 2014) at page 9, where the
`USPTO confirmed the following:
`
`
`Ethernet packet switching protocol, including TCP/IP, are very
`specific connectionless/packet switched protocols. In contrast to
`connection-oriented protocols, connectionless/packet switched
`protocols do not need to set up a dedicated path in advance.
`Rather, routers send fragmented messages or “packets” to their
`destination independently. Connectionless protocols have a
`number of advantages over connection-oriented protocols,
`including better use of available bandwidth.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`20. The ’622 patent further recognized that, notwithstanding the
`
`advent of instant text messages, at the time of the claimed invention there was
`
`no similarly convenient analog to leaving an instant voice message over a
`
`packet-switched network. Id., 2:22-53. Rather, “conventionally, leaving a
`
`voice message involves dialing the recipient’s telephone number (often
`
`without knowing whether the recipient will answer), waiting for the
`
`connection to be established, speaking to an operator or navigating through a
`
`menu of options, listening to a greeting message, and recording the message
`
`for later pickup by the recipient. In that message, the user must typically
`
`identify himself or herself in order for the recipient to return the call.” Id.,
`
`2:26-33.
`
`21. The inventor observed, therefore, that “notwithstanding the
`
`foregoing advances in the VoIP/PSTN voice communication and voice/text
`
`messaging, there is still a need in the art for providing a system and method
`
`for providing instant VoIP messaging over an IP network.” Id., 2:47-51. In
`
`certain disclosed embodiments, the ’622 patent addressed that need, in part,
`
`by providing a user-accessible client (208) that is specially configured for
`
`instant voice message (IVM) and for direct communication over a packet-
`
`switched network (e.g., through an Ethernet card). Id., 12:13-14. More
`
`specifically, the ’622 patent teaches that certain clients (208) are specially
`
`
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`configured to “listen[] to the input audio device 212,” “record[] the user’s
`
`speech into a digitized audio file 210 (i.e., instant voice message) stored on
`
`the IVM client 208,” and “transmit[] the digitized audio file 210” as
`
`packetized data (e.g., using TCP/IP) over a packet-switched network (e.g.,
`
`network 204) “to the local IVM server 202.” Id., 8:8-11 and 8:21-22.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`22.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the
`
`construction of certain terms used in the claims of the ‘622 Patent as would
`
`be understood by a POSITA using the BRI.
`
`A.
`
`“instant voice messaging application”
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood the term
`
`“application” in the context of the ’622 patent to mean a software program
`
`that performs a particular task or function(s). Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that whole phrase “instant voice messaging application” means “a
`
`software program that performs instant voice messaging tasks or functions.”
`
`24. The Petitioners propose
`
`that “instant voice messaging
`
`application” means “hardware and/or software used for instant voice
`
`messaging.” Pet. at 6. In my opinion, the Petitioners’ inclusion of “hardware”
`
`in its interpretation is unreasonable and conflicts with the understanding of a
`
`
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA on the priority date, that is, as “software that performs a task or
`
`function.”
`
`25. The Petitioners and their expert Dr. Lavian, acknowledge that a
`
`POSITA would understand the term “application” means “computer software
`
`for performing a particular function.” Pet. at 7 (citing EX1002 at ¶ 53 [citing
`
`EX1012, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary defining “application as “[a]
`
`program designed to assist in the performance of a specific task, such as word
`
`processing, accounting, or inventory management.”]). On the other hand, the
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Lavian then assert that, based on the written description of
`
`the ’622 patent, the term “instant voice messaging application” should not be
`
`limited to software. Pet. at 7-8; see also EX1002 at ¶ 54. As I explain below,
`
`the Petitioners’ purported support in the written description of the ’622 patent
`
`for this proposition falls short of the mark.
`
`26. The Petitioners assert that the ’622 patent discloses that functions
`
`associated with instant voice messaging are performed by the IVM client 208,
`
`which is a “general-purpose programmable computer.” Pet. at 7 (citing
`
`EX1001 at 12:11-14). The Petitioners also point to FIG. 3, reproduced below,
`
`which is “an exemplary illustration of the architecture in the IVM client 208
`
`for enabling instant voice messaging according to the present invention.”
`
`EX1001 at 12:4-6. A POSITA would have understood that “architecture” in
`
`
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`the context of FIG. 3, means the structure and functions of the software in the
`
`client computer.
`
`
`
`FIG. 3 in the ’622 Patent: Client Architecture
`
`27. Referring to FIG. 3, the IVM client 208, which is a device that
`
`includes software running on a processor, “comprises a client platform 302
`
`for generating an instant voice message and a messaging system 320 for
`
`messaging between the IVM client 208 and the IVM server 202 for enabling
`
`instant voice messaging.” EX1001 at 12:7-10 (emphasis added). The
`
`Petitioners appear to contend that because the “written description does not
`
`identify any particular software program capable of performing all of the
`
`functions associated with the ‘instant voice messaging application’ recited in
`
`
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`the claims,” and because the “client” is a computer system that the
`
`“application” may be hardware. Pet. at 7. I disagree.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent need not include every detail of an
`
`invention if the descriptions are adequate for a POSITA to understand it. FIG.
`
`3 is such a case because it does not explicitly show a labeled box for the
`
`“application” that comprises a “client platform 302” and a “messaging system
`
`320,” but a POSITA would have understood that, despite the lack of an
`
`explicit application label in FIG. 3, the application as claimed is an implied
`
`box around client platform 302 and messaging system 320. Furthermore, the
`
`application is software (and not hardware) because it is comprised of two
`
`software blocks, the client platform 302 and the messaging system 320. I
`
`provide my reasons for this conclusion in the following paragraphs.
`
`29. First, the ’622 patent teaches that “[the] messaging system and
`
`the
`
`client
`
`engine 304
`
`communicate via
`
`standard
`
`inter-process
`
`communication.” EX1001 at 12:21-23. A POSITA would have understood
`
`the term “inter-process communication” as a term of art that refers to different
`
`parts of a software application, known as “processes,” often executing
`
`simultaneously and communicating information with each other. Thus, the
`
`messaging system and the client platform must be software.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Second, referring to FIG. 3, the term CLIENT ENGINE 304
`
`informs a POSITA that CLIENT ENGINE is software because the term
`
`“engine” is a well-known term of art to describe software. Each of the blocks
`
`in client platform 302—Document Handler 306, Audio File 210, Audio File
`
`Creation 312, File Manager 308, and Msg Database 310—inform a POSITA
`
`that they are software because their functions are clearly implemented in
`
`software in view of the written description. The document handler 306
`
`“oversees the retrieving, sending, receiving and storing of one or more
`
`documents (or files) attached to instant voice messages ...” EX1001 at 12:26-
`
`28. The file manager and database “accesses a message database,” and
`
`“services requests from the user to record, delete, or retrieve messages to/from
`
`the message database 310.” EX1001 at 12:34-35 and 12:38-40. “Audio file
`
`creation 312 creates an instant voice message as audio file 210, and is
`
`responsible for ... storing the input speech into audio file 210.” Id. at 12:40-
`
`44. The ’622 patent includes similar descriptions for the signal processing,
`
`encryption/decryption, and compression/decompression functions of the
`
`client engine 304. Id. at 12:44-50.
`
`31. Third, the Petitioners do not point to any support in the ’622
`
`patent that discloses hardware that performs any function of the messaging
`
`system or the client platform.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`32. Overall, at least for the reasons presented above in this section,
`
`above, and the totality of the ’622 patent, in my opinion, the term “instant
`
`voice message application” means “a software program that performs instant
`
`voice messaging tasks and functions.”.
`
`B.
`
`“client platform system”
`
`33. The Petitioners propose to construe “client platform system” as
`
`“hardware and/or software on a client for generating an instant voice
`
`message.” Pet. at 9. In my opinion, a POSITA would have realized that this
`
`construction cannot be correct for at least two reasons discussed below.
`
`34. First, just as the Petitioners unreasonably include “hardware” in
`
`the construction of “application,” they unreasonably include “hardware” in
`
`their proposed construction of “client platform system.” As I explained above
`
`concerning the construction of “application,” the “client platform” is
`
`described in FIG. 3 and is understood to be software. For the same reasons I
`
`find that an “application” is software, I find that a “client platform,” and thus,
`
`“client platform system,” is also software.
`
`35. Second, the Petitioners specialize their proposed construction of
`
`“client platform system” to the function “for generating an instant voice
`
`message.” This construction conflicts with the specification that defines the
`
`“client platform system”:
`
`
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`“the instant voice message client 208 comprises a
`client platform 302 for generating an instant voice
`message. . .. The client platform 302 comprises a
`client engine 304, which controls other components,
`namely the document handler 306, file manager 308,
`audio file creation 312, signal processing 314,
`encryption/decryption 316, and
`compression/decompression 318.”
`
`EX1001, 12:18-21 (emphasis added).
`
`36. The passage above shows that the “client platform system” is not
`
`limited to generating an instant voice message. The Petitioners’ inclusion of
`
`the recited further limitation of “for generating an instant voice message”
`
`unnecessarily narrows the construction of the more general term “client
`
`platform system” by requiring the further “for generating ...” limitation recited
`
`in the claim. I understand this is improper.
`
`37. For at least the reasons presented above, in my opinion, “client
`
`platform system” means “software on a client,” and the Petitioners’
`
`construction conflicts how a POSITA would have understood this term.
`
`C.
`
`“communication platform system”
`
`38. Petitioners propose
`
`to construe “communication platform
`
`system” to mean a “system of the server which relays communications and/or
`
`tracks client connection information”. Pet. at 10. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`would have realized that this construction cannot be correct because the
`
`claims of the ‘622 Patent expressly defines the term:
`
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems”
`e.g. EX1001, 24:19-22 (emphasis added).
`
`39. Therefore,
`
`the claims of
`
`the
`
`‘622 Patent define
`
`the
`
`“communications platform system” to be required to perform the tasks of
`
`“maintaining connection information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`
`message client systems” and “indicating whether there is a current connection
`
`to each of the plurality of instant voice message client systems”.
`
`40. For at least the reasons presented above, in my opinion, “client
`
`platform system” means “a communication platform system maintaining
`
`connection information for each of the plurality of instant voice message
`
`client systems indicating whether there is a current connection to each of the
`
`plurality of instant voice message client systems”.
`
`VI. PETITIONERS’ CITED REFERENCES
`
`41. Petitioners alleges that all claims, Claims 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14-
`
`23, 27-35, 38, and 39 are obvious over proposed combinations involving
`
`
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`Zydney, Shinder, Clark, and Appleman I provide a brief analysis of each
`
`below.
`
`A.
`
`International Application WO 01/11824 (“Zydney”)
`
`42. The International Application published with International
`
`Publication Number WO 01/11824 A2 (“Zydney”), titled Method and system
`
`for voice exchange and voice distribution, was published on February 15,
`
`2001. The international application number PCT/US00/21555 by inventors
`
`Herbert Zydney et al. was filed on August 7, 2000. See EX1013.
`
`43. Zydney “relates to the field of packet communications, and more
`
`particularly to voice packet communication systems.” EX1013 at 1:4-5.2
`
`44. Zydney explains “[the] present invention is a system and method
`
`for voice exchange and voice distribution utilizing a voice container.”
`
`EX1013 at 1:19-20 (emphasis added). Moreover, “voice containers can be
`
`stored, transcoded and routed to the appropriate recipients instantaneously
`
`or stored for later delivery.” Id. at 1:21-2 (emphasis added). Zydney defines
`
`“voice container” as “a container object that contains no methods but
`
`contains voice data or voice data and voice data properties.” Id. at 12:6-8
`
`(emphasis added). A POSITA would have understood that this definition
`
`
`2 EX1003 is a copy of Zydney that has line numbers added. I refer to
`EX1003 by page and line numbers.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`means Zydney’s voice container is a data construct (viz., an “object”) used in
`
`object-oriented programming languages, such as Java or C++, to hold other
`
`data constructs, such as data values and other objects, but performs no
`
`functions (methods). By analogy, a container object is like a box, it holds
`
`things but it is not the things it holds. For example, if a box contains paper
`
`clips, the actual box itself is not a paper clip.
`
`45. Zydney teaches “the originator digitally records messages for
`
`one or more recipients using a microphone-equipped device and the
`
`software agent. The software agent compresses the voice and stores the file
`
`temporarily on the PC if the voice will be delivered as an entire message.”
`
`Id. at 16:1-4 (emphasis added). A POSITA would have understood that
`
`Zydney may temporarily store the audio data in a file, which is another type
`
`of data structure and which may even be stored on a magnetic disk drive or
`
`other medium.
`
`46. On the other hand, before the voice data is sent to a recipient, it
`
`is placed in the voice container and the container is sent. Zydney explains this
`
`process in the following:
`
`The present invention system and method for voice
`exchange and voice distribution 20 allows a software
`agent 22 with a user interface in conjunction with a
`central server 24 to send, receive and store messages
`using voice containers illustrated by transmission
`
`
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`line 26 in a pack and send mode of operation to
`another software agent 28. A pack and send mode of
`operation is one in which the message is first
`acquired, compressed and then stored in a voice
`container 26 which is then sent to its destination(s).
`(Id. at 10:20-11:3) (Emphasis added.)
`
`47. This passage explains, among other things, that Zydney’s voice
`
`message is the audio data; however, it is stored in a voice container, which is
`
`a type of data structure, distinct from a file.3 As I mentioned above, the voice
`
`container is like a box that contains the audio data, among other things,
`
`but it is not the audio data. Furthermore, Zydney’s voice containers are not
`
`files.
`
`48. The Petitioners’ expert Dr. Lavian, cites three passages from
`
`Zydney and characterizes these passages as describing “the recording of one
`
`or more voice packet messages on a personal computer” as “voice files [that]
`
`can be played and recorded using voice container enabled devices.” EX1002
`
`at ¶ 74 (citing EX1013 at 16:1-4, 20:11-14, and 21:11-16). I have examined
`
`these passages and found that they are neither consistent with nor support Dr.
`
`Lavian’s characterizations. The passage that states “voice files can be played”
`
`
`3 A “file” is a collection of data usually organized sequentially, byte-by-byte
`without built-in structural pointers. An “object” is a data construct that may
`be structured into a collection of individually addressable data structures,
`such as numbers, text, arrays, matrices, and others.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`refers to playing back at the recipient’s site and do not disclose that the voice
`
`message is an audio file, only that audio files can be played. This is significant
`
`because a POSITA would have understood that the recipient would have been
`
`able, and probably would have needed, to unpack the voice data from the
`
`container, create a standard format audio file, such as an MP3 or WAV file,
`
`and use a standard software player to play back the file.
`
`49. Furthermore, after the voice container is received by a recipient,
`
`“voice files can be played and recorded using voice container enabled
`
`devices.” Id. at 21:14-16 (emphasis added). Thus, Zydney teaches that a
`
`recipient must have a device that is able to process Zydney’s voice containers
`
`in order to audibly play back the voice data.
`
`50. Zydney’s voice container contains additional
`
`information
`
`(components) beyond the “voice data or voice data and voice data properties.”
`
`FIG. 3 and its accompanying text explain that a considerable amount of
`
`communications and application oriented information is included, such as
`
`originator’s code, recipients’ codes, originating time, delivery time(s),
`
`number of plays, voice container source, voice container reuse restrictions,
`
`delivery priority, session values and number, and more. Id. at 23:1-12.
`
`51. Zydney explains that files, such as multi-media files, may be
`
`attached to a voice container. Id. at 19:2-5. Zydney states “[for] example,
`
`
`
`20
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`the voice container may have digitized greeting cards appended to them to
`
`present a personalized greeting (emphasis added).” Id. Zydney explains that
`
`various industry standards, such as Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension
`
`(MIME) format, may be used to format the voice container so that attachments
`
`may be associated with it. Id. at 19:6-20:9.
`
`B.
`
`Excerpt of Computer Networking Essentials (“Shinder”)
`
`52. Computer Networking Essentials, a book by Debra Littlejohn
`
`Shinder, was published by Cisco Systems, a networking company. EX1014
`
`(“Shinder”). According to Shinder, the book “helps you understand the
`
`fundamentals of computer networking concepts and implementation and
`
`introduces you to the client and server operating systems that run on
`
`networked PCs.” Id. at xxii. Shinder’s “primary audience is profess