`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01800
`United States Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`SUPPELEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
`WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`I, William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom), do hereby declare, and supplement my prior
`
`declaration filed in this matter as Exhibit 2001, as follows:
`
`Claim 2
`
`67.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’723 Patent recites “wherein the instant voice message
`
`includes one or more files attached to an audio file.” This language makes it clear
`
`that Claim 1 requires one or more files be attached to an audio file, and not to the
`
`instant voice message that is recorded in that audio file or to some other container
`
`that might contain the audio file.
`
`68.
`
`Petitioner argues that the message 400 of Griffin is the claimed
`
`“instant voice message.” Pet., pp. 54. Griffin’s message 400 is shown in FIG.4 of
`
`Griffin. The message 400 includes a message type 401, number of recipients 402,
`
`recipient IDs 403, thread ID 404, message length 405, message content 406, and
`
`number of attachments 407. Griffin, 6:38-44 and FIG. 4. Griffin teaches that
`
`attachments are to be included in a payload of the message 400, i.e., within the
`
`message 400 itself. Griffin, 6:50-52.
`
`69.
`
`Thus, Griffin does not teach attaching files to an audio file. In Griffin,
`
`the attachments are included as part of the message 400, which Petitioner argues is
`
`the claimed “instant voice message.” Attaching a file to the message 400 does not
`
`disclose attaching a file to an audio file in which the claimed “instant voice
`
`message” is recorded, and also does not disclose attaching a file to any purported
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`file or contents within the message 400.
`
`70.
`
`Zydney also does not teach attaching files to an audio file. Petitioner
`
`cites to attaching of files to Zydney’s “voice container.” Pet., pp. 59. However, in
`
`Zydney, the voice container is separate from the file in which voice data is stored.
`
`Zydney, 16:1-4. The voice data in that file is inserted into a voice container, and it
`
`is the voice container that is sent over the network in Zydney: “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).” Zydney,
`
`11:1-3.
`
`71.
`
`Zydney’s voice container is not an audio file. In fact, Zydney teaches
`
`that the voice container is specifically used to carry far more than just audio data.
`
`Specifically, FIG. 3 of Zydney shows that the voice container includes a large
`
`amount of other information, such as originator’s code, recipient codes, originating
`
`time, delivery times, number of plays, voice container source, voice container reuse
`
`restrictions, delivery priority, session values, and repeating information.
`
`72.
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioner has not shown that Claim 1, or
`
`Claim 13 which depends from Claim 1, is obvious in view of Griffin and Zydney.
`
`Claim 3
`
`73.
`
`Claim 3 of the ’723 Patent recites “controlling a method of
`
`generating the instant voice message based upon a connectivity status [of] each
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`recipient.”
`
`74.
`
`Petitioner cites exclusively to Zydney for this element of Claim 3, and
`
`I agree with Petitioner that Griffin does not disclose this element of Claim 3. Pet.,
`
`p. 62.
`
`75.
`
`In citing Zydney for this claim element, Petitioner states that, in
`
`Zydney, “the connectivity status of the recipient determines whether the pack and
`
`send mode is mandatory or optional.” Pet. at 64. Whether the pack and send mode
`
`of Zydney is mandatory or optional does not disclose controlling how a message is
`
`generated.
`
`76.
`
`Zydney describes the same message generation methodology is used
`
`regardless of whether pack and send mode or intercom mode is used. Pack and
`
`send mode is described as a single unvarying mode: “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).” Zydney, 11:1-3
`
`(emphasis added). Intercom mode is described as having the same message
`
`generation methodology as pack and send mode: “[once] the delivery mode [i.e.,
`
`intercom or pack-and-send] has been selected, the originator digitally records
`
`messages for one or more recipients using a microphone-equipped device and the
`
`software agent.” Zydney, 17:1-3. Thus, messages are generated in the same way
`
`regardless of whether pack and send mode or intercom mode will be used as the
`
`delivery mode.
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`77.
`
`A PHOSITA would therefore interpret Zydney as teaching a single
`
`unchanging message generation methodology and multiple delivery mechanisms.
`
`Petitioner’s citations to Zydney actually disclose variation in how a message is
`
`delivered after it has been generated, not controlling how the message is generated
`
`based on a recipient’s connectivity status.
`
`78.
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioner has not shown that Claim 3 is
`
`obvious in view of Griffin and Zydney.
`
`79.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated June 8, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`William C. Easttom II
`
`Page 5
`
`