UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
