UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01804
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C EASTTOM II
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1804
`Uniloc's Exhibit No. 2001
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01804
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C EASTTOM II
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1804
`Uniloc's Exhibit No. 2001
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
`
`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”)
`
`2.
`
`Based on my review of the prior art then available, my
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 1
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 2
`
`
`
`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;
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 3
`
`
`
`• 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`’622 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 6
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 9
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 10
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 11
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 12
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 13
`
`
`
`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”:
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 14
`
`
`
`“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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 16
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 18
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 19
`
`
`
`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,
`
`Ex. 2001, Page 20
`
`
`
`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 professionals who
`
`are beginning training in the networking industry and those who need a review
`
`of basic concepts.” Id. Shinder also notes that secondary and tertiary
`
`audiences include business people who “require a broad overview of the
`
`concepts involved in networking ...” and general users who want to “know
`
`more about how computers communicate over networks.” Id. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would have understood Shinder to be an introduction and general overview of
`
`computer networks, and not a detailed, advanced treatise on the subtleties of
`
`the field.
`
`Ex. 2001, Page
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
