IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE
`
`THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS CORPORATION, OLYMPUS AMERICA
`INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. 2017-01808
`Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN ALMEROTH IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,470,399: CLAIMS 1-
`3, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 1/108
`
`
`
`THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS CORPORATION, OLYMPUS AMERICA
`INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. 2017-01808
`Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN ALMEROTH IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,470,399: CLAIMS 1-
`3, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 1/108
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`Legal Standards and Background
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Claim Construction
`C. Validity
`III. Overview of the ‘399
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Claim Construction
`V.
`VI. Analysis of Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15
`A. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15 in view of Aytac, the SCSI
`Specification, Lin, and the admitted prior art
`1.
`Rationale for Combining Aytac with the SCSI Specification,
`Lin, and the admitted prior art
`2.
`Claims 1, 11 and 14
`3.
`Claims 2 and 15
`4.
`Claim 3
`5.
`Claim 5
`6.
`Claim 6
`VII. Priority Date of the ‘399 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 2/108
`
`
`
`I, Kevin C. Almeroth, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical consultant on behalf of
`
`Olympus Corporation, Olympus America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. I understand that the Petitioner
`
`(collectively) in the present proceeding is Olympus Corporation and Olympus
`
`America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. I understand that the petition also names as potential real parties-in-interest:
`
`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):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 3/108
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,399 to Tasler (“the ’399 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,399
`
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“Aytac”)
`
`Ex. 1006 Am. Nat’l Standard Inst., Inc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info.
`
`Sys’s, Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`
`(1994) (the “SCSI Specification”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,522,432 to Lin (“Lin”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., 778 F.3d 1255,
`
`1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`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)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Decl. of Robert
`
`Zeidman, In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., MDL
`
`No. 1880, No. 1:07-mc-00493 (D.D.C. June 3, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1011 As-Filed Filed German priority document Patent Application 197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 4/108
`
`
`
`08 755.8
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`’399 German Application Publication (DE 197 08 755)
`
`Ex. 1013 Certified Translation of Published ’399 German Application (DE
`
`197 08 755)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`English Translation of PCT Application PCT/EP98/01187
`
`(published as PCT Pub. No. WO98/39710)
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063 to Shah
`
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320 to Heath
`
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246 to Lichtman
`
`Ex. 1018 Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics
`
`(1991)
`
`Ex. 1019 Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper No. 8,
`
`IPR2016-01200
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Papst's Brief, In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.,
`
`No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir., February 20, 2014)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the application leading to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,470,399 (“the ʼ399 patent”) was Application No. 09/331,002, filed June 14,
`
`1999, which claims priority to Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Application No.
`
`-5-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 5/108
`
`
`
`PCT/EP98/01187 filed March 3, 1998. (Ex. 1002, at 4.) The ’399 patent purports
`
`to also claim priority to German Application No. 197 08 755.8 filed March 4,
`
`1997. (Id.) As I explain in ¶¶180-88, infra, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15 are
`
`entitled to a priority date of no earlier than March 4, 1998. For purposes of my
`
`analysis, I assume the time of the purported invention to be no earlier than March
`
`4, 1998.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 6/108
`
`
`
`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, 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,
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 7/108
`
`
`
`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 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
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 8/108
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 9/108
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 10/108
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 11/108
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 12/108
`
`
`
`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)
`
`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
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 13/108
`
`
`
`(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 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
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 14/108
`
`
`
`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, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 15/108
`
`
`
`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.
`
`I.
`
`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.
`
`II. 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.
`
`III. Validity
`30.
`I understand that the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 16/108
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 have also been informed that a reference may
`
`qualify as prior art to the patents-in-suit if the invention was patented or described
`
`in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in
`
`this country, more than one year before the effective filing date.
`
`33. For a printed publication to qualify as prior art, I understand
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 17/108
`
`
`
`that the Petitioner must demonstrate that the publication was disseminated or
`
`otherwise sufficiently accessible to the public.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that, in performing a proper unpatentability
`
`analysis, an expert must do more than simply provide quotes from the evidentiary
`
`record along with conclusory allegations of unpatentability. To the contrary, an
`
`expert’s conclusions regarding unpatentability must be supported by actual
`
`analysis and reasoning set forth in the expert declaration, such that the theoretical
`
`and factual foundation for the expert’s conclusions can be properly evaluated.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious only if the Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that,
`
`as of the priority date, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole,
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the analysis of whether a claim is obvious
`
`depends on a number of necessary factual inquiries, for example, (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been informed that the claimed invention must be
`
`considered as a whole in analyzing obviousness or nonobviousness. In
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 18/108
`
`
`
`determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question
`
`under the obviousness inquiry is not whether the differences themselves would
`
`have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have
`
`been obvious.
`
`38. Relatedly, I understand that it may be appropriate to consider
`
`whether there is evidence of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine
`
`the prior art teachings in the prior art, the nature of the problem or the knowledge
`
`of a POSA.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that one indicator of nonobviousness is when
`
`prior art “teaches away” from combining certain known elements. For example, a
`
`prior
`
`art reference teaches away from the patent’s particular combination if it leads in a
`
`different direction or discourages that combination, recommends steps that would
`
`not likely lead to the patent’s result, or otherwise indicates that a seemingly
`
`inoperative device would be produced.
`
`40.
`
`I further understand that certain objective indicia can be
`
`important evidence regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious,
`
`including the existence of a long-felt but unsolved need, unexpected results,
`
`commercial success, copying, and industry acceptance or praise. Evidence of such
`
`objective indicia must be considered when present.
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 19/108
`
`
`
`41.
`
`It is generally error to reach a conclusion on obviousness
`
`before considering the evidence of secondary considerations, and in then
`
`evaluating the latter solely in terms of whether it may fill any gaps in the initial
`
`conclusion on obviousness. On the other hand, such evidence is not a requirement
`
`for patentability, and the absence of such evidence is a neutral factor in the
`
`analysis of obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’399 PATENT
`
`42. The ’399 patent describes a device designed to enable the
`
`transfer of data between a host device and another device on which data can be
`
`saved or from which data can be acquired. (See Ex. 1001, Title and Abstract.) The
`
`written description states that while interface devices were already known at the
`
`time of the invention, those devices had limitations. For example, according to the
`
`’399 patent, they tended to require sacrifices of data-transfer speed or of
`
`flexibility of what host computers and data devices they would work with. (See id.
`
`at 1:18–2:14.) The patent likewise states that “standard interfaces,” “which, with
`
`specific driver software, can be used with a variety of host systems,” “generally
`
`require very sophisticated drivers” to be downloaded onto the host computer, but
`
`such drivers “are prone to malfunction and . . . limit data transfer rates.” (Id. at
`
`1:23–33.) Alternatively, with interface devices that “specifically match the
`
`interface very closely to individual host systems or computer systems,” the ’399
`-20-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 20/108
`
`
`
`patent indicates that “high data transfer rates are possible,” but such interface
`
`devices “generally cannot be used with other host systems or their use is very
`
`ineffective.” (Id. at 1:65–2:7.) The patent also states that the efficient interface
`
`also “must be installed inside the computer casing to achieve maximum data
`
`transfer rates,” which is a problem for laptops and other space-constrained host
`
`systems. (Id. at 2:8–14.)
`
`43. The ’399 patent purports to describe an interface device
`
`intended to overcome these limitations. When the ’399 patent’s interface device is
`
`connected to a host computer, it responds to the host’s request for identification
`
`by “simulat[ing] both in terms of hardware and software, the way in which a
`
`conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk drive,”
`
`for which the host system already has a working driver. (Id. at 5:6-9.) By
`
`responding this way, the interface device induces the host to treat it (and,
`
`indirectly, data devices on the other side of the interface device, no matter what
`
`type of devices they are) like the device already familiar to the host. Thereafter,
`
`when the host requests data from or controls the operation of the data device, the
`
`host uses its own pre-installed driver, and the interface device translates the
`
`communications into a form understandable by the connected data device. (See id.
`
`at 3:25–4:39.)
`
`44. The ’399 patent states that the interface device thus does not
`-21-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 21/108
`
`
`
`require that a specially designed driver for the interface device be loaded into a
`
`host computer. (See id. at 4:17-22, 8:43-50.) Rather, it uses a host’s own familiar
`
`driver, which (as for a hard drive) often will have been designed (by the computer
`
`system’s manufacturer) to work fast and reliably. (See id.) The written
`
`description states that the result is to provide a “high data transfer rate,” and “[i]t
`
`is the object of the present invention to provide an interface device for
`
`communication between a host device and a data transmit/receive device whose
`
`use is host device-independent and which delivers a high data transfer rate.” (Id.
`
`at 3:24-28.)
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`45. As I discussed in paragraphs 27-29, supra, I have been advised
`
`that the claims of a patent are reviewed from the point of view of a POSA.
`
`46.
`
`In order to determine the characteristics of a POSA, I have
`
`considered the prior art and the various approaches in the relevant prior art, the
`
`type of problems encountered, the solutions to those problems, the
`
`problems encountered by the inventor, and the rapidity with which innovations
`
`were made. I also considered the sophistication of the technology involved and
`
`the educational background and experience of those actively working in the
`
`relevant field at the time of the invention. Finally, I placed myself back at the time
`
`of the alleged invention and considered technology available at that time and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 22/108
`
`
`
`engineers and other professionals with whom I worked or whom I had taught in
`
`the relevant industries, and their level of education, activities, and sophistication.
`
`47. Based on those considerations, a POSA would have had a
`
`four-year degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field of
`
`study. A POSA would also have had either a Master’s degree, or at least two
`
`years of experience in one of the relevant fields, computer science, computer
`
`systems, or peripheral devices.
`
`48.
`
`In view of my education and experience, and as summarized
`
`above and in my attached curriculum vitae, I meet and exceed this definition of a
`
`POSA.
`
`49.
`
`In arriving at my opinions and conclusions in this declaration,
`
`I have considered the issues from the perspective of my hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 23/108
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`50.
`I have been asked to offer my opinion regarding the
`
`understanding of a person skilled in the art regarding certain claim terms in the
`
`ʼ399 patent. I understand that in the present proceeding, claim terms are
`
`interpreted as the broadest reasonable construction (“BRC”) consistent with the
`
`specification. I also understand that the claims themselves and the prosecution
`
`history can provide insight into how the claims should be construed.
`
`51.
`
`I have been asked to offer my opinion about the understanding
`
`of a person skilled in the art regarding the term “data transmit/receive device,” as
`
`recited in independent claims 1, 3, 6, 11, and 14. The specification discloses “a
`
`data transmit/receive device which is to receive data from the host device or from
`
`which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host device.” (Ex.
`
`1001, at 5:56-60; see also Ex. 1014, at 7.) Accordingly, one skilled in the art
`
`would understand the broadest reasonable construction for the term “data
`
`transmit/receive device” should be construed as “a device capable of transmitting
`
`or receiving data.”
`
`52.
`
`I have been asked to offer my opinion about the understanding
`
`of a person skilled in the art regarding the term “the driver for the input/output
`
`device customary in a host device.” For purposes here, I have taken the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1003 - 24/108
`
`
`
`construction of this term for these proceedings to be at least as broad as the
`
`construction proposed by Papst in the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`and so the term “the driver for the input/output device customary in a host
`
`device," should
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
