`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`A. Engagement .............................................................................................. 1
`B. Background and Qualifications ............................................................... 2
`C. Compensation ........................................................................................... 6
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ............. 7
`A.
`Interpreting Claims Before the Patent Office ......................................... 7
`B. Anticipation .............................................................................................. 8
`C. Obviousness .............................................................................................. 9
`III. MATERIAL RELIED ON IN FORMING OPINIONS ........................... 12
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PATENTS-AT-ISSUE .................................................. 12
`A. The Specifications of the Patents-at-Issue ............................................. 12
`B. Similarities And Differences Among The Issued Claims ..................... 16
`C. The Provisional Application’s Lack of Support For The Issued Claims
` ................................................................................................................ 19
`D. Level Of Skill In The Art ....................................................................... 22
`E. Claim Construction ................................................................................ 24
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART RELEVANT TO THE
`PATENTS-AT-ISSUE ................................................................................ 25
`A. Survey Of Publications And Patents In The Field................................ 25
`B. Certain Prior Art References At Issue In This Proceeding ................. 38
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IN THE PATENTS-AT-ISSUE THAT
`REQUIRE A “WSARC” ............................................................................ 50
`A. Prior Art Combinations Relevant To My Opinions Regarding
`“WSARC” Claims ................................................................................. 51
`Inoue and Nair ...................................................................................... 52
`1.
`2. Yamazaki and Nicholas. ....................................................................... 57
`3. Yamazaki and Nair. .............................................................................. 62
`4. Yamazaki and Nicholas and Nair. ........................................................ 64
`5. Yamazaki and Inoue and Nair .............................................................. 66
`6. Kusaka and Nicholas ............................................................................ 67
`7. Kusaka, Nicholas, and Nair .................................................................. 70
`B. Petition 1: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1, 4, 5, And 14 Of The ‘524
`Patent ..................................................................................................... 72
`1. Petition 1: Ground 1 – Inoue and Nair .................................................. 72
`2. Petition 1: Ground 2 – Inoue, Nair, and Lavelle .................................. 82
`3. Petition 1: Ground 3 – Inoue and Nicholas ........................................... 84
`4. Petition 1: Ground 4 – Inoue, Nicholas, and Lavelle ............................ 91
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`5. Petition 1: Ground 5 – Kusaka and Nicholas ........................................ 92
`6. Petition 1: Ground 6 – Kusaka, Nicholas, and Lavelle ......................... 105
`7. Petition 1: Ground 7 – Yamazaki and Nicholas ................................... 107
`8. Petition 1: Ground 8 - Yamazaki, Nicholas, and Lavelle ..................... 117
`C. Petition 2: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 12-26 Of The
`‘172 Patent ............................................................................................ 118
`1. Petition 2: Ground 1 - Inoue and Nair.................................................. 118
`2. Petition 2: Ground 2 – Inoue, Nair, and Narayanaswami ..................... 138
`3. Petition 2: Ground 3 – Kusaka and Nicholas ....................................... 139
`4. Petition 2: Ground 4 – Kusaka, Nicholas, Nair ................................... 152
`5. Petition 2: Ground 5 – Kusaka, Nicholas, and Narayanaswami .......... 154
`6. Petition 2: Ground 6 - Yamazaki And Nicholas ................................... 155
`7. Petition 2: Ground 7 - Yamazaki and Nair ........................................... 164
`8. Petition 2: Ground 8 - Yamazaki, Nair, and Narayanaswami ............... 168
`9. Petition 2: Ground 9 – Yamazaki, Nair, and Inoue .............................. 169
`D. Petition 4: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1-4 And 7-19 Of The ‘197
`Patent .................................................................................................... 169
`1. Petition 4: Ground 1 - Inoue and Nair.................................................. 170
`2. Petition 4: Ground 2 - Inoue, Nair, and Narayanaswami ...................... 188
`3. Petition 4: Ground 3 - Yamazaki and Nicholas .................................... 188
`4. Petition 4: Ground 4 - Yamazaki, Nicholas, and Nair .......................... 207
`5. Petition 4: Ground 5 - Kusaka and Nicholas ........................................ 209
`6. Petition 4: Ground 6 –Kusaka, Nicholas, and Nair .............................. 222
`E. Petition 5: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, And
`21 Of The ‘991 Patent .......................................................................... 224
`1. Petition 5: Ground 1 - Inoue and Nair ................................................. 225
`2. Petition 5: Ground 2 - Yamazaki and Nicholas .................................... 239
`3. Petition 5: Ground 3 - Yamazaki and Nair ........................................... 255
`4. Petition 5: Ground 4 - Yamazaki, Nicholas, and Nair .......................... 263
`5. Petition 5: Ground 5 - Kusaka and Nicholas ........................................ 265
`6. Petition 5: Ground 6 – Kusaka, Nicholas and Nair .............................. 274
`F. Petition 8: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
`13 and 16 of the ‘806 Patent ................................................................. 276
`1. Petition 8: Ground 1 - Inoue and Nair.................................................. 276
`2. Petition 8: Ground 2 - Inoue, Nair, and Narayanaswami ...................... 293
`3. Petition 8: Ground 3 - Yamazaki and Nicholas .................................... 294
`4. Petition 8: Ground 4 - Yamazaki, Nicholas, and Nair .......................... 312
`5. Petition 8: Ground 5 - Kusaka and Nicholas ........................................ 314
`6. Petition 8: Ground 6 – Kusaka, Nicholas, And Nair ............................ 326
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IN THE PATENTS-AT-ISSUE THAT
`DO NOT REQUIRE A “WSARC” ........................................................... 328
`A. Prior Art Combinations Relevant To My Opinions Regarding The
`“Non-WSARC” Claims ........................................................................ 328
`1. Nicholas .............................................................................................. 329
`2. Nicholas and Nair ................................................................................ 331
`3.
`Inoue and Nair ..................................................................................... 334
`4.
`Inoue, Nair, and Narayanaswami ......................................................... 336
`5.
`Inoue and Umeda ................................................................................ 336
`6. Nair and Umeda .................................................................................. 337
`7. Nicholas and Kusaka or Inoue/Umeda and Kusaka ............................. 338
`8. Nicholas and Khedouri or Inoue/Umeda and Khedouri ....................... 339
`9. Nicholas and Morris or Inoue/Umeda and Morris ............................... 340
`B. Petition 3: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 And
`13 Of The ‘600 Patent .......................................................................... 342
`1. Petition 3: Ground 1 – Nicholas .......................................................... 343
`2. Petition 3: Ground 2 - Nicholas and Nair ............................................. 353
`3. Petition 3: Ground 3, Nicholas and Kusaka ......................................... 354
`4. Petition 3: Ground 4 – Nicholas and Khedouri .................................... 355
`5. Petition 3: Ground 5 –Nicholas and Morris ......................................... 356
`6. Petition 3: Ground 6 –Inoue and Nair .................................................. 356
`7. Petition 3: Ground 7 –Inoue, Nair and Narayanaswami ....................... 367
`8. Petition 3: Ground 8 –Umeda and Inoue.............................................. 367
`9. Petition 3: Ground 9 – Inoue, Umeda and Kusaka ............................... 374
`10. Petition 3: Ground 10 – Inoue, Umeda And Khedouri ......................... 375
`11. Petition 3: Ground 11 – Inoue, Umeda And Morris ............................. 375
`C. Petition 6: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33,
`35, 36, 37, And 38 Of The ‘991 Patent ................................................. 376
`1. Petition 6: Ground 1 – Nicholas .......................................................... 377
`2. Petition 6: Ground 2: Inoue And Nair ................................................. 397
`3. Petition 6: Ground 3 –Inoue, Nair and Narayanaswami ....................... 417
`4. Petition 6: Ground 4: Umeda and Inoue .............................................. 418
`D. Petition 7: Inter Partes Review Of Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19 And 20 Of
`The ‘542 Patent ..................................................................................... 432
`1. Petition 7: Ground 1 – Nicholas .......................................................... 433
`2. Petition 7: Ground 2 – Nair And Umeda ............................................. 458
`3. Petition 7: Ground 3 - Umeda and Inoue ............................................. 473
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 491
`
`4
`
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and,
`
`if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide technical assistance in in connection
`
`with the Inter Partes Review that certain claims from seven related U.S. Patents:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,633,524 (the “‘524 patent”; Ex. 1001, IPR2017-02054);
`
`7,907,172 (the “‘172 patent”; Ex. 1001, IPR2017-02052); 8,134,600 (the “‘600
`
`patent”; Ex. 1001, IPR2017-02056); 8,477,197 (the “‘197 patent”; Ex. 1001,
`
`IPR2017-02053); 8,581,991 (the “‘991 patent”; Ex. 1001, in each of IPR-02058,
`
`IPR2017-02059); 8,947,542 (the “‘542 patent”; Ex. 1001, IPR2017-02055); and
`
`9,197,806 (the “‘806 patent”; Ex. 1001, IPR2017-02057). I refer to all of the
`
`patents together as “the patents-at-issue.” I understand that the following claims
`
`have been challenged in eight Petitions for Inter Partes Review are the following:
`
`3.
`
`Petition 1: Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 4, 5, and 14 of the ‘524
`
`patent (IPR2017-02054).
`
`4.
`
`Petition 2: Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 12-26 of the
`
`‘172 patent (IPR2017-02052).
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`Petition 3: Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and
`
`5.
`
`13 of the ‘600 patent (IPR2017-02056).
`
`6.
`
`Petition 4: Inter Partes Review of claims 1-4 and 7-19 of the ‘197
`
`patent (IPR2017-02053).
`
`7.
`
`Petition 5: Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
`
`and 21 of the ‘991 patent (IPR2017-02058).
`
`8.
`
`Petition 6: Inter Partes Review of claims 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32,
`
`33, 35, 36, 37, and 38 of the ‘991 patent (IPR2017-02059).
`
`9.
`
`Petition 7: Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of
`
`the ‘542 patent (IPR2017-02055).
`
`10. Petition 8: Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
`
`12, 13 and 16 of the ‘806 patent (IPR2017-02057).
`
`11. This declaration provides my opinions on issues related to the
`
`unpatentability of the claims identified in Petitions 1 through 8.
`
`B.
`
`12.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my knowledge,
`
`training, and experience in the relevant art. My qualifications are stated more fully
`
`in my curriculum vitae attached hereto as Exhibit C. I provide a brief summary of
`
`my qualifications below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Technology (Honors) in Electronics &
`
`13.
`
`Electrical Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology
`
`(IIT) in 1984, and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
`
`(EECS) from the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. I have published
`
`extensively, with about 100 technical publications and eight books in the areas of
`
`computing, signal processing and communications systems.
`
`14.
`
`I am an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”)
`
`Fellow and, in 2006, I was awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal by
`
`the American Society of Engineering Education (“ASEE”) and HP Corporation for
`
`my contributions to electrical engineering.
`
`15.
`
`I am a Full Professor of Electrical/Computer Engineering at the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) since 1989. I lead several
`
`research and educational programs at Georgia Tech in the area of digital signal
`
`processing and computer engineering, including chip and circuit design.
`
`16.
`
`I have authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the area of
`
`computer systems and distributed systems in the past twenty years, including:
`
`• V. Madisetti, VLSI Digital Signal Processors, IEEE Press (1995).
`
`• M. Romdhane, V. Madisetti, J. Hines, Quick-Turnaround ASIC
`
`Design in VHDL, Springer Verlag (1996).
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`• V. Madisett, D. Williams (Editors), The Digital Signal Processing
`
`Handbook (First Edition) (1998).
`
`• V. Madisetti (Co-Editor), VHDL: A CD-ROM Interactive Tutorial:
`
`Electronics Systems Design Methodologies, IEEE Standards Press,
`
`(1997).
`
`• V. Madisetti, A. Arpnikanondt, Platform-Centric Approach to
`
`System-on-Chip (SoC) Design (2001).
`
`• V. Madisetti, The Digital Signal Processing Handbook – Second
`
`Edition (2009/2010).
`
`• A.Bahga, V. Madisetti, Cloud Computing: A Hands-On Approach
`
`(2013).
`
`• A. Bahga, V. Madisetti, Internet of Things: A Hands-On Approach
`
`(2014).
`
`17.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of digital
`
`signal processing since the late 1980s, and I am the Editor-in-Chief the IEEE
`
`Press/CRC Press’s 3-volume Digital Signal Processing Handbook (Editions 1 & 2)
`
`(1998, 2010).
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`18. Over the past three decades I studied, used, and designed image and
`
`
`
`video processing and wireless networking circuits for several applications,
`
`including digital and video cameras, mobile phones and networking products for
`
`leading commercial firms.
`
`19. Prior to and during the timeframe of the patents-at-issue, some of the
`
`work in the area of digital image processing, video processing, networking
`
`technologies, and software engineering include:
`
`• M. Romdhane, V. Madisetti, “All Digital Oversampled Front-End
`
`Sensors”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol 3, Issue 2, 1996.
`
`• A. Hezar, V. Madisetti, “Efficient Implementation of Two-Band PR-
`
`QMF Filterbanks”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol 5, Issue 4,
`
`1998.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`• R. Tummala, V. Madisetti, System on Chip or System on Package”,
`
`IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 16, Issue 2, 1999.
`
`• V. Madisetti, “Electronic System, Platform, and Package Codesign”,
`
`IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 23, Issue 3, 2006.
`
`20.
`
`I have been active in the area signal processing systems, analysis of
`
`noise, and interference and mobile devices communications systems for several
`
`years, and some of my publications in this area include, “Adaptive Mobility
`
`Management in Wireless Networks, Electronics Letters, 1999, “Frequency
`
`Dependent Space-Interleaving of MIMO OFDM Systems” Proc. IEEE Radio and
`
`Wireless Conference (RAWCON ’03), 2003, “Embedded Alamouti Space Time
`
`Codes for High Rate and Low Decoding Complexity”, Proc. Of IEEE Asilomar
`
`Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2008; and “Asymmetric Golden Codes
`
`for Fast Decoding in Time Varying Channels”, Wireless Personal Communications
`
`(2011).
`
`C. Compensation
`
`21.
`
`I am being compensated by Google Inc. at the rate of $500 per hour
`
`for my work in this case, including time spent testifying. This rate is my standard
`
`hourly rate for engagements of this nature. I am also being reimbursed for
`
`reasonable fees and expenses, including hotel and travel expenses, incurred as a
`
`result of my work in this case. My compensation does not depend on the outcome
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`
`of the case and the fact that I am being compensated has not altered the opinions
`
`that I have or will give in this case.
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`22. My opinions are also informed by my understanding of the relevant
`
`law. I understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim
`
`and element-by-element basis, and that there are several possible reasons that a
`
`patent claim may be found to be unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`23.
`
`Interpreting Claims Before the Patent Office
`
`I understand that Inter Partes Review is a proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office for evaluating the validity of an issued
`
`patent claim. I understand that claims in an Inter Partes Review are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the patent’s specification.
`
`I understand that a patent’s “specification” includes all the figures, discussion, and
`
`claims within the patent document. I understand that the Patent Office will look to
`
`the specification to see if there is a definition for a claim term, and if not, will
`
`apply the broadest reasonable interpretation from the perspective of a Person
`
`Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made.1
`
`
`1 I and the Petitions do not always use PHOSITA to refer to this hypothetical
`skilled artisan. The terms “person of ordinary skill,” “ordinary artisan,” and
`
`“skilled artisan” are sometimes used, and should be understood to synonyms of
`
`PHOSITA.
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`I understand that in deciding whether to institute Inter Partes Review,
`
`“[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I understand that, unless the specification
`
`redefines a claim term or otherwise expressly narrows its scope, the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of a claim term should encompass the ordinary meaning of
`
`that claim term to a PHOSITA as of the filing date of the relevant patent, and that
`
`this ordinary meaning may be evidenced by contemporaneous dictionaries. I
`
`applied this broadest reasonable construction standard to my review of the claims
`
`of the patents-at-issue discussed below, including, without limitation, the claim
`
`terms which I specifically discuss below.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a single prior art reference, article, patent or
`
`publication “anticipates” a claim if each and every element of the claim is
`
`disclosed in that prior art reference. I further understand that, where a claim
`
`element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art reference, the reference may
`
`nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim element is necessarily present in
`
`the apparatus or a natural result of the method disclosed—i.e. the missing element
`
`is “inherent.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim “obvious.” I
`
`understand that two or more prior art references (e.g., prior art articles, patents, or
`
`publications) that each disclose fewer than all elements of a patent claim may
`
`nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim obvious if the combination of
`
`the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the claim and one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time would have been motivated to combine the prior art in
`
`such a way. I understand that this motivation to combine need not be explicit in
`
`any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. I also understand that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is a person having ordinary
`
`creativity. I further understand that one or more prior art references, articles,
`
`patents or publications that disclose fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim
`
`may render a patent claim obvious if including the missing element would have
`
`been obvious to one of skill in the art (e.g., the missing element represents only an
`
`insubstantial difference over the prior art or a reconfiguration of a known system).
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the teaching of the prior art is viewed through the
`
`eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time claimed invention was made.
`
`To assess the level of ordinary skill in the art, I understand one can consider the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`
`found in the prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the level of education of active workers in the
`
`field. My opinion as to what constitutes a relevant person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is set forth below.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that under an obviousness analysis, a patent for a claimed
`
`invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
`
`identically disclosed in a single piece of prior art, if the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date (i.e., the date of the
`
`invention) of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant field.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`31.
`
`It is also my understanding that there are additional considerations
`
`that may be used as further guidance as to when the above factors will result in a
`
`finding that a claim is obvious, including the following:
`
`• the claimed invention is simply a combination of prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results;
`
`• the claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`• the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar
`
`devices or methods in the same way;
`
`• the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known
`
`device or method that is ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• the claimed invention would have been “obvious to try” choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• there is known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations
`
`would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`• there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which
`
`there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims;
`
`and
`
`• there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art
`
`that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`32. Finally, I understand that a claim may be deemed unpatentable for
`
`obviousness in light of a single prior art reference, without the need to combine
`
`references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference can be
`
`supplied by the knowledge or common sense of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art.
`
`III. MATERIAL RELIED ON IN FORMING OPINIONS
`
`33.
`
`In forming my opinion, I have relied on the patent-at-issue’s claims,
`
`disclosure, and file history; on the eight Petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`referenced above and the exhibits cited there; on the other materials explicitly cited
`
`in this declaration; and my own experience, expertise, and knowledge of the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant timeframe.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PATENTS-AT-ISSUE
`
`34. The patents-at-issue generally claims “devices” (or their use)—which
`
`are referred to as “Internet direct cameras” or “Internet direct devices”—that are
`
`nothing more than various combinations of well-known features of digital cameras
`
`and general mobile communications devices (such as cell phones and personal
`
`digital assistants that have camera or video capabilities).
`
`A. The Specifications of the Patents-at-Issue
`
`35. The specifications of the patents-at-issue describe the field of the
`
`alleged invention as an integrated Internet camera or system that is simple to
`
`install, operate, and maintain, and further that “seamlessly and automatically
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`
`transmits, receives, stores and/or archives still images, video and/or audio to and
`
`from a web site service/monitor center over the Internet using one or more
`
`integrated Internet cameras.” Exhibit A, ‘524 patent, col. 1:10-17. The patents-at-
`
`issue are directed to the use of Internet-enabled cameras and devices, referred to as
`
`an “Internet direct camera” or an “Internet direct device,” that automatically
`
`connects to a communication network on power up via a primary mode of
`
`connection and automatically switch to another mode of connection if the primary
`
`mode becomes unavailable.
`
`36. Although the patents-at-issue contain generally the same description
`
`of their asserted invention, there are some differences among the various patents.
`
`The ‘172 patent, ‘600 patent, ‘197 patent, and ‘991 patent are based on
`
`continuation applications from the parent application that issued as the ‘524 patent
`
`and share a common specification. The ‘542 patent issued from a continuation-in-
`
`part application from the ‘991 patent application, and the ‘806 patent issued from a
`
`continuation of the ‘542 continuation-in-part application. Thus, the ‘542 and ‘806
`
`patents do not share a common specification with the specifications of the other
`
`patents-in-suit.2 For ease of reference, I will refer to the ‘524 patent’s specification
`
`
`2 For example, new matter added to the specification of the ‘542 and ‘806 patents
`that is not present in the specifications of the earlier applications is found in the
`
`section of the ‘542 patent entitled “Objects and Summary of the Invention”) from
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`
`
`in this declaration, which is attached as Exhibit A. When I reference the new
`
`matter added to in the continuation-in-part application, I will refer to the ‘542
`
`patent’s specification, which is attached as Exhibit B. All of the patents-at-issue
`
`claim priority to provisional U.S. App. No. 60/702,470, filed on July 26, 2005 (the
`
`“Provisional,” which is Exhibit C to this declaration). See, e.g., ‘524 patent
`
`(cover).
`
`37. The common portion of the specifications of the patents-at-issue
`
`describe the field of the alleged invention as an integrated Internet camera or
`
`system that is simple to install, operate, and maintain, and further that “seamlessly
`
`and automatically transmits, receives, stores and/or archives still images, video
`
`and/or audio to and from a web site service/monitor center over the Internet using
`
`one or more integrated Internet cameras.” ‘524 patent, col. 1:10-17. As discussed
`
`herein, based on the teachings of the specifications of the patents-at-issue, I
`
`interpret the terms “Internet direct camera” (“IDC”) and “Internet direct device”
`
`(“IDD”) to include at least a camera (or device) that is capable of connecting to the
`
`Internet without the necessity of connecting to another device, such as a PC.
`
`
`column 3, line 7, through column 4, line 31. Compare ‘524 patent, at “Objects and
`
`Summary of the Invention,” col. 1:63–2:67, which omits the cited discussion in the
`
`‘542 patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`38. Figure 2 below is found in the specification of all patents-in-suit and
`
`purports to depict the claimed integrated internet camera system. ‘524 patent, col.
`
`3:15-20. As depicted, an Internet direct camera (“IDC 2000) connects to a “website
`
`archive and review center” (WSARC 3000) via the Internet 4000. Id. The WSARC
`
`3000 includes a web server 3010 and one or more databases 3020. Id. at col. 3:20-
`
`22. The IDC 2000 transmits still images, video, and audio (collectively, “data”)
`
`over the Internet to the WSARC, where that data is stored or archived. Id. at col.
`
`3:20-26.
`
`39.
`
`In the preferred embodiment, the Internet direct camera (an “IDC”)
`
`connects to the network via a primary mode of connection but can switch to
`
`another mode of connection if the primary mode becomes unavailable:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-02056, Petitioner Google Inc.
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Expert Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti
`
`Preferably, the IDC 2000 connects to the Internet via a
`primary mode of communication and switches over the
`secondary mode
`of
`communication
`if
`the
`IDC 2000 detects a failure in the primary mode of
`IDC 2000 is
`communication. For example,
`if
`the
`programmed or setup to use Wi-Fi as a primary mode of
`communication, the IDC 2000 can switch to a cellular
`communication if the Wi-Fi communication is lost or
`unavailable.
`
`‘524 patent, col. 3:30-37.
`
`40. According to the specification, “[t]he IDC 2000 can connect to the
`
`Internet via, but not limited to, land line, DSL, cable, satellite, wireless network,
`
`cellular, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and the like.” ‘524 patent, col. 3:27-29. Each of these are
`
`considered to be distinct “modes” of “connection” or “communication” to a
`
`“communicat