UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO.,
`LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., AND HUAWEI DEVICE
`(DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02080
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C EASTTOM II
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS ....................................... 2
`
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................ 3
`
`B. Obviousness ............................................................................................ 3
`
`C. Priority Date ........................................................................................... 4
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.......................................................... 5
`
`E. 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” ......................................................................12
`
`C. “communication platform system” .........................................................13
`
`VI.
`
`INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION WO 01/11824 (“ZYDNEY”) ...........14
`
`VII. VALIDITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................17
`
`A. “…wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a
`digitized audio file” ...............................................................................18
`
`B. “wherein the instant voice message includes an action field identifying
`one of a predetermined set of permitted actions requested by the user.” .26
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................27
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page i
`
`

`

`EASTTOM CV .....................................................................................................29
`
`A. Education ...............................................................................................29
`1. University Degrees ........................................................................... 29
`2. Industry Certifications ...................................................................... 30
`3. Hardware and Networking Related Certifications ............................. 30
`4. Operating System Related Certifications........................................... 30
`5. Programming and Web Development Related Certifications ............ 31
`6. Database Related Certifications ........................................................ 31
`7. Security and Forensics Related Certifications ................................... 31
`8. Software Certifications ..................................................................... 32
`9. Licenses ............................................................................................ 32
`
`B. Publications ...........................................................................................32
`1. Books 33
`2. Papers, presentations, & articles........................................................ 35
`3. Patents .............................................................................................. 37
`
`C. Standards and Certification Creation ......................................................38
`
`D. Professional Awards and Memberships .................................................39
`
`E. Speaking Engagements ..........................................................................40
`
`F. Litigation Support Experience ...............................................................44
`1. Testifying Experience ....................................................................... 51
`
`G. Professional Experience .........................................................................54
`
`H. Continuing Professional Education ........................................................58
`
`I. References to my work ..........................................................................60
`1. Media References ............................................................................. 60
`2. References to publications ................................................................ 61
`3. Universities using my books ............................................................. 69
`
`J. Training .................................................................................................71
`
`K. Technical Skills .....................................................................................73
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page ii
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`claims 3-23 (“Challenged Claims”) obvious in light of the references cited in
`
`IPR2017-2080.
`
`2.
`
`Based on my review of the cited references, 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 1
`
`

`

`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) multiple networking certifications. I have
`
`authored 26 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.
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 2
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Anticipation
`
`7.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated only if
`
`each and every element as set forth in the claim is either expressly or
`
`inherently described in a single prior art reference.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 3
`
`

`

`• 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;
`
`• 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.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date
`
`12. 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.
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 4
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`are made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and (e) the educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 5
`
`

`

`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.
`
`E.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`16.
`
`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
`
`17. 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.
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 6
`
`

`

`18. 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
`
`
`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.
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 7
`
`
`
`

`

`102) are different from, and are incompatible with, an audio signal carried
`
`over a dedicated packet-switched circuit. Id., 2:8-21.
`
`19. 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.
`
`20. 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
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 8
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would interpret certain claim terms using the BRI.
`
`While it is my opinion that the terms described below recite known terms of
`
`art (e.g., “application”), and therefore may not require a specific construction
`
`in this forum, I offer the following explanations merely to clarify my opinions.
`
`A.
`
`“instant voice messaging application”
`
`22.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 9
`
`

`

`understood that whole phrase “instant voice messaging application” means “a
`
`software program that performs instant voice messaging tasks or functions.”
`
`23. 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
`
`POSITA on the priority date, that is, as “software that performs a task or
`
`function.”
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 10
`
`

`

`25. 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.
`
`26. 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
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 11
`
`

`

`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.
`
`27. 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”
`
`28. 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.
`
`29. The specification describes an embodiment of the “client
`
`platform system” as follows:
`
`“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,
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 12
`
`
`
`

`

`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).
`
`30. Notably, the passage above shows that the “client platform
`
`system” is not necessarily limited to generating an instant voice message
`
`though as claimed that is one of its necessary features.
`
`31. For at least the reasons presented above, in my opinion, “client
`
`platform system” refers to “software on a client”.
`
`C.
`
`“communication platform system”
`
`32. The
`
`specification describes
`
`an
`
`embodiment of
`
`the
`
`“communication platform system” as follows:
`
`“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).
`
`33. Consistent with that description, the claims of the ‘622 Patent
`
`define the “communications platform system” as performing the tasks of
`
`“maintaining connection information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 13
`
`

`

`message client systems” and “indicating whether there is a current connection
`
`to each of the plurality of instant voice message client systems”.
`
`VI.
`
`INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION WO 01/11824 (“ZYDNEY”)
`
`34. 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 Ex. 1103.)2
`
`35. Zydney explains “[the] present invention is a system and method
`
`for voice exchange and voice distribution utilizing a voice container.”
`
`(1:19-20.) The “voice containers can be stored, transcoded and routed to the
`
`appropriate recipients instantaneously or stored for later delivery.” (1:21-2.)
`
`Zydney defines “voice container” as “a container object that contains no
`
`methods but contains voice data or voice data and voice data properties.”
`
`(12:6-8.) A POSITA would have understood from this definition that
`
`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
`
`
`2 EX1003 is a copy of Zydney that has line numbers added. I refer to
`EX1003 by page and line numbers.
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 14
`
`
`
`

`

`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.
`
`36. 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.” (16:1-4.)
`
`37. 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 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).
`
`(10:20-11:3.)
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 15
`
`

`

`38. This passage explains that Zydney’s voice message is the audio
`
`data; however, it is stored in a distinct 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.
`
`39. Furthermore, after the voice container is received by a recipient,
`
`“voice files can be played and recorded using voice container enabled
`
`devices.” (21:14-16.) 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.
`
`40. Zydney’s describes the structure of its voice container with
`
`reference to FIG. 3. More specifically, 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,
`
`
`3 A “file” is typically a collection of data usually organized sequentially,
`byte-by-byte without built-in structural pointers. An “object” is typically a
`data construct that may be structured into a collection of individually
`addressable data structures, such as numbers, text, arrays, matrices, and
`others.
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 16
`
`
`
`

`

`voice container reuse restrictions, delivery priority, session values and
`
`number, and more. (23:1-12.)
`
`41. Zydney explains that files, such as multi-media files, may be
`
`attached to a voice container. (19:2-5.) Zydney states “[for] example, 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. (19:6-20:9.)
`
`VII. VALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`42.
`
`I have review the claims in light of the proposed combinations
`
`and believe they do not anticipate or render obvious all the claim features.
`
`Given that the Petitioners and their declarant rely exclusively on Zydney for
`
`several claim limitations in both their anticipation and obviousness
`
`challenges, and for the sake of brevity, I have focused my analysis on certain
`
`ones of those limitations and have concluded there are not expressly or
`
`inherently disclosed by Zydney.
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 17
`
`

`

`A.
`
`“…wherein the instant voice message includes an object field
`including a digitized audio file”
`
`43. The Petition and its attached declaration are fundamentally
`
`flawed in the attempt to equate the claimed “instant voice message” (as recited
`
`in claim 3) to Zydney’s voice container that merely contains a distinct voice
`
`message. With reference to the above limitation, I understand that the Petition
`
`and its attached declaration argue that the “voice container” in Zydney
`
`corresponds to the claimed “instant voice message,” and that the “voice
`
`message” in Zydney corresponds, instead, to the claimed “digitized audio
`
`file.” Pet. 18. I disagree.
`
`44. The ‘622 patent confirms that the term “instant voice message”
`
`refers (not surprisingly) to the actual message itself, as opposed to a distinct
`
`container used only to transport that message: “In response to the start signal,
`
`the IVM client (softphone) 208 listens to the input audio device 212 and
`
`records the user’s speech into a digitized audio file 210 (i.e., instant voice
`
`message) stored on the IVM client 208.” ‘622 patent, 8:11-15; see also id. at
`
`10:50 (the “recorded audio file (instant voice message)”).
`
`45. Zydney’s voice container is not equivalent to the claimed voice
`
`message. Zydney itself makes a clear distinction between its voice container
`
`and the voice message contained therein. For example, Zydney teaches that
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 18
`
`
`
`

`

`its voice message is stored in a distinct container only after the voice message
`
`is generated and compressed: “the [voice] message is first acquired,
`
`compressed and then stored in a voice container 26.” (11:1-3.) In addition,
`
`Zydney uses reference number 26 to refer to the containers (which are used
`
`only for transmission); and Zydney refers, instead, to reference number 30
`
`when referring to the voice messages. (11:1-6.)
`
`46. Another point of distinction is that Zydney does not describe its
`
`voice container as including any “fields” as claimed, let alone an object filed
`
`including a digitized audio file.” A POSITA (as of the effective filing date of
`
`December 18, 2003) would have recognized the word “field” as a term of art
`
`in the context of specific packet-switched networks, particularly in light of the
`
`teachings of the ‘622 Patent.
`
`47. More specifically, such a person would have recognized that
`
`certain network packets have headers with various fields describing things
`
`such as source address, destination address, port, protocol, etc. Independent
`
`claim 3 structurally defines the instant voice message as requiring a specific
`
`“object field including a digitized audio file.” This claim language reflects,
`
`for example, the teachings in the specification that “[t]he content of the object
`
`field is a block of data.” (‘622 Patent, 14:37-38.)
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 19
`
`

`

`48. Zydney does not disclose or suggest that its transport mechanism
`
`is based on fields used in certain packet-switched transmissions. On the
`
`contrary, Zydney’s transport mechanism takes a very different approach than
`
`what is taught and claimed in the ‘622 patent. Zydney teaches that “[t]he
`
`transport mechanism for all communications will be over TCP/IP, Universal
`
`Data Protocol (UDP), and the PSTN between all software agents and the
`
`server.” (29:1-3; 23:11-12, underling and boldface added.)
`
`49. A POSITA would readily recognize the profound differences
`
`between transmitting via TCP or UDP and field-based packet-switched
`
`transmission, such as that used by Hypertext Transfer Protocol or “HTTP”.
`
`For example, TCP/IP uses a guaranteed delivery system, while UDP simply
`
`makes the connect, then sends the packets assuming they will all get to their
`
`destination. But both TCP and UDP focus on how to route traffic over a given
`
`network. The HTTP protocol is not concerned with all the nuances of routing
`
`and delivering packets. Instead HTTP is simply concerned with formatting the
`
`data contained in a packet, so that it can be viewed in a browser and/or
`
`understood by a web server. The TCP/IP and UDP protocols have a
`
`fundamentally different purpose than HTTP.
`
`
`
`Google et al. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2080
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`Page 20
`
`