`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Rojas
`In re Patent of:
`
`7,535,890
`U.S. Pat. No.:
`May 19, 2009
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/740,030
`Filing Date:
`Dec. 18, 2003
`Title:
` SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP
`MESSAGING
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 19473-0372IP2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL S. MIN, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 3
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 3
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 8
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 8
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 9
`C. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 11
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 12
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 13
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’890 PATENT ..................................................... 16
`A. Subject Matter Overview............................................................................. 16
`B.
`File History of the ’890 Patent .................................................................... 18
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES................................................................................................ 20
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF AGGARWAL (CLAIMS 14-20,
`23-24, 26, 28-34, 37, 51-54, 57-58, 60, 62-65, and 68) ................................. 21
`IX. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF AGGARWAL AND
`OPPENHEIMER (CLAIMS 39 AND 70) ....................................................134
`X. ADDITIONAL REMARKS .........................................................................141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Paul S. Min of St. Louis, Missouri, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Google Inc. (“Google” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Google is requesting that
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceedings of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (“the ’890 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’890
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Google. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’890 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving
`
`the ’890 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1982, a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1984, and a Ph.D.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering in 1987, all from the University of Michigan in
`
`Ann Arbor. All of my degrees from the University of Michigan are with
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`distinction. In addition, I received several academic awards, including a best
`
`graduate student award and a best teaching assistant award, during my study at the
`
`University Michigan. I also received a best paper award in a major international
`
`symposium for the paper based on my Ph.D. thesis.
`
`
`
`After obtaining my Ph.D., I worked at Bellcore (now Telcordia
`
`Technologies, Inc.) in New Jersey from August 1987 until August 1990, as a lead
`
`engineer in major projects for the Regional Bell Operating Companies. In these
`
`projects, I was responsible for developing and analyzing next generation
`
`technologies to be incorporated in Regional Bell Operating Companies’
`
`communication networks, including transmission and switching technologies based
`
`on wireless and optical media and a variety of service and application
`
`infrastructures.
`
`
`
`In September 1990, I joined the faculty at Washington University in
`
`St. Louis. I was an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering until June 1996,
`
`and then was promoted to an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering with
`
`tenure. Since July 2002, I have been an Associate Professor of Electrical and
`
`Systems Engineering at Washington University.
`
` My research activities at Washington University have focused on
`
`multi-media, high-speed communication and computing, including high
`
`performance switches and routers used in the Internet and in various types of local
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`area networks (“LANs”). I have received grants from the National Science
`
`Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Project Agency. I have also received numerous grants and
`
`contracts from companies and organizations around the world, and have
`
`undertaken many research projects involving development of high performance
`
`switches and routers for the Internet and LANs, which include multi-media and
`
`multi-services capabilities.
`
`
`
`At Washington University, I have taught many courses in electronics,
`
`communications, and computing, and supervised more than 50 graduate students,
`
`10 of whom received a doctoral degree under my direction. I have trained a
`
`number of students in these fields, many of whom are now leading professionals in
`
`their respective specialties.
`
`
`
`Outside the university, I have also founded two companies: MinMax
`
`Technologies, Inc. (May 1997), a fabless semiconductor company, which
`
`developed switch fabric semiconductor chips for the Internet, and Erlang
`
`Technology, Inc. (March 1999), which focused on the design and development of
`
`semiconductor chips and software for the Internet. Erlang’s switch fabric chips
`
`received a best product of the year award for 2004 from a major Internet industry
`
`trade journal.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In 1996, I participated in a competitive wireless licensure process
`
`offered by the government of the Republic of Korea. Among numerous entries
`
`from Korea and overseas countries including many from the U.S.A., I was the
`
`primary technical author of the winning proposal by Hansol PCS for nation-wide
`
`deployment of Qualcomm's CDMA cellular technology. The Hansol PCS network,
`
`which I have designed, is one of the earliest commercial scale digital wireless
`
`networks in the world. I also understand that the Hansol PCS network may have
`
`been the first commercial scale CDMA wireless network in the world.
`
`
`
`I have also served as an advisor and consultant to a number of
`
`companies and organizations around the world, including Bell Atlantic Personal
`
`Communications, AT&T, SBC Communications, NTT Docomo, Korea Telecom,
`
`Southern New England Telecom, Electronics and Telecommunications Research
`
`Institute, and SK Telecom. For example, I have designed metropolitan scale
`
`wireless networks for Bell Atlantic Personal Communications (now Verizon
`
`Wireless) in 1995-1996, developed routing and switching technologies for
`
`Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute during 1993-2003, and
`
`consulted on traffic management and service deployment for Korea Telecom
`
`during mid to late 1990s. Most of my advisory and consultant roles included
`
`development, deployment, and assessment of wireless and/or wired technologies
`
`integrated together to provide state-of-art communication infrastructures.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have served on the program committee for the International
`
`Association of Science and Technology for Development International Conference
`
`on Communications, Internet and Information Technology, the Wireless and
`
`Optical Communications Conference, and the International Conference on
`
`Computer Communications and Networks.
`
`
`
`I am a member of, and actively involved in, professional organizations.
`
`For example, I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE), an Ambassador of the McDonnell International Scholars
`
`Academy, the Secretary for the Saint Louis Section of the IEEE, and a member of
`
`the Eta Kappa Nu Honor Society for electrical engineers.
`
`
`
`I am a named inventor on nine U.S. patents and have authored
`
`numerous technical papers, reports, and memoranda, and presented at numerous
`
`conferences, seminars, and workshops around the world. I have also organized
`
`several international conferences and served as an editor for international journals.
`
`I have received a number of professional awards, such as the Wall Street Journal
`
`Businessman of the Year (2003), the Outstanding Achievement Award from
`
`Bellcore (1990), and the Rockwell Fellowship (1985 and 1986).
`
` Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’890 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time.
`
` My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`(critical date). And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent (or in a published application for a U.S.
`
`patent) that was filed by another in the U.S. before the date of invention for such a
`
`claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others. While I do not
`
`know the exact date that the alleged invention claimed in the ’890 patent was made,
`
`I do know that the ’890 patent claims priority to applications filed as early as
`
`December 18, 2003 (Ex. 1001, cover page) and that during the prosecution of one
`
`of the priority applications, the applicant provided declarations testifying to an
`
`invention date as early as August 15, 2003 (Ex. 1002, 172-175). For purposes of
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`my analysis here, I have applied a date of August 15, 2003 as the date of the
`
`alleged invention in my obviousness analysis, although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even if the date of the alleged invention occurred earlier
`
`than August 15, 2003 (especially given the earlier publication or filing dates of the
`
`prior art in Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1006, and 1007 as described below). See, infra,
`
`¶25.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight in
`
`making the obviousness determination.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that regard, I understand
`
`that the best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in the context of the patent
`
`specification as understood by a POSITA. I further understand that the words of
`
`the claims should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent
`
`with the patent specification or the patent’s history of examination before the
`
`Patent Office. Also, I understand that it is important not to import into a claim any
`
`limitation from the specification that is not part of the claim language. Under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, an inventor can act as his own
`
`lexicographer for a claim term only where the inventor clearly and unambiguously
`
`sets forth an explicit definition of a claim term in the specification.
`
`
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made (not today). Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention
`
`was made, I have used the date of August 15, 2003 for reasons explained in ¶20
`
`(above) and ¶25 (below). However, the plain meanings/interpretations that I
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`employed in my analysis below would have also been correct if the date of
`
`invention was anywhere within the late-1990s to early-2000s.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’890 patent and file history, I believe that person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention (a “POSITA”) would have had at least an
`
`undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field,
`
`and two years of experience in the field of telecommunications devices and
`
`systems. My analysis and conclusions as expressed herein are thus based on the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art having this level of knowledge
`
`and skill at the time of the ’890 patent.
`
` Because Patent Owner has alleged a date of conception before August
`
`15, 2003, I have used this alleged invention date as the point in time from which
`
`my opinions from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art are based. Here
`
`again, my analysis of the prior art and the conclusion herein would also apply even
`
`if the date of the alleged invention as claimed was anywhere within the late-1990s
`
`to early-2000s (e.g., refer to the earlier publication or filing dates of Exhibits 1004,
`
`1005, 1006, and 1007).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
` My analyses set forth in this declaration are based on my experience
`
`in the field of network communication systems and associated technologies. Based
`
`on my above-described experience in the field of network communication systems,
`
`I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the field. Also, based on my
`
`experiences, I understand and know of the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill
`
`in this field during the late-1990s to early-2000s and specifically during the time
`
`before the alleged invention date (August 15, 2003) for the ’890 patent, and I
`
`taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons
`
`in the field during that time frame.
`
` As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the alleged invention date for the ’890 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the fields of electrical engineering and
`
`network communication systems generally; my experience in teaching and
`
`advising others in those subjects; and my experience in working with others
`
`involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications
`
`and materials:
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890 to Rojas (“the ’890 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Prosecution History of the ’890 patent (Serial No. 10/740,030) (Ex.
`
`1002)
`
` International Publication No. WO01/11824 (“Zydney”) (Ex. 1004)
`
` Gralla, HOW THE INTERNET WORKS (6th Ed. 2001) (“Gralla”)
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,415,318 (“Aggarwal”) (Ex. 1006)
`
` International Publication No. WO01/71992 (“Oppenheimer”) (Ex.
`
`1007)
`
` THE NETWORK ENCYCLOPEDIA,
`
`(http://www.thenetworkencyclopedia.com/entry/packet-switching/)
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`
` Nwana, SOFTWARE AGENTS: AN OVERVIEW (1996),
`
`(http://agents.umbc.edu/introduction/ao/) (Ex. 1010)
`
` Levitt, INTRANETS: INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYED
`
`BEHIND THE FIREWALL FOR CORPORATE PRODUCTIVITY
`
`(2002), https://www.isoc.org/inet96/proceedings/b2/b2_3.htm
`
`(retrieved via https://web.archive.org/web/20021221131244/) (Ex.
`
`1012)
`
` Wijuntunga, LOCAL AREA NETWORKS (LANS) AND THEIR
`
`APPLICATION IN LIBRARIES (1992),
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`http://web.simmons.edu/~chen/nit/NIT'92/349-wij.htm (retrieved via
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20020430165401/) (Ex. 1013)
`
` LAN VS WAN – THE BENEFITS OF EACH NETWORK TYPE,
`
`(http://packetworks.net/lan-vs-wan-the-benefits-of-each-network-
`
`type/) (Ex. 1014)
`
` Shinder, UNDERSTANDING SERVER LOAD BALANCING
`
`(2001), (http://www.techrepublic.com/article/understanding-server-
`
`load-balancing/) (Ex. 1015)
`
` Cisco, IOS SERVER LOAD BALANCING, RELEASE 12.2 S (2002),
`
`(https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2s/feature/guide/fsslb.
`
`html) (Ex. 1016)
`
` Webopedia, Definition of “CAN” (2003),
`
`http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/CAN.html (retrieved via
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20030201193119/) (Ex. 1017)
`
` Although this Declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this Declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entireties.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’890 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview
` The ’890 patent describes various embodiments of “an instant voice
`
`messaging system . . . for delivering instant messages over a packet-switched
`
`network” such as the Internet. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’890 patent describes
`
`transmission of instant voice messages in a Voice Over IP or “VoIP” setting, while
`
`also allowing for connectivity with the public switched telephone network or
`
`“PTSN.” Id., 1:7-11; 2:46-48, 6:37-39. As explained by ’890 Patent, the PSTN is
`
`the communications medium for “traditional telephony.” Id., 1:13-14. “In the
`
`PSTN, a telephone terminal is electrically connected to a conventional or legacy
`
`switch.” Id., 1:14-16. A physical communication path or “dedicated circuit”
`
`between telephone terminals is established by physically manipulating the
`
`switch—i.e., “circuit switching.” Id., 1:18-23. VoIP is a well-known alternative to
`
`the PSTN. Ex. 1001, 1:24-26. In VoIP communications, “a VoIP terminal device
`
`is connected to a packet-switched network (e.g., Internet) and voice
`
`communication from the VoIP terminal device is digitized, packetized and
`
`transmitted over the packet-switched network to a destination VoIP terminal
`
`device[.]” Id., 1:26-30. The ’890 patent describes traditional voice messaging
`
`used “in both the VoIP and PSTN” that were well-known prior to the ’890 patent,
`
`and further concedes that “[i]nstant text messaging is likewise known.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:64-2:10. The ’890 patent goes on to explain the widely known techniques for
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sending text messages by “select[ing] one or more persons to whom the message
`
`will be sent and typ[ing] in a text message. The text message is sent immediately
`
`via the text-messaging server to the selected one or more persons.” Id., 2:23-35.
`
` A significant portion of the ’890 patent specification is directed
`
`toward acknowledging techniques and features that were already well-known with
`
`respect to sending and receiving instant text messages and simply applying them to
`
`voice messages. For example, the ’890 patent describes functions such as
`
`displaying a list of potential recipients for a message on a client device, allowing a
`
`user of the device “to select one or more recipients that are to receive the recorded
`
`instant voice message” and transmitting the instant voice message over a packet-
`
`switched network (e.g., the Internet, a WAN, or a LAN) to the one or more
`
`selected recipients. Ex. 1001, 8:30-9:12; 6:67-7:12. Each of these features was
`
`well-known with respect to instant text messages prior to the earliest asserted
`
`priority date of the ’890 patent (as admitted by the ’890 patent itself) and are
`
`simply applied by the ’890 patent to instant voice messages rather than instant text
`
`messages. Furthermore, as explained in greater detail below, not only were these
`
`features well-known in the area of instant text messaging, they were also well-
`
`known in the area of instant voice messaging, including instant voice messaging
`
`using both PSTN and VoIP networks, well before the earliest asserted priority date
`
`of the ’890 patent, as exemplified by the Zydney reference.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`File History of the ’890 Patent
` As part of my preparation of this declaration, I reviewed the file
`
`history of the ’890 patent (Ex. 1002). I understand that the application that led to
`
`the ’890 patent was filed on December 18, 2003. The ’890 patent eventually
`
`issued on May 19, 2009. See Ex. 1001, Cover Page.
`
` Prosecution of the ’890 patent included three rejections issued by the
`
`Patent Office with three subsequent responses from the applicant. In the first
`
`office action, the majority of the 76 pending claims were rejected as either
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,763,226 to McZeal (“McZeal”) or rendered
`
`obvious by McZeal in view of one or more additional references. Ex. 1002, 224-
`
`230. Other claims were deemed allowable but objected to as depending from a
`
`rejected base claim. Id. The applicant responded to this rejection by amending the
`
`independent claims to include the subject matter recited by dependent claims 6, 21,
`
`36, 46, 58 and 70 that had previously been deemed allowable. Id., 188-216. For
`
`example, independent claim 1 was amended to additionally recite “the server
`
`temporarily storing the instant voice message if a selected recipient is unavailable
`
`and delivering the stored instant voice message to the selected recipient once the
`
`selected recipient becomes available.” Id., 188. The same or a similar amendment
`
`was made to each of the other pending independent claims. Id., 188-213.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the second office action, the examiner rejected all pending claims
`
`as being obvious based on McZeal in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0174403 to
`
`Barry (“Barry”) alone or one or more additional references. Ex. 1002, 176-182.
`
`The applicant responded by submitting a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131
`
`attesting that the claimed invention was completed prior to August 15, 2003,
`
`thereby swearing behind the cited Barry reference. Id., 119-170.
`
`
`
`In the third office action, the examiner rejected all pending claims as
`
`obvious based on McZeal in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/00128356 to
`
`Bernstein et al. (“Bernstein”) alone or one or more additional references. Ex. 1002,
`
`105-112. The applicant responded by asserting that the cited prior art references
`
`art “fail[ed] to teach (i) any consideration of availability/unavailability; (ii)
`
`temporarily storing the instant voice message; and (iii) delivering the stored
`
`instant voice message to the selected recipient once the selected recipient becomes
`
`available.” Id., 94 (emphasis original).
`
` The Examiner subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance on
`
`December 5, 2008, stating as reasons for allowance:
`
`The prior art fails to teach/disclose applicant’s instant voice
`messaging system having a server that temporarily stores an instant
`voice message if a recipient is unavailable.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., 80. Based on my review of the record, it appears that none of the prior art
`
`publications listed above (and which I analyze below) were cited in any office
`
`action by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
` As explained in detail below, based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience in this field and my review of the publications cited here, I do not agree
`
`that claims 14-20, 23-24, 26, 28-34, 37, 39, 51-54, 57-58, 60, 62-65, 68, and 70 are
`
`patentable over the prior art. The Zydney reference (Ex. 1004), for example, does
`
`in fact provide a straightforward teaching of an “instant voice messaging system
`
`having a server that temporarily stores an instant voice message if a recipient is
`
`unavailable,” the precise feature which originally lead to allowance of the claims
`
`of the ’890 patent.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES
` This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my independent analysis. To summarize those conclusions:
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 14-20, 23-24,
`
`26, 28-34, 37, 51-54, 57-58, 60, 62-65, and 68 of the ’890 patent are
`
`obvious over International Publication No. WO01/11824 (“Zydney”)
`
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,318 (“Aggarwal”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 39 and 70 of
`
`the ’890 patent are obvious over Zydney in view of Aggarwal and
`
`International Publication No. WO01/71992 (“Oppenheimer”).
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF AGGARWAL (CLAIMS 14-20,
`23-24, 26, 28-34, 37, 51-54, 57-58, 60, 62-65, and 68)
` For the reasons articulated in detail below, and based on my review of
`
`the ’890 patent, file history, and the prior art references, I am confident that a
`
`POSITA would have readily understood that the teachings of Zydney in view of
`
`Aggarwal plainly provide all elements of claims 14-20, 23-24, 26, 28-34, 37, 51-54,
`
`57-58, 60, 62-65, and 68.
`
` Zydney describes a system for “voice exchange and voice distribution
`
`[that] allows a software agent with a user interface in conjunction with a central
`
`server to send, receive and store messages using voice containers.” Ex. 1004, 1:19-
`
`2:10. Zydney describes that “voice containers can be stored, transcoded and routed
`
`to the appropriate recipients instantaneously or stored for later delivery.” Id.
`
`Specifically, Zydney discloses the very feature identified by the examiner of
`
`the ’890 patent in the reasons for allowance that was allegedly missing from the
`
`prior art: “the ability to store messages both locally and centrally at the server
`
`whenever the recipient is not available for a prescribed period of time” such that
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`once the recipient device is available “all messages that have been stored on the
`
`message server will be sent to the appropriate software agent.” Id.at 2:3-10; 25:1-9.
`
` Not only does Zydney disclose the feature believed to be missing
`
`from the prior art, Zydney, when taken in view of Aggarwal, further discloses each
`
`and every element of claims 14-20, 23-24, 26, 28-34, 37, 51-54, 57-58, 60, 62-65,
`
`and 68, including communication of instant voice messages over a packet switched
`
`network with PSTN support. FIGs. 1 and 1A (reproduced below) of Zydney show
`
`the system architecture of Zydney that allows for recording and transmission of
`
`instant voice messages to and from devices connected to both a packet-switched
`
`network (e.g., the Internet) and the PTSN. Zydney’s system utilizes a sender
`
`software agent (22, yellow) interfacing with a central server (24, pink) to send a
`
`voice container (26) to a recipient software agent (28, blue). Ex. 1004, 10:11-
`
`11:22. Communications between the software agents (22, 28) and the central
`
`server (24) are conducted over one or more packet-switched networks, such as the
`
`Internet (purple), intranets, and/or extranets, with traditional PSTN network
`
`(orange) support. Id., 5:3-14.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, FIG. 1A (annotated).
`
`
`
` Zydney’s system allows a user of the “PC Software Agent” (22) to
`
`locally record a voice message that is “stored in a voice container” that is then
`
`transmitted over the Internet to the central server. Ex. 1004, 10:11-11:22. The
`
`central server (24) receives the voice container and either instantly delivers the
`
`voice message if the recipient device is available, or stores the voice message for
`
`later delivery once the recipient device becomes available. Ex. 1004, 1:19-2:10;
`
`10:11-11:22; 13:12-22; 25:1-13; FIG. 8.
`
` Aggarwal is directed toward “messaging systems that are compatible
`
`with firewalls, thereby permitting instant messages to be transmitted over the
`
`Internet.” Ex. 1006, 2:14-16. Aggarwal’s system allows “a sending client residing
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at a network administered by a first organization [to] cause an instant message to
`
`appear at a recipient client machine at another network administered by a second
`
`organization, even though either (or both) of the organizations may use a firewall
`
`to protect its network.” Id., 2:17-22. Aggarwal generally refers to the
`
`communications exchanged by its system as “instant message[s]” or simply
`
`“messages” but indicates that messages exchanged “over the Internet take[] on
`
`several forms” including “audio” messages. Id., 2:14-45; 1:21-22. Figure 2 of
`
`Aggarwal shows such an arrangement of end user computers located within two
`
`different organizations protected by firewalls for communicating instant messages
`
`between the computers through the Internet:
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 2 (color coded). Figure 2 shows three distinct networks, the local
`
`network, or intranet, of Organization A, the local network / intranet of
`
`Organization B, and the Internet (in purple) that provides communication between
`
`the two local networks. As shown in Figure 2, each of the local networks is
`
`protected by a firewall, although Aggarwal also describes examples in which one
`
`or both of the local networks does not employ a firewall. Aggarwal’s disclosure
`
`specifically identifies a “local area network (LANs)” as a suitable networking
`
`environment for implementing such firewall-protected enterprise intranets.
`
`GOOGLE1006, 6:8-36 (“commonplace in office-wide or enterprise-wide
`
`computer networks”). Indeed, a POSITA would have been well aware that
`
`fire