UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2018-00043
`PATENT 9,454,748
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN C. HALE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`IN OPPOSITION TO DECISION GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,454,748 (CLAIMS 16-19 AND 21-22)
`
`1
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`II.
`
`III.
`III.
`
`IV.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`VI.
`
`3
`INTRODUCTION
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 3
`
`3
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION ............................................. 3
`
`5
`BACKGROUND
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 5
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`7
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ...................................................... 7
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE '748 PATENT
`7
`DISCUSSION OF THE ‘748 PATENT ............................................... 7
`
`10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................. 10
`
`VII.
`VII.
`
`DISCUSSION OF PRIOR ART
`10
`DISCUSSION OF PRIOR ART ....................................................... 10
`
`VIII.
`VIII.
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE HTML "HIDDEN QUESTION" TAG 19
`DISCUSSION OF THE HTML “HIDDEN QUESTION” TAG ...... 19
`
`IX.
`IX.
`
`22
`CONCLUSIONS
`CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 22
`
`2
`2
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`I, Dr. John C. Hale, hereby declare the following:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLC ("Patent Owner,"
`
`hereinafter), the owner of the subject matter of the above-identified patent, i.e.,
`
`U.S. Patent 9,454,748 (the " '748 patent"), to offer testimony with respect to the
`
`subject matter at issue herein (the "IPR" hereinafter).
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`
`2. My curriculum vitae documenting the details of my professional experience,
`
`publications, and related information is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`3. By way of summary, I am a tenured professor and the Tandy Endowed Chair
`
`in Bioinformatics and Computation Biology of the Tandy School of Computer
`
`Science at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
`
`4.
`
`I have been a professor of Computer Science at The University of Tulsa
`
`since 1999. Before that I was a professor in the School of Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science at Washington State University (1997-1999). I graduated
`
`with my PhD in Computer Science from The University of Tulsa in 1997, having
`
`previously earned BS and MS degrees in Computer Science from that same
`
`institution.
`
`3
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`5.
`
`I have authored over 90 scholarly articles in the area of computer science,
`
`including those on topics in the fields of cyber security, bioinformatics, artificial
`
`intelligence and applied formal methods. In addition, I have delivered testimony to
`
`Congress on three separate occasions.
`
`6.
`
`Also, I am an inventor with respect to two issued U.S. patents:
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 6,732,180, J. Hale and G. Manes, "A Method to
`
`Inhibit the Identification and Retrieval of Proprietary Media via
`
`Automated Search Engines Utilized in Association with Computer
`
`Compatible Communications Networks," issued May 4, 2004.
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 9,471,789, P. Hawrylak, M. Papa, J. Hale,
`
`"Compliance Method for a Cyber Physical System," issued October
`
`18, 2016, and foreign counterparts.
`
`7.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $225 per hour plus reimbursement for
`
`expenses for my work on this Petition for Inter Partes Review. This is my standard
`
`hourly rate for consulting work of this nature. My compensation does not depend
`
`on the conclusions that I reach or on the outcome of this review.
`
`8.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in opposition to the reexamination of
`
`claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent 7,822,816 which is a parent of the '748 patent.
`
`4
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`9.
`
`Based on my education, training, and experience, I am familiar with the
`
`technology which is the subject of the '748 Patent, the cited references, and general
`
`U.S. Patent Office practices and procedures.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`10. I have been asked to provide my opinions with respect to certain matters
`
`associated with claims 16-19 and 21-22 (the "Challenged Claims") of the '748
`
`Patent.
`
`11. In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the following documents,
`
`among others:
`
`(a) The "Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 9,454,748
`
`Challenging Claims 16-19 And 21-22 Under 35 U. S. C. § 312 And
`
`37 C. F. R. § 42.104" (the "Petition"), filed by Unified Patents, Inc.
`
`("Petitioner);
`
`(b) U. S. Patent 9,454,748 (the '748 Patent, EX1001), including its
`
`written description, figures, and claims;
`
`(c) the file history of the '748 Patent (EX1002);
`
`(d) the declaration of Dr. A. L. Narashimha Reddy, expert witness for
`
`Petitioner (EX1005);
`
`(e) U.S. Patent 6,154,745 to Kari et al. ("Kari") (EX1006);
`
`5
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`(f) Excerpts of "HTML 4 Unleashed" by Darnell et al. ("Darnell")
`
`(EX1007);
`
`(g) U.S. Patent 6,380,928 to Todd ("Todd") (EX1008);
`
`(h) U.S. Patent 6,381,603 to Chan et al. ("Chan") (EX1010);
`
`(i)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,222,483 to Twitchell et al. ("Twitchell") (EX1014);
`
`(j) U.S. Patent 5,043,736 to Darnell et al. ("Darnell '736") (EX1015);
`
`(k) "Service Manual: RAE/RAK-1 Series Cellular Phone/Personal Digital
`
`Assistant," Nokia_9000i_Service_Manual.pdf, EX2007, obtained
`
`from
`
`https://wvvvv.manualslib.com/download/830641/Nokia-9000i.html;
`
`(1)
`
`Excerpt from "HTML — The Complete Reference" by Powell. 3rd Ed.,
`
`pages 427-428 ("Powell") (EX2008);
`
`(m) DECISION re Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U. S. C. § 314(a)
`
`and 37 C. F. R. § 42.108(b), IPR2018-0004, Paper 6 (the "Decision")
`
`and
`
`(n) Any other documents not listed above but referenced in the text that
`
`follows.
`
`12. I have been asked to offer my opinion with respect to the technology
`
`associated with, and obviousness of, certain of the claims of the '748 patent in
`
`view of prior art references provided by the Petitioner.
`
`6
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`13. Petitioner has suggested that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`relevant to the priority date of the '748 patent would have a "bachelor's degree in
`
`computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related
`
`subject, or equivalent industry or trade school experience in programming software
`
`applications." Petition at page 6, (Paper 1). That definition will be accepted for
`
`purposes of this declaration.
`
`14. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the field of
`
`the claimed invention, and teaching, I am familiar with the level of the abilities of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. It is my
`
`understanding that earliest priority date of the '748 patent is August 19, 2002, and
`
`that the Patent Office has accepted Patentee's showing of a conception date and
`
`diligent reduction to practice of the claimed invention at least as early as January 1,
`
`2002.
`
`V. DISCUSSION OF THE '748 PATENT
`
`15. This patent relates to a method of collecting data using handheld devices and
`
`transmitting the data to a central server where it can be accessed and used.
`
`16. Prior art methods of collecting data in this fashion from handheld devices
`
`required coding and compiling a device specific program that presented the
`
`7
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`questionnaire to the user. The resulting executable program would then be usable
`
`by only one kind of device.
`
`17. However, the '748 patent overcomes this problem by tokenizing the
`
`questionnaire before it is transmitted to the handheld device. That is, the instant
`
`system assigns device independent "tokens" to the elements of a questionnaire.
`
`See EX1001 at 8:15-17 ("This series of questions or statements will have been
`
`constructed on computer 22 and reduced to tokenized form for transmission to the
`
`handheld 28.") (italics added); See also, EX1001 at 8:40-43 (describing how
`
`tokens are "assigned" to questions).
`
`18. The questionnaire and its tokens must be device independent (EX1001 at
`
`Col. 7, lines 47-58.):
`
`As a part of the inventive system each remote device, preferably a
`handheld computer, is provided with an operating instruction system
`("OIS") which overlays its native operating system. Once equipped
`with the OIS, a remote device can be programmed according to
`methods described hereinafter. Any program developed under the
`inventive system will run on any handheld computer equipped with
`the OIS and files on one such handheld will transfer freely to any
`other handheld or any computer connected to the inventive system.
`
`19. In other words, this patent contemplates that there will be an application
`
`layer (the "OIS") that overlays the operating system on each different type of
`
`remote device so that the same tokenized questionnaire can be executed without
`
`change on each such device. The OIS makes possible the device independence of
`
`the tokenized questionnaire.
`
`8
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`20. At least some of the tokens of each questionnaire must be executable. That
`
`is, they must correspond, for example, to a "logical, mathematical, or branching
`
`operation". (EX1001, Col. 8, lines 56-64.)
`
`21. The '748 patent also discloses an embodiment where the handheld device is
`
`able to determine its current location. One embodiment utilizes automatic entry of
`
`the GPS coordinates into the questionnaire in response to a question that requests
`
`location information that is part of the transmitted questionnaire. This variation is
`
`discussed, for example, in EX1001 at col. 10, lines 55-58. The '748 patent
`
`contemplates that the GPS receiver might be used to automatically collect the
`
`location of the handheld device and include that information in the questionnaire.
`
`22. The '748 patent also discloses an embodiment where the handheld device is
`
`able to determine its current location. One embodiment utilizes automatic entry of
`
`the GPS coordinates into the questionnaire in response to a question that requests
`
`location information that is part of the transmitted questionnaire. This variation is
`
`discussed, for example, in EX1001 at col. 10, lines 55-58. The '748 patent
`
`contemplates that the GPS receiver might be used to automatically collect the
`
`location of the handheld device and include that information in the questionnaire.
`
`23. The term "loosely networked" is used in the '748 patent to describe a
`
`networked computer system wherein devices on the network are tolerant of
`
`9
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`intermittent network connections and, in fact, tolerant of the type of network
`
`connection available.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`24. I understand that in its Decision Board adopted the following construction
`
`for the term "token": "a distinguishable unit of a program, such as an index, an
`
`instruction, or a command that can represent something else such as a question,
`
`answer, or operation". Decision at p. 17.
`
`25. I understand that the Board has also construed "GPS integral thereto" as
`
`"Global Positioning System equipment integral thereto." Decision at p. 13.
`
`26. I understand that the Board has also construed "originating computer /
`
`recipient computer / central computer" in its Decision at p. 18 as encompassing "a
`
`computer having the ability to perform functions associated with an originating
`
`computer, a recipient computer, and/or a central computer."
`
`27. For purposes of this Declaration only, these constructions will be adopted
`
`herein.
`
`VII. DISCUSSION OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`28. I have reviewed the Kari patent and understand that the specification of that
`
`patent suggests that a Nokia 9000 Communicator cellular telephone could be used
`
`as a "search terminal" in connection with his invention. Kari, EX1006, col. 3,
`
`lines 11-26.
`
`10
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`29. Based on my research, the Nokia 9000 had a relatively primitive browser.
`
`Technical documents from Nokia indicate that the browser was HTTP 1.0 and
`
`HTML 2.0 compliant. Nokia Service Manual, RAE/RAK-1 Series Cellular Phone
`
`/ Personal Digital Assistant, EX2007. Table 3 from that reference is reproduced
`
`below (Id, at page 1-8):
`
`Table 3. 0th
`
`communication protocols/formats supported
`
`Application
`Email
`
`Protocol
` SMTP, IMAI'4. MIME1
`
`All Internet apps
`
`TCP/IP
`
`Notes
`
`WWW
`
`Terminal
`
`PC Connectivity
`Module n f n-
`nection
`Ext. serial iif
`
`H
`
`1.0. HTML 2.0
`
`JPEG. GIF
`
`VT1OU
`
`RS232, IrDA
`RBUS
`
`MBUS
`
`30. Based on the contents of this document I have determined that the Nokia
`
`9000 device was not HTML 4 compliant contrary to the assumption of Petitioner's
`
`expert. See, Reddy Declaration ¶91, p. 35 (EX1005).
`
`31. Additionally, the previous reference and the table reproduced above make it
`
`clear that the Nokia 9000 device did not have Bluetooth which Reddy seems to
`
`believe as set out in EX1005 at ¶86 ("...either GPS equipment is incorporated, or
`
`integral to, Kari's search terminal, or the GPS equipment is connected in some way
`
`11
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`to the search terminal (e.g., using a serial connection, or a Bluetooth wireless
`
`connection)". Emphasis added.
`
`32. Even assuming that the Nokia Device was HTML 4 compliant, there was no
`
`facility in HTML or a standard browser for reading GPS location information from
`
`a GPS receiver.
`
`33. In 2001, GPS location information would have been available to an
`
`application only through a hardware connection linking the data processing device
`
`to a GPS receiver. With respect to the Nokia 9000, that connection would most
`
`likely have taken the form of a serial link (e.g., an RS232 connection). If a
`
`personal computer was the search terminal, Kari suggests using a PCMCIA card.
`
`34. Neither the HTML 2 nor the HTML 4 standard provided any mechanism for
`
`reading a serial port / interface or bus connected device. That option was just not
`
`available in a standard HTML 2 or 4 browser.
`
`35. Further, neither the HTML 2 nor the HTML 4 standard even provided any
`
`mechanism for importing or reading data into a form from an external source,
`
`where the external source includes reading information from a file stored on hard
`
`disk or elsewhere.
`
`36. Assuming for purposes of argument that an HTML 2 or an HTML 4
`
`document imports or reads location data from an external source; that could only
`
`12
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`be done through the use of device specific software external to the standard
`
`browser.
`
`37. If an application embedding an HTML form acquires GPS location
`
`information; that can only be done via device specific — not device independent —
`
`coding which means the HTML form could not comprise only device independent
`
`tags, commands, or tokens.
`
`38. Further, it is my opinion that in the flow chart contained in Fig. 3A and 3B
`
`of Kari (included below), steps 308 and 309 in Fig. 3A could not be performed by
`
`an HTML 2 or 4 browser, and none of the steps 311-316 in Fig. 3B could be
`
`performed by the same sort of browser.
`
`13
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`301
`
`302
`
`DATA
`CONNECTION
`
`303
`
`CHOOSE DESIRED
`SERVICE
`
`304
`
`DISPLAY SELECTED
`QUERY FORM
`
`FILL IN QUERY
`FORM +SUBMIT
`
`READ DATA
`
`305
`
`306-
`
`307
`
`NO
`
`3081
`
`READ I NI FILE
`
`309 -,,,
`
`ADD LOCATION INFO
`AND ROUTE INFO
`
`310
`
`COMPOSE
`QUERY MESSAGE
`
`FIG.3A
`
`FIG.3A
`FIG.3B
`FIG.3
`
`14
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`312 TRY TO RE—ESTABUSH
`CONNECTION
`
`RESPONSE
`RECEIVED?
`
`CONNECTION
`TIME OUT?
`
`COMPOSE
`ERROR MESSAGE
`
`FIG.3B
`
`39. Forms that are displayed by HTML 2 or 4 browsers could not read an INI
`
`file (308), add location and route information to the contents of the INI file (309),
`
`set a time flag (311), try to re-establish connection (312), branch and take different
`
`actions depending on whether or not communications had been re-established
`
`(313-316).
`
`40. If an HTML form required interaction with the server (e.g., if a "SEND"
`
`button were selected by the user) and a network connection was unavailable, the
`
`15
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`browser would print an error message indicating that the network was not available
`
`and continue to the next line of HTML. There was no capability in HTML 2 or 4
`
`to sense the absence of network availability and take alternative action.
`
`41. There was no capability in standard HTML 2 or 4 to sense a network outage
`
`and take alternative action, e.g., loop and retest until the network connection was
`
`available again as is required in Kari 's Fig. 3B, boxes 312, 313, and 315, supra.
`
`42. In my opinion, HTML 2 and HTML 4 browsers could not have been used by
`
`Kari to serve as a replacement for the OIS application layer taught and claimed in
`
`the '748 patent for least for the reasons set out above.
`
`43. Thus, assuming for purposes of argument that it is desired to implement any
`
`of steps 308, 309, 311, 312, and 313-316 via a standard browser, then any such
`
`implemented step must be performed by a separate machine-specific program,
`
`which machine-specific program would not be comprised of "device independent
`
`tokens".
`
`44. As such, Kari could not implement his "advantageous embodiment" of Figs.
`
`3A and 3B (col. 6, line 63 to col. 8, line 16) in either a HTML 2 or HTML 4
`
`browser in a device independent manner.
`
`45. In my opinion, a POSITA in possession of the teachings of Kari would not
`
`look to Darnell for any purpose at least because Darnell teaches a different version
`
`16
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`of HTML than was supported on Kari 's handheld computer / Nokia 9000
`
`Communicator.
`
`46. With respect to Todd (EX1009), I have reviewed the disclosure of that patent
`
`in detail and Petitioner's expert opinion of various aspects of that reference. It is
`
`my opinion that its operating logic as illustrated in Figures 5 through 12 of Todd
`
`could not have been implemented in HTML 2 or HTML 4. Nor would Todd
`
`provide any teaching that would help a POSITA implement the teachings of Kari.
`
`47. More particularly, the software in Todd requires access to system level
`
`parameters that standard HTML browsers would not have access to. Hardware
`
`parameters such as battery voltage, battery temperature, checking the serial port
`
`(Figure 8), were not available to HTML 2 or 4 browsers.
`
`48. Further, Petitioner's expert indicates at ¶128 that "Todd describes that "the
`
`answer(s) is stored in EEPROM...and the device determines whether to transmit
`
`the answer(s)..." and that transmitting occurs "if set to do so and the conditions for
`
`transmission are met." (Todd at 10: 15-18, 9: 67-10: 1 (EX1009))".
`
`49. The passage from Todd noted above is then deemed "analogous" to Karl 's
`
`description of a response of a "response" not being received, i.e., blocks 312, 313,
`
`and 315 of Kari 's Fig. 3B.
`
`50. Petitioner's expert then concludes at ¶129 that "a POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious to incorporate the storing of survey responses as taught by Todd
`
`17
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`into the system of Kari to remove the need for the user to re-enter query message
`
`information while a connection is being set up."
`
`51. Of course, as discussed above in ¶45, Kari could not implement this
`
`functionality in a device independent fashion because neither HTML 2 nor HTML
`
`4 had any provision for waiting "while a connection is being set up", nor was there
`
`any provision in a standard browser to call a system level routine to accomplish
`
`this same task.
`
`52. Thus, Todd's teachings could not be implemented in a device independent
`
`manner using a standard HTML 2 or 4 browser and a POSITA aware of Kari and
`
`looking to Todd would not find any teaching that could be implemented in Kari 's
`
`handheld device.
`
`53. With respect to Chan (EX1010), I have reviewed the disclosure of that
`
`patent in detail and Petitioner's expert opinion of various aspects of that reference.
`
`54. Petitioner's expert opines that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine Chan's handheld computer which included a GPS receiver and the
`
`methods of Kari to teach Patentee's "handheld computing device with a GPS
`
`integral thereto". Reddy's Declaration EX1005 at ¶ 89-90.
`
`55. Chan does not mention "HTML" or "browser". Chan further does not
`
`mention device independence or device indifference.
`
`18
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`56. Assuming for purposes of argument that Kari were to utilize Chan's "hand
`
`held" computer (EX1010, col. 3, lines 15-18, contains the only reference in Chan
`
`to "hand held computer"), Chan does not overcome the central problems of Kari,
`
`e.g., there is no teaching or suggestion in Chan of how to use an HTML browser to
`
`read a device such as a GPS receiver in a device independent fashion, nor does
`
`Chan teach or suggest how one could use an HTML 2 or 4 browser to determine
`
`that a network connection was not available and hold its transmission of data to a
`
`remote server until such time as the network connection was reestablished.
`
`VIII. DISCUSSION OF THE HTML "HIDDEN QUESTION" TAG
`
`57. I have reviewed Dr. Reddy's Declaration (EX1007), including statements
`
`(e.g., in ¶96, ¶101, and 137) as they relate to the use of "hidden questions" as a
`
`method for providing GPS information to an HTML 2 or 4 document.
`
`58. Dr. Reddy says at ¶96 that "a hidden question could be used for location
`
`information, as taught by Darnell ..., for example, if the query form of Kari were
`
`to automatically collect GPS location information. (Darnell at 241 (EX1007))."
`
`59. To the extent that Dr. Reddy is saying that hidden questions could be used to
`
`acquire GPS location information from a GPS receiver, that statement is
`
`categorically wrong for at least the following reasons.
`
`60. An HTML hidden question is a special input element in an HTML form that
`
`is not rendered in the browser and can have in it a prepopulated data value supplied
`
`19
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`by the server. The data value may either be generated by the server de novo and
`
`transmitted to the browser or it could have been data captured by the server from
`
`previous browsing activity.
`
`61. The figure below from EX2008, page, 428, illustrates this point graphically:
`
`Client
`
`New form
`page comes
`back with
`hidden data
`
`Step 1
`
`Order Form
`PeM
`
`Qiy Uu
`
`1-Edden
`
`Nazi
`
`Step 2
`
`Figure 11-4. Using hidden_ form fields to pteserve state
`
`62. In this figure, an HTML page that is resident on a client computer accepts
`
`customer information in one web page and transmits it to the server (Step 1) so that
`
`it can be sent back again to be held on the actual order web page as a hidden form
`
`field until the order is completed. Then, the combined customer information and
`
`order is transmitted back to the server for fulfillment (Step 2).
`
`20
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`63. Thus, the data value that pre-populates the hidden question must come
`
`directly from the server, i.e., if the data value originated on the client end in order
`
`to be loaded into a hidden question that quantity would first have to be transmitted
`
`from the client to the server.
`
`64. Obviously, using a hidden question to load a foiiii with a value would fail if
`
`a connection to the server was not available.
`
`65. Dr. Reddy also states the following with respect to hidden questions (1[101)
`
`... however, if the application program reads automatically the
`information on the location, a hidden question may be used to instruct
`the application program to read the information on the location.
`Hidden questions are described in further detail above with reference
`to Darnell.
`
`66. A "hidden question" could not be used by either an HTML 2 or 4 form to
`
`read GPS information from a device, nor could it be used to "instruct" the browser
`
`to read such information.
`
`67. Forms that were compliant with the HTML standard were not able to
`
`"instruct" a separate device specific application program to read GPS information
`
`so that may be included in a blank form as Dr. Reddy suggests in ¶101 of EX1005.
`
`68. Note that if there was no network connection between Kari 's handheld and
`
`the server, the hidden question function would fail since a hidden question requires
`
`transmission from (and possibly to-and-from) the server, if there is no connection
`
`to the server the hidden question item cannot be prepopulated.
`
`21
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`IX. CONCLUSION
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful
`
`false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued
`
`thereon.
`
`Dated: June 26, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`22
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`23
`23
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`JOHN C. HALE
`Tandy Endowed Chair in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
`Professor, Tandy School of Computer Science
`The University of Tulsa
`800 S Tucker Drive
`Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-3189
`email: john-haledutulsa.edu
`
`Objective
`To develop and educate students while conducting research in the areas of computer security,
`computational biology, medical informatics, neuroinformatics, and applied formal methods.
`
`Education
`Ph.D. (CS), University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1997
`M.S. (CS), University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1992
`B.S. (CS), University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1990
`
`Areas of Specialization
`Computer security, computational biology, object systems, neuroinformatics, medical informatics,
`formal methods, networks, data mining, computer graphics.
`
`Professional Experience
`Lead Research Scholar, Institute of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
`University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 2007—present
`Professor, Department of Computer Science
`University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 2008—present
`Director, Institute for Information Security
`University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1999-2009
`Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science
`University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 2003-2008
`Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science
`University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1999-2003
`Teaching at The University of Tulsa:
`Instructor, CS 1001, Introduction to Computer Science, 2003, 2004, 2006
`Instructor, CS 2033, Computer Architecture, Organization and Assembler, 2000 - present
`Instructor, CS 4063/6423, Computer Architecture, 2000 - 2009
`Instructor, CS 4373/6373, High Performance Computing, 2014 - present
`Instructor, CS 4863, Introduction to Category Theory, 2006
`Instructor, CS 4863, Visualization, 2007
`Instructor, CS 4863, Internet Privacy, 2015
`Instructor, CS 5183/7183, Information System Security Engineering, 2005 - present
`Instructor, CS 5193/7193, Risk Management for Information Systems, 2008
`Instructor, CS 5403/7403, Secure Electronic Commerce, 1999 - 2014
`Instructor, CS 5443/7443, Information System Assurance, 2001 - 2003
`Instructor, CS 5463/7463, Enterprise Security Management, 2002 - 2013
`Instructor, CS 7863, Neuroinformatics, 2008, 2014
`Instructor, CS 7863, Medical Informatics, 2011 - 2015
`Instructor, CS 7863, Computational Biology, 2007, 2015, 2017
`Assistant Professor, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 1997-1999
`Teaching at Washington State University:
`Instructor, CptS 483, Computer Security, 1998
`Instructor, CptS 452, Compiler Design, 1997 & 1998
`Instructor, CptS 518, Programming Language Theory, 1998
`
`Miscellaneous
`Citizenship: U.S. Citizen
`Ethnic status: Native American/Caucasian
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`Books
`
`• [1] Research Advances in Database and Information Systems Security, V. Atluri and J. Hale (Eds.),
`Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000.
`
`Journal Articles
`
`• [2] L. Kong, G. Bauer, and J. Hale , Robust Wireless Signal Indoor Localization, in Concurrency
`and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 2839 - 2850, 2015.
`
`• [3] J. Staggs, M. Mol, M. Fisher, B. Brummel and J. Hale, A Perceptual Taxonomy of Contextual
`Cues for Cyber Trust, in Journal of the Proceedings of the Colloquium for Information System Security
`Educators (CISSE), pp. 151 - 158, 2014.
`
`• [4] M. Matlock, N. Schimke, L. Kong, S. Macke, and J. Hale, Systematic Redaction for Neuroimage
`Data, International Journal of Computational Models and Algorithms in Medicine, Soon Ae Chun,
`Jaideep Vaidya (Eds.), IGI Global, Hershey, PA, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 63-75, 2012.
`
`• [5] P. Hawrylak, N. Schimke, J. Hale, and M. Papa, Security Risks Associated with Radio Frequency
`Identification in Medical Environments. Journal of Medical Systems, Springer, vol. 36, is. 6, pp.
`3491-3505, 2012.
`
`• [6] G. Manes, J. Johnson, A. Barclay, M. Harvey, E. Downing and J. Hale, Issues and Techniques
`for Redacting PDF Files. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 113-116, 2008.
`
`• [7] D. Marks and J. Hale, Security Service Packages: Partitioning the Security Space, Journal of
`Information Privacy Security, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 30-44, 2006.
`
`• [8] J. Hale and P. Brush', Guest Editorial - The Shifting Sands of Secur(e/ity) Management, Journal
`of Network and Systems Management, vol. 47, no, 3, Springer Netherlands, 2005.
`
`• [9] J. Hale, T. Landry and C. Wood, Susceptibility audits: A tool for safeguarding information
`assets, Business Horizons, vol. 12, no. 3, Elsevier, pp. 59-66, May - June 2004.
`
`• [10] J. Hale and P. Brusil, Guest Editorial - Secur(e/ity) Management: Two Sides of the Same Coin,
`Journal of Network and Systems Management, vol. 12, no. 1, Springer Netherlands, 2004.
`
`• [11] J. Hale, M. Papa and S. Shenoi, Programmable access control, Journal of Computer Security,
`vol. 11, no. 3, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 331-351, 2003.
`
`• [12] M. Papa, 0. Bremer, J. Hale and S. Shenoi, Formal analysis of E-commerce protocols, IEICE
`Transactions on Information and Systems, Special Issue on Autonomous Decentralized Systems and
`Systems' Assurance, vol. E84-D, no. 10, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., pp. 1313-1323,
`October, 2001.
`
`• [13] J. Hale, J. Threat and S. Shenoi, A ticket-based access control architecture for object systems,
`Journal of Computer Security, vol. 8, pp. 43-65, 2000.
`
`• [14] J. Hale and S. Shenoi, Analyzing FD inference in relational databases, Data and Knowledge
`Engineering, vol. 18, pp. 167-183, 1996.
`
`Book Chapters
`
`• [15] D. Hill, J. Walker and J. Hale, Privacy Considerations for Health Information Exchanges, in
`Medical Data Privacy Handbook, A. Gkoulalas-Divanis and G. Loukides (Eds.), Springer Interna-
`tional, Chain, Switzerland, pp. 289-311, 2015.
`
`• [16] P. Hawrylak and J. Hale, Data Privacy Issues with RFID in Healthcare, in Medical Data Privacy
`Handbook, A. Gkoulalas-Divanis and G. Loukides (Eds.), Springer International, Cham, Switzerland,
`pp. 549-567, 2015.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS EX2006
`
`

`

`• [17] N. Schimke and J. Hale, Privacy Considerations and Techniques for Neuroimages, in Medical
`Data Privacy Handbook, A. Gkoulalas-Divanis and G. Loukides (Eds.), Springer International, Cham,
`Switzerland, pp. 527-547, 2015.
`
`• [18] B. Brummel, J. Hale and M. Mol, Training Cyber Security Personnel, in The Psychosocial
`Dynamics of Cyber Security Work, S. Zaccaro, R. Dalal, and L. Tetrick (Eds.), Routledge, Boca
`Raton, FL, 2015.
`
`• [19] P. Hawrylak and J. Hale, The Use of Body Area Networks and Radio Frequency Identification
`in Healthcare, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition, IGI Global, pp.
`6318 - 6326, 2015.
`
`• [20] P. Hawrylak, S. Reed, M. Butler and J. Hale, The Access of Things: Spatial Access Control,
`in Handbook of Research on Progressive Trends in Wireless Communications and Networking, M.A.
`Matin (Ed.), IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 189-207, 2014.
`
`• [21] P. Hawrylak, C. Hartney, M. Haney, J. Hamm and J. Hale, Techniques to model and derive
`a cyber attacker's intelligence, Efficiency and Scalability Methods for Computational Intellect, IGI
`Global, pp.. 162 - 180, 2013.
`
`• [22] P. Hawrylak, C. Hartney, M. Papa and J. Hale, Using Hybrid Attack Graphs to Model and An-
`alyze Attacks against the Critical Information Infrastructure, in Critical Information Infrastructure
`Protection and Resilience in the ICT Sector , S. Bologna, P. Theron (Eds.), IGI Global, Hershey,
`PA, pp. 173-197, 2013.
`
`• [23] N. Schimke, J. Hale, P. Hawrylak and M. Papa, RFID and E-Health: Technology, Imple-
`mentation, and Security Issues, in Telemedicine and E-Health Services, Policies and Applications:
`Advancements and Developments, Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues, Isabel de la Torre, and Beatriz Sainz de
`A