Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. -
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2018-00043
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF A.L. NARASIMHA REDDY, UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,454,748 (CLAIMS 16-19 AND 21-22)
`
`
`1
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. -
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2018-00043
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF A.L. NARASIMHA REDDY, UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,454,748 (CLAIMS 16-19 AND 21-22)
`
`
`1
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................... 4
`
`III. Detailed Invalidity Analysis ............................................................................ 5
`
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I, A.L. Narasimha Reddy, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`As I stated previously, I have been retained as an independent expert
`
`witness on behalf of Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified ”) for the above-captioned
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748
`
`Patent”). I am being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I
`
`spent in connection with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I previously submitted a Declaration as Exhibit 1005 in IPR2018-
`
`00043, setting forth my background, credentials, and curriculum vitae, which
`
`provides further details (referred to herein as my “first Declaration”). I submit this
`
`Declaration in Reply to the Declaration of John C. Hale, filed as Exhibit 2006.
`
`3.
`
`In addition to the materials I reviewed in preparing my first
`
`Declaration, in preparing this Reply Declaration, I have also reviewed:
`
`a)
`b)
`c)
`
`Ex. 2006, Declaration of John C. Hale;
`Ex. 2007, Excerpt from HTML The Complete Reference;
`Ex. 2008, Excerpt from Service Manual : RAE/RAK-1 SERIES
`CELLULAR PHONE/PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANT
`Nokia 900i_Service_Manual.pdf; and
`e) Any other document referenced herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Reply Declaration, I relied
`
`upon my education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered
`
`the viewpoint of a POSITA, as of August 19, 2002. I have also considered:
`
`c)
`
`a)
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`below,
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`obviousness, and
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`as described below.
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`5.
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of a
`
`POSITA. I further understand that this is not the same claim construction standard
`
`as one would use in a District Court proceeding. My analysis presented herein
`
`would be the same under the claim construction standard used in a District Court
`
`proceeding
`
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`
`6.
`
`As I stated in my previous Declaration, in my opinion, the level of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the capability of understanding of
`
`computer programming and wireless communications applicable to the ’748 Patent
`
`is (i) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, or computer engineering, or (ii)
`
`equivalent
`
`
`industry or
`
`trade school experience
`4
`
`
`in programming software
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`applications. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education,
`
`and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience would be necessary to
`
`appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and what a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have thought and understood at the time. I
`
`believe I possess such experience and knowledge, and am qualified to opine on the
`
`’748 Patent. Ex. 1005, ¶ 39. I understand that Dr. Hale has used the same
`
`definition in his analysis. Ex. 2006, ¶ 13. Thus, for purposes of this Reply
`
`Declaration, I have again applied the level of ordinary skill that I proposed in my
`
`first Declaration.
`
`III. DETAILED INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`7.
`
`As detailed in my first Declaration, I have considered the scope and
`
`content of the prior art and any potential differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art. I conducted my analysis as of the claimed priority date of
`
`the ’748 Patent: August 19, 2002. I have also considered the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art as of that date. I previously described in detail below the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, as well as any differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art, on an element-by-element basis for each
`
`Challenged Claim of the ’748 Patent. Based on my previous analysis, and
`
`considering Dr. Hale’s arguments and the Patent Owner’s arguments, I maintain
`
`my previous finding that that the differences between the claims of the ’748 Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`and the prior art discussed herein are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time of the filing of the ’748 Patent to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. Although I address
`
`many of Dr. Hale’s conclusions in this Declaration, my silence on any of the issues
`
`presented in his declaration should not be taken as acceptance of those positions.
`
`8.
`
`Again, unless otherwise noted, all italics, bold italics and bold italics
`
`underline emphasis in any quoted material has been added.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that Dr. Hale argues that “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 of HTML than was supported on Kari’s
`
`handheld computer / Nokia 9000 Communicator.” Hale Declaration (EX2006), ¶
`
`45; see also ¶¶ 28-30. I disagree with Dr. Hale’s conclusion for the following
`
`reasons.
`
`10. First, a POSITA reading Kari would not limit its teachings in the way
`
`that Dr. Hale seeks to. For example, Dr. Hale asserts that “the Nokia 9000 device
`
`was not HTML 4 compliant.” Hale Declaration (EX2006), ¶ 30. Thus, I
`
`understand Dr. Hale to contend that the disclosure of Kari is limited to whatever
`
`the Nokia 9000 Communicator was capable of at Kari’s filing.
`
`11. Kari states that “the search terminal 1 used is advantageously a PDA-
`
`type teleterminal (Personal Digital Assistant)…” and explains that “[a] device
`
`6
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`suitable for the search terminal 1 is Nokia 9000 Communicator.” Kari (EX1006),
`
`3:11-17. As I stated in my first Declaration, “my testimony [] refers to the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art during the time period around the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’748 Patent.” Reddy Declaration (EX1005), ¶
`
`40. Thus, a POSITA would have evaluated this portion of Kari and its teachings in
`
`the context of the time period around the claimed priority date of the ’748 Patent,
`
`here, 2002. Accordingly, a POSITA would not have understood Kari to be limited
`
`to the implementation of the Nokia 9000 Communicator. Rather, a POSITA would
`
`have considered the types of devices in 2002 with characteristics similar to those
`
`found in Kari.
`
`12.
`
`In 2002, a POSITA would have recognized that devices like the PDA-
`
`type teleterminal devices of Kari, and devices that existed at that time that were
`
`like the Nokia 9000 Communicator1, supported HTML 4. For example, as early as
`
`1999, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) published a note entitled “HTML
`
`4.0 Guidelines for Mobile Access” that provided “guidelines for content authors
`
`
`1 Dr. Hale also takes issue with my conclusion that Bluetooth may have been used
`
`to connect a mobile device with GPS equipment. But he does not contest that
`
`Bluetooth was available in 2002.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`how to create HTML 4.0 contents to be acceptable to mobile devices as much as
`
`possible.” HTML 4.0 Guidelines for Mobile Access (EX1023), pp. 1-3.
`
`13. The HTML 4.0 Note further states “A new class of electronics devices
`
`with Internet access capability called ‘Information Appliances’ was recently born.
`
`This Internet access capability is embedded in devices such as televisions, set top
`
`boxes, home game machines, telephone-based terminals, PDAs, car navigation
`
`systems and cellular phones.” HTML 4.0 Guidelines for Mobile Access
`
`(EX1023) (emphasis added). Thus, based on my personal knowledge and on
`
`documents like the HTML 4.0 Note, a POSITA would have recognized that the
`
`devices taught by Kari would support HTML 4. Accordingly, it remains my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`Kari and Darnell.
`
`14. Further, even assuming Dr. Hale’s conclusion is true that the
`
`disclosure of Kari was limited to devices that supported only HTML 2, it would
`
`remain my opinion that a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the
`
`teachings of Kari and Darnell.
`
`15.
`
`In my previous declaration, I noted that “Darnell describes HTML as
`
`‘the language that puts the face on the Web.’ As also stated by Darnell, HTML
`
`‘consists of a variety of elements called tags.’ (Id. at xxxvii (EX1007)).” Reddy
`
`Declaration (EX1005), at ¶ 75. I also stated that “Darnell teaches that forms ‘are
`
`8
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`used for a variety of purposes’ and ‘allow visitors to your site to give you input.’
`
`(Id. at 232 (EX1007)).” Though Darnell is titled HTML 4 Unleashed, a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that these teachings of Darnell are equally applicable to
`
`HTML 2. As Darnell itself indicates, “HTML 1.0” was released in 1992 and
`
`“introduced forms, which make it possible for authors to have input fields on their
`
`nodes that allow feedback from users and open the door to considering
`
`interaction…” Darnell (EX1007), at 23. A POSITA would have also understood
`
`that the form tags included in HTML 1.0 were incorporated into later versions of
`
`HTML, like HTML 2 and HTML 4. For example, RFC1866, titled “Hypertext
`
`Markup Language – 2.0” and published in November 1995, describes HTML as “a
`
`simple markup language used to create hypertext documents that are platform
`
`independent” and describes tags and forms as well, indicating that HTML 2 (which
`
`Dr. Hale admits that the devices of Kari support) contained the teachings relevant
`
`to the ’748 Patent which I cited in my first Declaration. RFC 1866 (EX1024).
`
`And as Darnell teaches, HTML 4 included form tags. Thus, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that HTML 2 supported forms and tags for forms, and was
`
`device-independent, just like later versions of HTML.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that Dr. Hale contends that “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
`
`9
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`the Nokia 9000, that connection would most likely have taken the form of a serial
`
`link (e.g., an RS232 connection).” Hale Declaration (EX2006), ¶ 33. First, Dr.
`
`Hale’s statement is only relevant, at best, to the state of the art in 2001, not August
`
`19, 2002 (the assumed priority date I used). Second, as I stated above, the Nokia
`
`9000 Communicator is only one example of the type of mobile device that a
`
`POSITA would have recognized as pertinent to evaluating the claims of the ’748
`
`Patent.
`
`17. Further, as I stated in my first Declaration, mobile devices with
`
`internal GPS receivers existed prior to the ’748 Patent. I have been informed that
`
`the PTAB disregarded that statement of my declaration, because the document I
`
`cited (Hjelm, EX1020) was not shown to be prior to August 19, 2002.
`
`18. However, I maintain my opinion that mobile devices with internal
`
`GPS receivers existed prior to the ’748 Patent. For example, the attached article
`
`entitled Wireless in Europe, published in May 2001 and available on the Internet
`
`Archive as early as December 15, 2001, describes the Benefon Esc phone “that has
`
`a built-in satellite navigation system based on the Global Positioning System
`
`(GPS).” Kalb (EX1022). And I cited other evidence, like Djuknic, Twitchell, and
`
`Chan, that taught that it was “well-known prior to the ’748 Patent for GPS
`
`equipment to be incorporated into, or integral to, a handheld device such as a
`
`mobile telephone.” Reddy Declaration (EX1005), ¶ 86. Dr. Hale does not address
`
`10
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`this evidence, and his conclusion that there must be a “GPS location information
`
`would have been available to an application only through a hardware connection
`
`linking the data processing device to a GPS receiver” is not accurate. Hale
`
`Declaration (EX2006), ¶ 33.
`
`19. Dr. Hale also contends that “there was no facility in HTML or a
`
`standard browser for reading GPS location information from a GPS receiver.”
`
`Hale Declaration (EX2006), ¶ 32. But Kari states that the “application program
`
`reads automatically the information on the location…[and] the information on the
`
`location can be determined e.g. by using GPS equipment.” And Kari also states
`
`that “[o]ne application program which has recently gained popularity is the web
`
`browser…” Kari (EX1006), at 7:60–64, 3:37–38. Thus, I maintain my opinion
`
`that a browser could read location information by GPS equipment, at least because
`
`Kari explicitly teaches that it was possible.
`
`20. Further, Dr. Hale contends that “[n]either 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.” Hale Declaration (EX2006), ¶ 34. Dr. Hale also contends that “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.”
`
`11
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Hale Declaration (EX2006), ¶ 35. Dr. Hale does not provide support for these
`
`statements, and these statements are not consistent with the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA in 2002. As Darnell indicates, HTML provides “a method for adding the
`
`contents of user-defined uploaded files to form output…[w]hen the form is
`
`submitted, the specified file is accessed…” Darnell (EX1007), at 240. For the file
`
`to be accessed, the HTML browser would have to read a bus connected device, like
`
`a network interface card or a hard disk. Accordingly, I do not agree with Dr.
`
`Hale’s conclusions that HTML did not provide for mechanisms for importing or
`
`reading data from an external source.
`
`21. Dr. Hale continues to state: “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 be done through the use of device specific software
`
`external to the standard browser. 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.” Hale Declaration (EX2006),
`
`¶¶ 36-37.
`
`22. Even if I were to accept that to be true, the usage of device specific
`
`coding or software would not change the fact that the HTML form itself in Kari
`
`(the recited tokenized questionnaire analyzed in my first Declaration at limitation
`
`12
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`[19.2.1]) is comprised of device independent tokens (analyzed in my first
`
`Declaration at limitation [19.2.3]), including the question requesting location
`
`information of limitation [19.2.2], as I stated in my first Declaration (Reddy
`
`Declaration (EX1005), ¶¶ 94-99, 104-109) and as recited in the claims. A
`
`handheld device executing a web browser, like the one executed by Kari’s search
`
`terminal, would receive an HTML document, like an HTML form comprised of
`
`device independent tokens, as taught by Darnell. Each question of that HTML
`
`document would include one or more device independent HTML tags. In response
`
`to the receipt of that HTML document, the handheld device’s web browser may
`
`undertake actions that are device-dependent or device-specific to cause those
`
`device independent tags to be displayed and acted upon. For example, a web
`
`browser application may be device-specific (e.g., it may be written for a particular
`
`mobile operating system and particular processor architecture) so that the web
`
`browser can interact with the handheld device’s hardware to (as one example)
`
`cause display elements to be rendered on a screen of the handheld device. This
`
`would ordinarily involve device specific coding for (again, as one example)
`
`particular graphics hardware.
`
`23. But while that web browser may have used device specific coding or
`
`software, the HTML documents received by that web browser would still have
`
`been comprised of device independent tokens. The usage of device specific coding
`
`13
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`or software therefore does not change the teaching of the cited prior art that a
`
`handheld computing device receives within said handheld computing device a
`
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire from said originating computer, said
`
`tokenized questionnaire including at least one question requesting location
`
`identifying information, said tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality of
`
`device independent tokens as recited in claim 19 (with similar language in claims
`
`16 and 21).
`
`24. Because HTML is platform or device independent (see Darnell
`
`(EX1007) at 16), and uses device independent tags, the same HTML document,
`
`like the HTML blank form of Kari that is used to obtain information, can be read
`
`and rendered by multiple web browsers. The multiple web browsers themselves,
`
`running on different types of devices, may be device dependent. But again,
`
`because the HTML blank form itself is device independent, it can be read by each
`
`of those device-specific browsers. And each of those browsers would know how
`
`to access the hardware of the device to perform various functions (e.g., rendering
`
`display elements on a screen or accessing data, such as location information from a
`
`GPS device).
`
`25. Further, the ’748 Patent itself contemplates device-specific coding or
`
`software. For example, the ’748 Patent describes that “handheld computers 28-32
`
`need not be the same type, or even compatible devices. As a part of the inventive
`
`14
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`system each remote device, preferably a handheld computer, is provided with an
`
`operating
`
`instruction system (“OIS”) which overlays
`
`its native operating
`
`system….Any program developed under the inventive system will run on any
`
`handheld computer equipped with the OIS.” ’748 Patent (EX1001), 7:47-58.
`
`Given this context, a POSITA would have understood the OIS itself to be device
`
`specific or device dependent, i.e., each remote device has an OIS appropriate for its
`
`type. But the instructions which are interpreted by the OIS may be device
`
`independent. It is the job of the OIS to interpret the instructions and perform
`
`device-dependent actions based on those instructions. Thus, at some level, device
`
`dependent software is contemplated by the ’748 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`In my declaration filed in the proceeding against IPR2014-00140
`
`involving U.S. Patent 7,822,816, the parent of the ’748 Patent, I explained this
`
`concept in some detail: “Computers and related devices can be programmed by
`
`various programming languages. These languages can be broadly classified as
`
`compiled or interpreted languages. A program is normally compiled to a specific
`
`hardware architecture platform and may make use of specific operating system
`
`constructs or interfaces. An interpreted language (such as Java) can normally run
`
`on any hardware and operating system platform. Higher layer languages such as
`
`HTML (hypertext markup language) and SGML (standard generalized markup
`
`language) are examples of interpreted languages that employ tags to provide
`
`15
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`directives, for example, to format a given page. One of skill in the art in 2002
`
`would have been familiar with interpreted and compiled languages.”
`
`EX1025 (Reddy Declaration in IPR2014-00140), ¶ 27.
`
`27. A program written in Java that can be run on any hardware and
`
`operating system platform would be device independent, but would rely upon
`
`device dependent software (i.e., a Java Virtual Machine, or Java VM) that is
`
`specific to a particular type of computing device (e.g., a JavaVM would exist for
`
`the Windows operating system, and a different JavaVM would exist for the
`
`Macintosh operating system). In a similar way, the device independent tokens of
`
`the ’748 Patent require the OIS2, which a POSITA would have understood to be
`
`device dependent. Thus, a POSITA would not have understood the use of device
`
`dependent or device specific software to be excluded from use in the challenged
`
`claims, at least because excluding device dependent or device specific software
`
`would be inconsistent with the descriptions in the ’748 Patent.
`
`28.
`
`Further, none of the challenged claims require the question requesting
`
`location information or GPS coordinates to be “device independent.”
`
`29.
`
`First, claim 16 recites “receiving…a transmission of a tokenized
`
`2 This does not suggest that the OIS is required by the claims in any way. In fact,
`
`the claims do not recite an OIS at any point.
`
`16
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`questionnaire including at least one question requesting GPS coordinates, said
`
`tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality of device independent tokens.”
`
`While the tokenized questionnaire must include a plurality of device independent
`
`tokens, the claim does not specify that the “question requesting GPS coordinates”
`
`must be “device independent.”
`
`30. Similarly, claim 19 recites “receiving…a transmission of a tokenized
`
`questionnaire from said originating computer, said tokenized questionnaire
`
`including at least one question requesting location information, said tokenized
`
`questionnaire comprising a plurality of device independent tokens.” Like claim 16,
`
`claim 19 requires a “tokenized questionnaire” to include a plurality of “device
`
`independent tokens,” but does not require that the “question requesting location
`
`information” be a device independent token itself.
`
`31. Finally, claim 21 recites “receiving…a transmission of a tokenized
`
`questionnaire, including at least one question requesting GPS coordinates…said
`
`tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality of device independent tokens.”
`
`Again, claim 21 requires that the “tokenized questionnaire” include “device
`
`independent tokens,” but does not require or specify that the “question requesting
`
`GPS coordinates” is a device independent token.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that the Patent Owner has alleged that the
`
`“secondary references cited by Petitioner are not pertinent to the problem of
`
`17
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`creating a questionnaire that comprises device independent tokens.” Patent Owner
`
`Response at p. 23. I disagree with Patent Owner’s position. It is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA would have looked to each of Darnell, Chan, and Todd, as they are in the
`
`same field of endeavor as the ’748 Patent’s claims, or they are pertinent to the
`
`problems described in the ’748 Patent.
`
`33. For example, Darnell’s description of HTML forms describes
`
`methods for receiving input from users. Darnell (EX1007) at 232. In the same
`
`way, the ’748 Patent relates to the “management of data collected from a remote
`
`computing device.” ’748 Patent (EX1001), at Abstract. Thus, Darnell is in the
`
`same field of endeavor as the ’748 Patent and its claims.
`
`34. Similarly, Todd relates to surveys or questionnaires on handheld
`
`computing devices. Todd (EX1009) at Abstract. As above, the ’748 Patent relates
`
`to the “management of data collected from a remote computing device” and gives
`
`the examples of “handheld” computing devices. ’748 Patent (EX1001), at
`
`Abstract, 4:64-65. Thus, Todd is in the same field of endeavor as the ’748 Patent
`
`and its claims.
`
`35. Finally, Chan is related to location-based queries. Chan (EX1010) at
`
`1:7-9. The ’748 Patent similarly describes asking a user for location information.
`
`’748 Patent (EX1001), 10:55-57. Thus, Chan is pertinent to the problems
`
`described in the ’748 Patent.
`
`
`18
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`36. As a result, and considering my opinions in my first Declaration, it
`
`remains my opinion that each limitation of the challenged claims was taught by the
`
`prior art references I relied on, and further, it remains my opinion that a POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of those prior art references.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`37.
`
`I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that all statements
`
`made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true. I understand that willful false statements are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`Date: September 14, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dr. A.L. Narasimha Reddy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1021
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
