UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. –
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2018-00043
`
`U.S. Patent 9,454,748
`
`DECLARATION OF A.L. NARASIMHA REDDY, PHD, 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 EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 6
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................ 10
`
`IV.
`
`V. 
`
`The ’748 Patent .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 16
`
`VI. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................................... 18
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“GPS integral thereto” ......................................................................... 19
`
`“token” ................................................................................................. 20
`
`“originating computer” / “recipient computer” / “central
`computer” ............................................................................................ 22
`
`VII. Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 24
`
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 16-19 and 21-22 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 over Kari, Chan, Darnell, and Todd .......................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 26
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Background on Kari ....................................................... 26
`
`Background on Chan ..................................................... 27
`
`Background on Darnell ................................................. 28
`
`Background on Todd ...................................................... 29
`
`2.
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 16-19 and 21-22 ............. 29
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Claim 19 ......................................................................... 29
`
`Claim 16 ......................................................................... 59
`
`Claim 17 ......................................................................... 68
`
`2
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`Claim 18 ......................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 21 ......................................................................... 69
`
`Claim 22 ......................................................................... 77
`
`VIII. Availability for cross-examination ................................................................ 77
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 78
`
`3
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`I, A.L. Narasimha Reddy, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified”) as
`
`an independent expert witness 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 spend in connection
`
`with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims
`
`16-19 and 21-22 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’748 Patent are invalid as they would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the earliest claimed
`
`priority date. It is my opinion that all of the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA after reviewing the prior art discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`EX1001, the ’748 Patent;
`
`EX1002, the file history of the ’748 Patent;
`
`EX1003, excerpts from the file history of the parent ’816
`
`Patent;
`
`EX1004, the parent ’816 Patent;
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
`4
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`
` US Patent 6,154,745 to Kari et al. (“Kari” (EX1006));
`
` HTML 4 Unleashed by Darnell et al. (“Darnell” (EX1007));
`
` US Patent 6,380,928 to Todd (“Todd” (EX1009));
`
` US Patent 6,381,603 to Chan et al. (“Chan” (EX1010)); and
`
`f)
`
`any other document cited below.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ’748 Patent issued on September 27, 2016, from
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/910,706 (“the ’706 application”), filed on October
`
`22, 2010. The ’706 application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/643,516 (“the ’516 application”), filed August 19, 2003, which became U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,822,816 (“the ’816 patent”). I previously submitted a declaration
`
`supporting an inter partes review challenging claims 1-14 of the ’816 patent. The
`
`’516 application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/404,491
`
`(“the ’491 Provisional”), filed August 19, 2002. The face of the ’748 Patent lists J.
`
`David Payne as the purported inventor. Further, the face of the ’748 Patent
`
`identifies EDICHE, LLC as the initial assignee of the ’748 Patent. I understand
`
`that Fall Line Patents LLC is the current assignee of the ’748 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon
`
`my education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), as of August 19,
`
`2002. I have also considered:
`
`
`
`5
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`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.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7.
`
`My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as an Appendix A to this Declaration. As set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae:
`
`8.
`
`I am currently the J.W. Runyon Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. I have over 25
`
`years of experience in a wide variety of technologies and industries relating to data
`
`communications, storage systems, distributed systems, including the development
`
`of mechanisms and protocols for detecting and avoiding network congestion.
`
`6
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`
`9. My academic credentials include a Bachelor’s of Technology Degree
`
`in Electronics and Electrical Communications Engineering from the Indian
`
`Institute of Technology, in Kharagpur, India, in August 1985. I then received a
`
`Master’s of Science and a Ph.D. degree in Computer Engineering from the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in May 1987 and August 1990,
`
`respectively.
`
`10. My professional background and technical qualifications are stated
`
`above and are also reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as
`
`Appendix A to this Declaration. I am being compensated at a rate of $550.00 per
`
`hour, with reimbursement for actual expenses, for my work related to this Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review. My compensation is not dependent on, and in no way
`
`affects, the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I have worked for over 25 years in the field of Electrical Engineering.
`
`My primary focus and research interest has been on Computer Networks, Storage
`
`Systems, Multimedia systems, and Computer Architecture. I have authored and co-
`
`authored over a hundred technical papers and several book chapters related to
`
`several of these interests, including on such topics as multipath routing, route
`
`control, high-speed networks, congestion, packet management, quality of service
`
`regulation, network security, network modeling, differentiated services, storage
`
`system enhancements, and multimedia system enhancements to name a few
`
`
`
`7
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`examples. I am listed as an inventor on five patents in the field of multi-node
`
`communication networks.
`
`12. My employment history following my graduation from the University
`
`of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign began at the IBM Almaden Research Center in
`
`San Jose, California in 1990. At IBM, I worked on projects related to disk arrays,
`
`multiprocessor communication, hierarchical storage systems and video servers.
`
`13.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of the department of Electrical
`
`Engineering at Texas A&M University initially as an Associate Professor and was
`
`later promoted to a full, tenured professor. At Texas A&M, I am Associate Agency
`
`Director for Strategic Initiatives and Centers for the Texas A&M Engineering
`
`Experiment Station (TEES), which engages in engineering and technology-
`
`oriented research and educational collaborations. Further, I currently serve as
`
`Associate Dean for Research.
`
`14. At Texas A&M, I have taught dozens of courses related to computer
`
`networking and communications, as well as computer architecture, multimedia
`
`systems and networks, topics in networking security, multimedia storage and
`
`delivery, as well as networking for multimedia applications. I have also served on
`
`various committees for the benefit of the scientific community and the Texas
`
`A&M University community.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`15.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional societies, including the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), where I have been elevated
`
`to an IEEE Fellow, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). I have
`
`been responsible for chairing or co-chairing numerous conferences and programs,
`
`as well as presenting research at major IEEE and ACM conferences. For example,
`
`I served as program co-chair for the 2008 5th International Conference on
`
`Broadband Communications, Networks and Systems, panels co-chair for the 2008
`
`3rd International Conference on Communication Systems Software & Middleware,
`
`and panel chair of the IEEE Conference of High Performance Computer
`
`Architecture.
`
`16. My recent presentations include a Keynote speech at International
`
`Conference on Information Technology-New Generations in 2013, a Keynote
`
`speech at IEEE International Symposium on Computers and Communications
`
`2010, several invited talks including Georgia Tech (2013), COMSNETS
`
`Conference (2013), Int. Conf. on Networking and Communications (2012),
`
`Samsung (2011), Korea University (2011), Aijou University (2011), Catedra Series
`
`talk at University of Carlos III, Madrid (2009), Thomson Research, Paris (2009),
`
`Telefonica Research, Barcelona (2009) and a Distinguished seminar at IBM Austin
`
`Research Lab (2008).
`
`9
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`
`17.
`
`I have received multiple awards in the field of networks and computer
`
`architecture. I received the NSF Career Award from 1996-2000. I received an
`
`outstanding professor award by the IEEE student branch at Texas A&M during
`
`1997-1998, an outstanding faculty award by the department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering during 2003-2004, a Distinguished Achievement award for
`
`teaching from the former students association of Texas A&M University, and a
`
`citation “for one of the most influential papers from the 1st ACM Multimedia
`
`conference.”
`
`18. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A. Additional
`
`information regarding my education, technical experience and publications,
`
`including a list of the US patents of which I am an inventor/co-inventor, is
`
`included therein.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’748 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’748
`
`Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have applied the date of August 19,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`2002, the filing date of the ’491 Provisional that the ’748 Patent claims priority to,
`
`as the priority date.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been obvious.
`
`Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim would have been obvious from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim could have been obvious from a single prior art reference or from a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does
`
`not require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`24. As above, I understand that a claim would have been obvious if it
`
`unites old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art
`
`by mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason
`
`for this combination, I understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an
`
`express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references.
`
`When a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a POSITA can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a POSITA
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique would have been obvious. I understand that a claim would have been
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or
`
`add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`12
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventor of the ’748
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’748 Patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any Challenged Claim of the ’748 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including
`
`patent ineligibility, enablement, written description, and definiteness, cannot be
`
`raised in inter partes review proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity
`
`of the ’748 Patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`by a preponderance of evidence, which means that the claims are more likely than
`
`not invalid.
`
`30. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`IV. THE ’748 PATENT
`
`31. The ’748 Patent is titled “System and Method for Data Management”
`
`and was issued on September 27, 2016. The ’748 Patent states that it relates to a
`
`“method for the management of data collected from a remote computing device.”
`
`(’748 Patent at Abstract (EX1001)). The ’748 Patent describes using computerized
`
`questionnaires to allow a user to complete a form and then transmit the answers
`
`back to a server wirelessly. In one example, the questionnaire might be used by a
`
`mystery shopper to evaluate a restaurant. (Id. at 10:37-43 (EX1001)).
`
`32. The ’748 Patent provides a specific example in which a “handheld
`
`computer” is used to gather data from the field. (Id. at 8:18-37 (EX1001)). The
`
`“handheld computers 28-32 need not be the same type, or even compatible
`
`devices.” (Id. at 7:47-48). A client designs a questionnaire by creating a list of
`
`questions and indicating for each question what type of response is expected. (Id.
`
`at 8:38-50 (EX1001)). A server then “sends the stack of questions and defined
`
`responses to the appropriate handheld devices.” (Id. at 9:3-6 (EX1001)).
`
`33.
`
` The ’748 Patent goes on to describe that the “user will preferably
`
`respond to each question in turn,” and that the “user’s responses to the items in the
`
`questionnaire are stored within the handheld 28 as they are collected.” (Id. at 9:39-
`
`48 (EX1001)). As one example of a response in the mystery shopper example,
`
`“the shopper will be prompted to enter a store number or location. If the handheld
`
`
`
`14
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`computer is equipped with a GPS receiver, this information could be entered
`
`automatically.” (Id. at 10:55-58 (EX1001)). The responses are then transmitted to
`
`the server. (Id. at 10:1-11; 11:22-26 (EX1001)). The ’748 Patent also
`
`contemplates that various preferred embodiments “include traits such as:…web
`
`based service eliminates the need for client installation.” (Id. at 12:54-13:19
`
`(EX1001)).
`
`34. Representative independent claim 19 recites these well-known
`
`concepts:
`
`19. A method for managing data comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) establishing communications between a handheld
`computing device and an originating computer wherein said
`handheld computing device has a GPS integral thereto;
`
`(b) receiving 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;
`
`(c) ending said communications between said handheld
`computing device and said originating computer;
`
`(d) after said communications has been ended,
`
`
`
`15
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`
`(d1) executing at least a portion of said plurality of tokens
`comprising said questionnaire on said handheld computing
`device to collect at least one response from a first user, and,
`
`(d2) storing within said computing device said at least one
`response from the first user;
`
`(d3) using said GPS to automatically obtain said location
`identifying information in response to said at least one
`question that requests location identifying information;
`
`(e) establishing communications between said handheld
`computing device and a recipient computer;
`
`(f) transmitting a value representative of each of said at least
`one response stored within said handheld computing device
`to said recipient computer; and,
`
`(g) after receipt of said transmission of step (f), transmitting
`a notice of said received value representative of each of said
`at least one response to a second user.
`
`35. As I discuss below in more detail, the methods presented and claimed
`
`in the ’748 Patent—transmitting questionnaires to handheld computing devices and
`
`receiving responses—were well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the earliest priority date of the ’748 Patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`
`
`16
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`37.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology fields pertinent to the ’748 Patent. The
`
`concepts disclosed in the ’748 Patent are relatively simple and would have been
`
`covered by an undergraduate-level course on website design and/or Internet
`
`application design.
`
`38.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person
`
`of ordinary skill
`
`in
`
`the arts of computer programming and wireless
`
`communications would have possessed in August 2002. Specifically, my
`
`experience in the industry, with colleagues from academia, with graduate students
`
`whose work I supervised, and with engineers practicing in the industry during the
`
`relevant timeframe allowed me to become personally familiar with the knowledge
`
`and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the area of content distribution
`
`systems. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of
`
`
`
`17
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of content distribution systems at the
`
`time of the priority date of the ’748 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`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 in programming software 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.
`
`40. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my testimony below 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. I would have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art at that
`
`time.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`
`41.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’748
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`
`
`18
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`42.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`’748 Patent along with portions of the prosecution history of the ’748 Patent
`
`(EX1002). Consistent with the ’748 Patent disclosure, I have given the terms in
`
`the Challenged Claims the broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A.
`
`“GPS integral thereto”
`
`43. This term appears in claims 19 and 21. In particular, both claims 19
`
`and 21 recite a handheld computing device that “has a GPS integral thereto.”
`
`44. The claim phrase “GPS integral thereto” is not found in the ’748
`
`Patent Specification. Further, the acronym “GPS” used in the claims is not defined
`
`in the ’748 Patent. It is my opinion that a POSITA would have understood the
`
`acronym “GPS” to refer to the Global Positioning System. (Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary at 237 (EX1013)).
`
`45. A POSITA would have understood the Global Positioning System to
`
`refer to the radio navigation system launched by the U.S. Department of Defense in
`
`the 1970s. As the Microsoft Computer Dictionary explains, the Global Positioning
`
`System, at the time of the ’748 Patent, was comprised of “24 earth satellites” and
`
`“ground-based control stations.” (Id. at 238 (EX1013)).
`
`
`
`19
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`
`46. However, a POSITA would not have understood that the entire Global
`
`Positioning System could be “integral” to a handheld computing device, as any
`
`handheld device could not physically contain the functionality of even one of the
`
`satellites used in the GPS system.
`
`47. Rather, in the only two instances of the acronym “GPS” used in the
`
`’748 Patent, the ’748 Patent refers to a “GPS receiver.” (’748 Patent at 5:47-48,
`
`10:56-57 (EX1001)). A handheld computing device with a “GPS receiver” or
`
`other GPS equipment “integral thereto” would have been consistent with a
`
`POSITA’s interpretation of the larger claim phrase “handheld computing device
`
`[with] a GPS integral thereto” and accordingly, a POSITA would have understood
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “GPS integral thereto” to mean “GPS
`
`equipment integral thereto.”
`
`B.
`
`“token”
`
`48. This term appears in all challenged claims.
`
`49.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would understand the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “token” to be “a distinguishable unit of a program,
`
`such as an index, an instruction, or a command.”
`
`50. As I noted above, I previously submitted a declaration in support of an
`
`inter partes review challenging the ’816 Patent. In that declaration, I construed
`
`“token” using the same interpretation, based in part on a technical dictionary which
`
`
`
`20
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`defines a “token” as a meaningful unit of a program, such as a name, constant,
`
`reserved word, or operator. (Dictionary of Computer Science at 111, 204
`
`(EX1016)). Additionally, another technical dictionary defines “token” as a
`
`“distinguishable unit in a sequence of characters.” (Dictionary of Scientific and
`
`Technical Terms at 1940 (EX1017)). It remains my opinion that a “token” should
`
`be construed as “a distinguishable unit of a program, such as an index, an
`
`instruction, or a command.”
`
`51.
`
`I understand that a District Court has construed the term “token” as
`
`“any non-reducible element of the computer code that is being parsed,” based in
`
`part on the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “any non-reducible element in
`
`data that is being parsed.” (’816 Markman Order at 13-14 (EX1011)). I
`
`understand the Patent Owner’s proposed construction is based on a dictionary
`
`definition. (Id. (EX1011)). I have been informed that district courts use a different
`
`standard than the PTAB when construing claim terms, and therefore, this
`
`construction may or may not be appropriate in the PTAB.
`
`52.
`
`I have considered the alternate district court construction, and do not
`
`find the construction to be inconsistent with the construction proposed in my
`
`previous declaration. For example, the construction proposed in my previous
`
`declaration uses the word “program,” while the Court’s construction refers to
`
`“computer code.” This is not a meaningful difference, as a POSITA would have
`
`
`
`21
`
`Unified Patents EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. 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
`
`understood a program to be comprised of computer code. Further, a POSITA
`
`would have understood “computer code” to have included indexes, instructions, or
`
`commands.
`
`53. Likewise, my proposed construction uses the word “distinguishable
`
`unit,” while the Court’s construction refers to “non-reducible element[s] in data.”
`
`A POSITA would have understood a “non-reducible element in data” to be a
`
`“distinguishable unit,” for example, as a person reading data or reading code must
`
`be able to distinguish one element from others.
`
`54. Thus, I maintain my previous opinion that a “token” should be
`
`construed to be “a distinguishable unit of a program, such as an index, an
`
`instruction, or a command.” In my analysis below, I detail how the prior art
`
`references teach t