UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`Case No. IPR2018-00294
`Patent No. 6,736,759
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II (CHUCK EASTTOM)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................3
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .....................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................3
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘759 PATENT .....................................................................................................4
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................................................5
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES ......................................................................................................6
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIMS ......................................................................................................7
`
`A. Claim 1................................................................................................................7
`
`B. Claim 20 .............................................................................................................8
`
`C. Claim 22 .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`IX.
`
`APPENDIX A – EASTTOM CV .................................................................................. 14
`
`A. Education ........................................................................................................ 14
`1. University Degrees ........................................................................ 14
`2.
`Industry Certifications ................................................................... 14
`3. Security and Forensics Related Certifications............................... 16
`4. Software Certifications ................................................................. 16
`5. Licenses ......................................................................................... 16
`
`B. Publications ..................................................................................................... 16
`1. Books 17
`2. Papers, presentations, & articles. ................................................. 18
`
`C. Patents ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`D. Standards and Certification Creation.............................................................. 21
`
`E. Professional Awards and Memberships ......................................................... 22
`
`F. Speaking Engagements ................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`G. Litigation Support Experience ......................................................................... 25
`1. Testifying Experience .................................................................... 30
`
`H. Professional Experience .................................................................................. 32
`
`I. Continuing Professional Education ................................................................. 35
`
`J. References to my work ................................................................................... 36
`1. Media References ......................................................................... 36
`2. References to publications ........................................................... 37
`3. Universities using my books ......................................................... 43
`
`K. Training ........................................................................................................... 45
`
`L. Technical Skills ................................................................................................ 46
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Uniloc to provide my expert opinions regarding
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,736,759 (“’759 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of
`
`$300 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of
`
`this work. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study or the
`
`substance of my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I have 25+ years of experience in the computer science industry including
`
`extensive experience with computer security, computer programming, and computer
`
`networking. I have authored 26 computer science books, including textbooks used at
`
`universities around the world. I hold 42 different computer industry certifications,
`
`including many in networking subjects. I am experienced with multiple programming
`
`languages. I also have extensive experience in computer networking. I have extensive
`
`experience with mobile devices, including all aspects of mobile devices (hardware and
`
`software). I am a Distinguished Speaker for the Association of Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM), and a reviewer for the IEEE Security and Privacy journal, as well as a reviewer for
`
`the International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism (IJCWT). My CV is attached as
`
`appendix A.
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`4.
`
`Fort the purposes of an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable meaning.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the CAFC definition for “data acquisition unit.”
`
`The CAFC construed this term to mean “a structure or set of structures including at least
`
`the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor.”
`
`6.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the CAFC definition for “Display unit.” The
`
`CAFC construed this term to mean “a structure or set of structures, separate from the
`
`data acquisition unit, for displaying real-time data provided by both the electronic
`
`positioning device and the physiological monitor independently or over a common
`
`transmission path.”
`
`7.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the CAFC definition for “Displaying real time
`
`data.” The CAFC construed this term to mean “displaying data without intentional delay,
`
`given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately
`
`measure the data.””
`
`8.
`
`The petitioner has adopted and earlier courts definition of probe. A probe:
`
`““a ‘probe’ [‘sensor’] means a device used to obtain physiological information from a
`
`user.”
`
`9.
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding I will use the petitioners adopted
`
`definitions in performing my analysis and forming my opinions.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘759 PATENT
`
`10.
`
`The ’759 Patent was filed on November 9, 1999 and issued on May 18,
`
`2004. Therefore, I assume a priority date of November 1999. This invention is an exercise
`
`monitoring system which includes an electronic positioning device; a physiological
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`monitor; and a display unit configured for displaying data provided by the electronic
`
`positioning device and the physiological monitor.
`
`11.
`
`The ’759 Patent teaches an innovative exercise monitoring system, as well
`
`as training and analytical methods useful for subjects performing physical activities. As an
`
`example, the systems and methods of the invention, provides real-time data and
`
`feedback useful to individuals performing a physical activity (such as athletes). And the
`
`monitoring system may include an electronic positioning device (such as a GPS device)
`
`and/or a physiological monitor (such as an oximeter or a heart rate monitor).
`
`12.
`
`According to the invention of the ’759 Patent, one embodiment of the
`
`monitoring system includes both an electronic positioning device and a physiological
`
`monitor (such as an oximeter or heart rate monitor) as part of an integrated monitoring
`
`system. Such an integrated monitoring system allows velocity, pace, and/or distance
`
`traveled information provided by the electronic positioning device to be used in
`
`conjunction with data provided by the physiological monitor. In this manner, exercising
`
`subjects can monitor, control and/or analyze their performance while exercising at any
`
`location. The invention of the ’759 Patent also provides analytical and training methods
`
`which utilize data provided by: (a) a physiological monitor; (b) an electronic positioning
`
`device (such as a GPS device); or (c) the combination of an electronic positioning device
`
`and a physiological monitor (such as a heart rate monitor or an oximeter).
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`13.
`
`Patent claims must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) in November 1999 would have been
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`one with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, or related technical area
`
`with 2 years of experience related to mobile devices and/or physiological monitoring.
`
`Additional experience can compensate for a lack of a degree.
`
`14.
`
`I am aware that Dr. Fyfe has a different view of a POSA. While I disagree
`
`with Dr. Fyfe, even if one adopts his view of a POSA, it would not alter my opinions.
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES
`
`15.
`
`Throughout the petition and Dr. Fyfe’s declaration, the phrase “would have
`
`been an obvious” appears quite frequently. However, what is conspicuously absent from
`
`Dr. Fyfe’s declaration and the petition is even the most cursory discussion of a) why a
`
`particular alteration or combination would have bene obvious; or b) why a POSA would
`
`have been motivated to combine two asserted pieces of prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Arcelus
`
`16.
`
`In many cases, the prior art being asserted is from vastly different fields,
`
`and a POSA would have not motivation at all to combine them. As one example, Arcelus
`
`is a patent regarding recording electrocardiograms. Dr. Fyfe, in his description of a POSA
`
`does not mention any experience or training at all in medical devices or medical software
`
`of any kind. A POSA, using Dr. Fyfe’s definition, would likely have been completely
`
`unaware of Arcelus, and would not have been qualified to use it, modify it, or combine it
`
`with other patents.
`
`17.
`
`Combining Arcelus with any of the other asserted prior art would not only
`
`not be obvious, as the petitioner claims, but would be counter intuitive. For example,
`
`Vock is “sport monitoring system for determining airtime, speed, power absorbed and
`
`other factors such as drop distance.” There is no motivation for a POSA to combine these
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`two very disparate inventions. And I note that neither the petitioner nor Dr. Fyfe ever
`
`articulate any motivation. Both the petitioner and Dr. Fyfe simply continually repeat “it
`
`would have been obvious…”.
`
`B.
`
`Motivation to combine
`
`18.
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Fyfe states “I am informed that the existence of an
`
`explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is
`
`a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.” However, in his
`
`declaration and the petition there is no discussion of the motivation. Simply the repeated
`
`conclusory claim that one or more combination ‘would have been obvious’, without even
`
`a suggestion of why that would be true. Furthermore, as discussed in the following section,
`
`in at least some instances, the asserted prior art actually teaches away from the claim
`
`elements of the ‘759 patent.
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIMS
`
`19.
`
`Several claims discussed in the petitioner’s brief and Dr. Fyfe’s declaration
`
`stand out as requiring specific commentary. Those claims are discussed in this section
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1
`
`20.
`
`Claim 1 includes the following segment “(b) a display unit configured for
`
`displaying real-time data provided by said electronic positioning device and said
`
`physiological monitor, said display unit separate from said data acquisition unit;”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`21.
`
`The petitioner has claimed:
`
`Fry discloses a display unit configured for displaying real-time data from the
`GPS and heart rate monitor. As described in the following excerpt, Figure 3
`illustrates the logic used to update the display in real-time, including how the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`sensor data are received using “interrupts” and how the display is updated,
`without intentional delay, every loop:
`the controller next executes . . . interrupts, . . . after which the
`display is updated in accordance with new and previously stored
`parameters. More particularly, at block 330, if, through a mode
`selection, a GPS position is to be received, an interrupt is
`generated, and the new coordinates are computed at block 3[3]4 and
`stored in memory at block 338.
`. . .
`the controller next inputs signals received from time-based sensors, if
`updates are warranted in response to block 340. If so, such inputs,
`which include vehicle speed, crank rate, the cyclist's heart rate, and
`so forth are decoded at block 342 and stored in memory of block 346
`
`22.
`
`The petitioner has failed to understand, or has omitted part of the Fry
`
`language. What fry actually states is “Having attended to mode-related functions, the
`
`controller next executes the most time-critical routines, preferably in the form of
`
`interrupts, followed by a scanning of less-time critical sensor inputs, after which the
`
`display is updated in accordance with new and previously stored parameters.” Note that
`
`Fry explicitly states that after it attends to mode-related functions the controller then
`
`executes most time critical functions then less time critical sensor inputs. Only after all of
`
`that is handled “the display is updated…”. There is significant data processing occurring
`
`before Fry even attempts to update the display. Not only is this not real-time, it is in fact
`
`the antithesis of real-time.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 20
`
`23.
`
`Claim 20 states “The exercise monitoring system of claim 19, wherein said
`
`data acquisition unit includes memory, and at least one processor for processing acquired
`
`data in accordance with instructions stored in said memory of the data acquisition unit,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`and further wherein said display unit includes memory, and at least one processor for
`
`processing acquired data in accordance with instructions stored in said memory of the
`
`display unit.”
`
`24.
`
`In reference to claim 20, the petitioner states “As described above for
`
`Claim 19, Fry discloses a data acquisition unit that includes memory and at least one
`
`processor for processing acquired data in accordance with instructions stored in said
`
`memory of the data acquisition unit. As further described above with reference to Claim
`
`1, the proposed combination of Fry and Newell includes an eyeglass-mounted heads-up
`
`display for displaying real time information from the body-mounted sensors. A PHOSITA
`
`would understand that it would have been obvious to implement the heads-up display
`
`with its own display processor, which would process and display data using instructions
`
`stored in the display unit memory.”
`
`25.
`
`The petitioner has missed, or ignored a significant element of claim 20.
`
`Claim 20 begins with describing ‘at least one processor for processing acquired data in
`
`accordance with instructions stored in said memory of the data acquisition unit’ and then
`
`says ‘and at least one processor for processing acquired data in accordance with
`
`instructions stored in said memory of the display unit’
`
`26.
`
`Claim 20 is very clear there are at least two processors. At least one in the
`
`data acquisition unit and at least one in the display unit. The petitioner does not even
`
`claim that Fry or Newell describe two separate processors, but instead merely claim it
`
`would have been obvious to implement the heads-up display with its own display
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`processor. The petitioner nor Dr. Fyfe provide any rational for this an in fact ignore what
`
`is actually claimed in Fry or Newell.
`
`27.
`
`Fry only mentions the word processor one time “Signal lines 222 include
`
`power-up/satellite locating signals from the processor” This is in reference to figure 2,
`
`shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Fry has a single processor and in fact appears not to have contemplated
`
`two processors.
`
`29.
`
`The word processor does not appear at all in Newell, however, Newell does
`
`mention a CPU in Figure 2 "FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of the body-mounted
`
`computer 120 in greater detail. The computer includes a memory 270, a CPU 280, and a
`
`storage device 290" Figure 2 is shown below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`30.
`
`Newell is even more clear that Fry. Not only is there a single processor in
`
`Newell, it is very clear from Figure 2 that the single CPU 280 is used for the entire system.
`
`31.
`
`The petitioner and Dr. Fyfe claim it would have been obvious to a POSA
`
`that Fry and Newell could have two processors, when both inventions clearly teach a
`
`
`
`single processor.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 22
`
`32.
`
`Claim 22 states “The exercise monitoring system of claim 1, wherein said
`
`display unit is configured for communication with said data acquisition unit via a wired or
`
`wireless link, such that data indicative of at least one of a subject’s velocity or pace can
`
`be transmitted to said display unit.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`33.
`
`In reference to claim 22, the petitioner states “Fry discloses displaying
`
`velocity data from the GPS receiver in order to provide feedback to the athlete during
`
`exercise. Fry at 5:56-60 (EX1004). A PHOSITA would understand that the heads-up display
`
`in the proposed Fry and Newell combination would necessarily communicate with the
`
`data acquisition components via either a wired or wireless link. Fyfe Decl. at ¶48
`
`(EX1002).”
`
`34.
`
`Again, the petitioner and Dr Fyfe are ignoring what Fry and Newell actually
`
`teach. From the figures in each in Fry, the only connection mentioned is wired.
`
`Furthermore, the term wireless does not even appear in Fry, nor is it even suggested.
`
`35.
`
`Newell does mention wireless, specifically “In some embodiments, CDOS
`
`systems communicate between themselves, such as via a wireless medium or when
`
`cabled together.” However, the entire purpose of Newell is completely different from Fry.
`
`These are two inventions in very different fields. The petitioner has not described any
`
`motivation to combine, but rather has simply made the conclusory statement that it
`
`would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`36.
`
`The petitioner also attempts to combine Fry with Acrelus. Acrelus
`
`discusses a very limited and specific use of wireless communication “Wires or wireless
`
`interconnections are used to connect these two patches to an electrocardiogram
`
`amplifier.” Furthermore, Acrelus is an EEG machine for medical use, and is in a completely
`
`different area than Fry. The petitioner has not described any motivation to combine, but
`
`rather has simply made the conclusory statement that it would have been obvious for one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`37.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration it is my opinion that a POSA
`
`would have not been motivated to combine Fry and Newell. Furthermore, a POSA would
`
`not have been motivated to combine Fry and Acelus.
`
`38.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that there are
`
`specific and important differences between the ‘759 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`Including the use of at least two processors in the ‘759 patent.
`
`39.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that Fry does
`
`not teach real-time display update. In fact, Fry teaches away from real-time display
`
`update, explicitly requiring multiple functions to be executed before the display is
`
`updated.
`
`
`
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) 22 March 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IX.
`
`APPENDIX A – EASTTOM CV
`
`A.
`
`Education
`
`1.
`
`University Degrees
`
`• B.A. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Major Communications with
`Minors in Chemistry and Psychology. Extensive coursework in science (chemistry,
`physics, and biology) as well as neuroscience (neurobiology of memory, cognitive
`science, etc.). Also, additional coursework in computer science including
`programming and database courses.
`• M.Ed. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Coursework included technology
`related courses such as digital video editing, multimedia presentations, and
`computer graphics. A statistics course was also part of the coursework.
`• M.B.A. Northcentral University Emphasis in Applied Computer Science. Extensive
`course work in graduate computer science including graduate courses in: C++
`programming, C# programming, Computer Graphics, Web Programming,
`Network communication, Complex Database Management Systems, and
`Artificial Intelligence. Approximately 30 graduate hours of graduate computer
`science courses. Additionally, a doctoral level statistics course was included. A
`semester research project in medical software was also part of the curriculum. I
`also took several research courses beyond the requirements for the degree.
`• Doctor of Science (In progress) Capitol Technology University. Majoring in
`cybersecurity, dissertation topic is a study of post quantum computing
`asymmetric cryptographic algorithms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Industry Certifications
`
`The following is a list of computer industry certifications I have earned.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Hardware and Networking Related Certifications
`
`1. CompTIA (Computer Technology Industry Associations) A+ Certified
`
`2. CompTIA Network + Certified
`
`3. CompTIA Server+ Certified
`
`4. CompTIA I-Net+ Certified
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Operating System Related Certifications
`
`5. CompTIA Linux + Certified
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`6. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Windows Server 2000 Professional
`Certification Number: A527-9546
`
`7. Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator (MCSA) Windows Server 2000
`Certification Number: A527-9556
`
`8. Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) Windows Server 2000 Certification
`Number: A527-9552
`
`9. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Windows Server 2008 Active
`Directory Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`10. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Windows 7 Microsoft Certification
`ID: 1483483
`
`11. Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) Windows 7 Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`12. Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate Windows 7 Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`13. National Computer Science Academy Windows 8 Certification Certificate #: 4787829
`
`
`
`Programming and Web Development Related
`c.
`Certifications
`
`14. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Visual Basic 6.0 Desktop Applications
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`15. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Visual Basic 6.0 Distributed Applications
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`16. Microsoft Certified Application Developer (MCAD) - C# Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`17. Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT 2005-2012) Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`18. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Visual Studio 2010 Windows
`Application Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`19. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Visual Studio 2010 Data Access
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`20. National Computer Science Academy HTML 5.0 Certification Certificate #: 4788000.
`
`21. National Computer Science Academy ASP.Net Certification Certificate #: 4788342
`
`22. Certified Internet Webmaster (CIW) Associate CIW0163791
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Database Related Certifications
`
`23. Microsoft Certified Database Administrator (MCDBA) SQL Server 2000 Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`24. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Implementing SQL Server 2008
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`25. Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) SQL Server Administration Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Security and Forensics Related Certifications
`
`26. CIW Certified Security Analyst CIW0163791
`
`27. EC Council Certified Ethical Hacker v5 (CEH) ECC942445
`
`28. EC Council Certified Hacking Forensics Investigator v4 (CHFI) ECC945708
`
`29. EC Council Certified Security Administrator (ECSA) ECC947248
`
`30. EC Council Certified Encryption Specialist (ECES)
`
`31. EC Council Certified Instructor
`
`32. CISSP – Certified Information Systems Professional #387731
`
`33. ISSAP – Certified Information Systems Architect #387731
`
`34. CCFP – Certified Cyber Forensics Professional #387731
`
`35. Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI)
`
`36. Forensic Examination of CCTV Digital VTR Surveillance Recording Equipment
`
`37. Oxygen Phone Forensics Certified
`
`38. Access Data Certified Examiner (ACE) 2014-2017
`
`39. OSForensics Certified Examiner (OSFCE)
`
`40. Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC)
`
`4.
`
`Software Certifications
`
`41. National Computer Science Academy Microsoft Word 2013 Certification Certificate
`#: 5078016
`
`42. National Computer Science Academy Microsoft Word 2000 Certification Certificate
`#: 5078187
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Licenses
`
`Texas State Licensed Private Investigator. Registration Number 827827. Associated with
`Allegiant Investigations & Security License Number: A18596
`
`B.
`
`Publications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Books
`
`Easttom, C. (2003). Moving from Windows to Linux. Newton Center, MA:
`1.
`Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`Easttom, C., Hoff, B. (2006). Moving from Windows to Linux, 2nd Ed.
`2.
`Newton Center, MA: Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`
`Easttom, C. (2003). Programming Fundamentals in C++. Newton Center,
`3.
`MA: Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`
` Easttom C. (2002). JFC and Swing with JBuilder 8.0. Plano, Texas:
`4.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2002). JBuilder 7.0 EJB Programming. Plano, Texas:
`5.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2001). Beginning JavaScript, 1st Edition. Plano, Texas:
`6.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2002). Beginning VB.Net. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`7.
`Publishing.
`Easttom, C. (2001). Advanced JavaScript, 2nd Edition. Plano, Texas:
`8.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2005). Introduction to Computer Security. New York City,
`9.
`New York: Pearson Press.
`
`Easttom, C. (2006). Network Defense and Countermeasures. New York
`10.
`City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2005). Advanced JavaScript, 3rd Edition. Plano, Texas:
`11.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C., Taylor, J. (2010). Computer Crime, Investigation, and the
`12.
`Law. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
`
`Easttom, C. (2013). Essential Linux Administration: A Comprehensive
`13.
`Guide for Beginners. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
`Easttom, C. (2011). Introduction to Computer Security, 2nd Edition. New
`14.
`York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2012). Network Defense and Countermeasures, 2nd Edition.
`15.
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2013). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 2nd
`16.
`Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`Easttom, C. (2014). CCFP Certified Cyber Forensics Professional All-in-One
`17.
`Exam Guide. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C., Dulaney, E. (2015). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: SY0-401.
`18.
`Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Easttom, C. (2015). Modern Cryptography: Applied Mathematics for
`19.
`Encryption and Information Security. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill
`Publishing.
`Easttom, C. (2016). Computer Security Fundamentals, 3rd Edition. New
`20.
`York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2017). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 3rd
`21.
`Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`Easttom, C., Dulaney, E. (2017). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: SY0-501.
`22.
`Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`Easttom, C. (2018). Penetration Testing Fundamentals: A Hands On Guide
`23.
`to Reliable Security Audits. New York City, New York: Pearson Press. Writing
`complete, will be published in early 2018.
`
`Easttom, C., Christy, R. (2017). CompTIA Security+ Review Guide: SY0-
`24.
`501. Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`Easttom, C., Roberts, R. (2018). Networking Fundamentals, 3rd Edition.
`25.
`Goodheart-Wilcox Publishing. Writing complete, will be published in early 2018.
`
`26. Easttom, C. (2018). Network Defense and Countermeasures, 3rd Edition.
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`
`2.
`
`Papers, presentations, & articles.
`
`1. Easttom, C. (2010). RSA and its Challenges. EC Council White Paper.
`
`2. Easttom, C. (2010). Finding Large Prime Numbers. EC Council White Paper
`
`3. Easttom, C. (2010). A Method for Finding Large Prime Numbers. Haking
`Magazine. Hands-On Cryptography Issue.
`
`4. Easttom, C. (2014). A method for finding large prime numbers. Open Source
`Article published by Academia.edu 2014.
`
`5. Easttom, C. (2011). The RSA Algorithm - The ups and Downs. CryptoMagazine.
`
`6. Easttom, C. (2011). Feistel Ciphers - An Overview. Presentation at Cast Security
`Conference. Washington, D.C.
`
`7. Easttom, C. (2011). Steganography- History and Modern Applications.
`Presentation at Takedown Security Conference.
`
`8. Easttom, C. (2012). Problems with RSA. Presentation at Takedown Security
`Conference – Dallas, TX.
`
`9. Easttom, C. (2013). Cryptanalysis. Presentation at Takedown Security
`Conference. Huntsville, Alabama.
`
`10. Easttom, C. (2014). An Overview of Cryptographic S-Boxes used in Block Ciphers.
`Research Gate. DOI RG.2.2.14084.94088.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`11. Easttom, C. (2014). Cryptographic Backdoors. Presentation at ISC2 Security
`Congress. Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`12. Easttom, C. (2014). Cryptographic Backdoors. Presentation at University of Texas
`Dallas ACM Chapter Conference.
`
`13. Easttom, C. (2014). Windows Registry Forensics. Research Gate. DOI
`RG.2.2.29603.86561
`
`14. Easttom, C. (2014). Artificial Intelligence, Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks and Fuzzy
`Neural Networks and their impact on Electronic Medical Records. Academia.edu.
`
`15. Easttom, C. (2014). A Basic Overview of Electro-Magnetic Interference.
`Academia.edu.
`
`16. Easttom, C. (2014). An Overview of Targeted Malware. Academia.edu.
`
`17. Easttom C. (2014). An Introduction to Mobile Forensics. Academia.edu.
`
`18. Easttom, C. (2015). Cryptographic Backdoors. Academia.edu.
`
`19. Easttom, C. (2015). The History of Computer Crime in America. Academia.edu.
`
`20. Easttom, C. (2015). Spyware Techniques. Academia.edu.
`
`21. Easttom, C. (2015). Recovering Deleted Files from NTFS. Academia.edu.
`
`22. Easttom, C. (2015). Multi-dimensional analysis of cyber-forensic evidence.
`Academia.edu.
`
`23. Easttom, C. (2016). Spyware coding techniques. Journal of Information Security
`Science & Digital Forensics (HJISSDF), 1 (1)
`
`24. Easttom, C. (2016). Cryptographic Backdoors – an overview. Journal of
`Information Security Science & Digital Forensics (HJISSDF), 1 (1)
`
`25. Easttom, C. (2016). A Look at Spyware Techniques. 2600 Magazine, 33(3).
`Autumn issue 2016.
`
`26. Easttom, C. (2016). Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Digital Forensic Evidence.
`Forensic Examiner Journal, 25 (4).
`
`27. Easttom, C. (2016). Applying Graph Theory to Evidence Evaluation. Research
`Gate DOI: RG.2.2.23391.0528
`
`28. Easttom, C. (2017). An Overview of Pseudo Random Number Generators.
`Research Gate. DOI: RG.2.2.13941.58087
`
`29. Easttom, C. (2017). A Model for Penetration Testing. Research Gate. DOI:
`RG.2.2.36221.15844
`
`30. Easttom, C. (2017). The RSA Algorithm Explored. International Journal of
`Innovative Research in Information Security. (IJIRIS). 4(1).
`
`31. Easttom, C. (2017). Utilizing Graph Theory to Model Forensic Examination.
`International Journal of Innovative Research in Information Security (IJIRIS), 4(2).
`
`32. Easttom, C. (2017). Applying Graph Theory to Modeling Investigations. IOSR
`Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM) 13,2 PP 47-51. doi:10.9790/5728-130205475
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Easttom, C. (2017). Enhancing SQL Injection with Stored Procedures. 2600
`Magazine. 34(3).
`
`34. Easttom, C. (2017). An Overview of Key Exchange Protocols. IOSR Journal of
`Mathematics (IOSR-JM). 13(4). DOI: 10.9790/5728-1304021618
`
`35. Easttom, C. (2017). An Overview of Quantum Cryptography with Lattice Based
`Cryptography. IOSR Journal of Mathematics, 13(