UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,516,129
`Case IPR No.: IPR2018-01048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, PH.D.
`BLACK IN VIEW OF NEXUS ONE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,516,129
`Case IPR No.: IPR2018-01048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, PH.D.
`BLACK IN VIEW OF NEXUS ONE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 4
`II.
`Scope of Opinions ............................................................................................ 5
`III.
`IV. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 6
`V.
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 9
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 16
`VII. Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 17
`VIII. Overview of the ’129 Patent .......................................................................... 18
`IX. Background of the Technology ..................................................................... 22
`X.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 25
`A.
`“block transmission” (claims 1 and 17) ......................................................... 26
`B.
`“battery charge status” (claims 6 and 22) ...................................................... 26
`XI. Overview of Prior Art .................................................................................... 27
`XII. Claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Black in View of Nexus One .................................................. 34
`XIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 81
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`I, Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D., declare:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D., and I have been retained by
`
`counsel for Petitioner Google LLC (“Google” or “Petitioner”) as an expert witness
`
`in the above-captioned proceeding. Counsel asked me to prepare this declaration to
`
`provide certain technical background and opinions in connection with an inter
`
`partes review (IPR) petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129 (the ’129 patent, Ex.
`
`1001) assigned to Patent Owner SEVEN Networks LLC (“Patent Owner”). 1
`
`2. My opinions in this declaration are based on my years of education,
`
`research and experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant
`
`materials. The materials that I studied for this declaration include the documents
`
`identified in Section IV of this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner presents any rebuttal in response to this
`
`declaration, whether in any pleading, cross-examination, or rebuttal expert
`
`declaration, I may rely upon the same materials, my knowledge and experience,
`
`and additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the Patent Owner and its
`
`experts. I may also consider additional documents and information in providing
`
`
`1 All references to “Ex. __” in this declaration refer to Google’s Exhibits
`concurrently filed with Google’s petition.
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`responsive facts or opinions, including documents that may not yet have been
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`provided to me.
`
`4. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and amend my opinions stated here based on new information and on
`
`my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $500 per
`
`hour for my time spent working on issues in this case. My compensation does not
`
`depend on the outcome of this matter or the facts or opinions that I express.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`6.
`
`Since 1998, I have been a Full Professor at the University of
`
`California, Berkeley. I hold a professor position in two departments at U.C.
`
`Berkeley: the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
`
`(Computer Sciences Division) and the School of Information.
`
`7. Before joining U.C. Berkeley, I was a tenured professor at Carnegie
`
`Mellon University in Computer Science, where I had a faculty appointment since
`
`1986.
`
`8.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science from Harvard University in
`
`1986.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive research, teaching, and industry experience in the
`
`areas of computer security, electronic commerce, mobile devices, and wireless
`
`networks, with a special research interest in the design, implementation, and digital
`
`rights management of software and applications as it relates to those areas.
`
`10. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further set forth in detail in my curriculum vitae (Appendix
`
`A), which I hereby incorporate by reference into this section of my declaration.
`
`III. Scope of Opinions
`
`11. Counsel for Google asked me to provide my opinions and any relevant
`
`facts relating to the validity of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 of the
`
`’129 patent in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/185202
`
`(“Black”) and Google’s Nexus One User’s Guide, dated March 15, 2010 (“Nexus
`
`One”).
`
`12. Counsel for Google told me to assume that both Black and Nexus One
`
`are prior art to the ’129 patent.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel that the Nexus One reference (Ex.
`
`1005) was retrieved from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (Ex. 1035). I am
`
`familiar with the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and understand that it
`
`operates to capture and archive all publicly accessible web pages. In my opinion, if
`
`the Wayback Machine indicates that a document was publicly available as of a
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`certain date, then the document was, in fact, publicly available as of the date
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`indicated.
`
`14. This declaration, including the exhibits I cite, sets forth my opinions
`
`requested from counsel.
`
`IV. Materials Considered
`
`15.
`
`In connection with preparing this declaration, I have considered at
`
`least the following documents:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex-1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`Ex-1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`Ex-1005 Nexus One User’s Guide, NOUG-2.1-update1-105, March 15, 2010
`(“Nexus One”)
`
`Ex-1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0185202 to Black et al.
`(“Black”)
`
`Ex-1007 Provisional App. No. 61/367,871
`
`Ex-1008 Provisional App. No. 61/367,870
`
`Ex-1009 Provisional App. No. 61/408,858
`
`Ex-1010 Provisional App. No. 61/408,829
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 82
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`Ex-1011 Provisional App. No. 61/408,839
`
`Ex-1012 Provisional App. No. 61/408,846
`
`Ex-1013 Provisional App. No. 61/408,854
`
`Ex-1014 Provisional App. No. 61/408,826
`
`Ex-1015 Provisional App. No. 61/408,820
`
`Ex-1016 Provisional App. No. 61/416,020
`
`Ex-1017 Provisional App. No. 61/416,033
`
`Ex-1018 Provisional App. No. 61/430,828
`
`Ex-1019 U.S. Patent No. 8,135,392 to Marcellino et al. (“Marcellino”)
`
`Ex-1020
`
`IP-Based Next-Generation Wireless Networks: Systems,
`Architectures, and Protocols, Chen & Tao (2004)
`
`Ex-1021 UMTS Networks: Architecture, Mobility and Services, 2nd Ed.,
`Kaaranen, Ahtiainen, Laitinen, Naghian & Niemi (2005)
`
`Ex-1022 GPRS Networks, Sanders, Thorens, Reisky, Rulik & Deylitz (2003)
`
`Ex-1023 GSM Evolution: Mobile Packet Data Services, Stuckmann (2003)
`
`Ex-1024 U.S. Patent No. 9,553,816 (the ’816 patent)
`
`Ex-1025 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,816
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`Ex-1026 SEVEN Networks, LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01495-M,
`Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`Dkt. 79 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018)
`
`Ex-1027 SEVEN Networks, LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01495-M,
`SEVEN Networks, LLC’s Responsive Claim-Construction Brief,
`Dkt. 88 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2018)
`
`Ex-1028 SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:17-cv-442-JRG,
`SEVEN Networks Infringement Contentions to Google LLC (Sept. 6,
`2017)
`
`Ex-1029 SEVEN Networks, LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01495,
`Dkt. No. 77, SEVEN Networks’ Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(Feb. 20, 2018, E.D. Tex.)
`
`Ex-1030 SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00442, Dkt.
`No. 77, SEVEN Networks’ Proposed Infringement Contentions and
`Extrinsic Evidence (April 27, 2018, E.D. Tex.)
`
`Ex-1031 Declaration of Jordan Schnaps Regarding the Nexus One User’s
`Guide
`
`Ex-1032 Mat Honan, Google Debuts Android-Powered Nexus One
`‘Superphone,’ Wired, Jan. 5, 2010, available at
`http://www.wired.com/2010/01/google-debuts-android-powered-
`nexus-one-superphone/
`
`Ex-1033 Priya Ganapati, Google Launches Nexus One for AT&T, Wired, Mar.
`16, 2010, available at http://www.wired.com/2010/03/google-
`launches-nexus-one-for-att/
`
`Ex-1034
`
`Internal Google Documentation of a New Version of the of Nexus
`One User’s Guide, Mar. 15, 2010
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`Ex-1035
`
`Internet Archive, http://www.google.com/googlephone/nexusone-
`userguide.pdf, March 27, 2010
`
`Ex-1036 Reserved
`
`Ex-1037 SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:17-cv-442-JRG, Joint
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (May 15, 2018)
`
`16.
`
`I also have relied on my academic and professional experience in
`
`reaching the opinions expressed in this declaration.
`
`V. Legal Principles
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether the cited prior
`17.
`
`art teaches or renders obvious the limitations of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30,
`
`34, and 35 of the ’129 patent from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of July 26, 2010, as I describe in more detail below.
`
`18.
`
`I am a computer scientist by training and profession. The opinions I
`
`express in this declaration involve the application of my technical knowledge and
`
`experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the ’129 patent. I
`
`am not an attorney. For purposes of this declaration, counsel for Google has
`
`informed me about certain aspects of the law as it relates to my opinions.
`
`19. Counsel informed me that there are two ways in which prior art may
`
`render a patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate”
`
`the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. Counsel informed me that for an invention
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`claimed in a patent to be found patentable, it must be new and not obvious based
`
`on what was known before the invention was made.
`
`20. Counsel also informed me that the information used to evaluate
`
`whether an invention was new and not obvious when made is generally referred to
`
`as “prior art.” Counsel informed me that the prior art includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date of the patent (the “effective
`
`filing date”). Counsel further informed me that a patent or published patent
`
`application is prior art if it was filed before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention and that a printed publication is prior art if it was publicly available
`
`before the effective filing date.
`
`21. Counsel informed me that in this inter partes review proceeding, the
`
`claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`patent specification, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. After the
`
`claims are construed in this manner, they are then compared to the prior art.
`
`22. Counsel informed me that a dependent claim is a patent claim that
`
`refers back to another patent claim. Counsel informed me that a dependent claim
`
`includes all of the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
`
`23. Counsel informed me that in this inter partes review proceeding, the
`
`information that may be evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`My analysis, which is set out in detail below, compares the claims to printed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`publications that I was told to assume are prior art to the claims.
`
`24. Counsel informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the prior art included that invention. Counsel informed me that a patent
`
`claim is “anticipated,” and, therefore invalid, if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses (expressly or inherently) each and every element of the claimed invention
`
`in a manner sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
`
`invention, thus placing the invention in possession of the public.
`
`25. Counsel also informed me that under certain circumstances, multiple
`
`references may be used to prove anticipation by (a) showing that the primary
`
`reference contains an enabled disclosure, (b) explaining the meaning of a term used
`
`in the primary reference, or (c) showing that a characteristic not disclosed in the
`
`reference is inherent.
`
`26. Counsel informed me that a patent claim is unpatentable as being
`
`obvious in view of prior art if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made. Counsel informed me that an obviousness analysis takes into
`
`consideration factual inquiries such as the level of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`patent claim, and any objective “secondary considerations.”
`
`27. Counsel informed me that in determining the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, a reference is considered relevant prior art to the ’129 patent if it falls
`
`within the field of the inventor’s endeavor as of the effective filing date of the
`
`patent. Counsel also informed me that a prior art reference is relevant to the
`
`claimed invention if the reference is pertinent to the particular problem with which
`
`the inventor was involved. Counsel further informed me that a prior art reference is
`
`relevant to the claimed invention if it relates to the same problem or technology as
`
`the claimed invention. Counsel informed me that a reference which is relevant
`
`prior art to the claimed invention would support use of that reference in an
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`28. Counsel informed me that there may be several rationales for
`
`combining prior-art references or modifying a reference as part of an obviousness
`
`analysis. Counsel informed me that these rationales include combining prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple
`
`substitution of a known element for another to obtain predictable results, a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements in accordance with their established functions,
`
`applying a known technique to improve a known device (or process) and yield
`
`predictable results, and choosing from a finite number of known predictable
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Counsel informed me that an
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`obviousness analysis takes into consideration whether the prior art provides a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine teachings of multiple prior art
`
`references to arrive at the patent claim.
`
`29. Counsel informed me that the obviousness analysis need not seek out
`
`precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
`
`but instead can take account of the ordinary innovation and experimentation in the
`
`relevant field that does no more than yield predictable results. In assessing whether
`
`there was an apparent reason to modify or combine known elements as claimed,
`
`counsel informed me that it may be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of
`
`multiple patents or prior art references, the effects of commercial demands, and the
`
`background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Counsel informed
`
`me that any motivation that would have applied to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, including motivation from common sense or derived from the problem to be
`
`solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have been combined.
`
`30. Counsel informed me that modifications and combinations suggested
`
`by common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense
`
`suggests that familiar items can have obvious uses beyond the particular
`
`application being described in a prior art reference, that if something can be done
`
`once it would be obvious to do it multiple times, and that in many cases a person of
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`ordinary skill in the art can fit the teachings of multiple patents together in an
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`obvious manner to address a particular problem. Counsel informed me that the
`
`prior art does not need to be directed to solving the same problem that is addressed
`
`in the patent.
`
`31. Counsel also informed me that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity. Counsel informed me that, in many fields, it
`
`may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques, modifications, and
`
`combinations, and it may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific
`
`research or literature, will drive a new design. Counsel informed me that when
`
`there is market pressure or a design need to solve a particular problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
`
`has a good reason to employ the known options. Counsel further informed me that
`
`if employing such known options would lead to expected success, then the success
`
`is likely the product of ordinary skill and common sense as opposed to patentable
`
`innovation. Counsel informed me that if a combination was obvious to try, that
`
`may show that it was obvious and therefore unpatentable. Counsel informed me
`
`that if a particular combination of prior art elements was obvious to try, that would
`
`suggest the combination was obvious even if no one previously made the
`
`combination in practice.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`32. Counsel informed me that certain objective secondary considerations
`
`may be relevant to a determination of whether an invention was obvious. Counsel
`
`informed me that such secondary considerations may include (a) whether there was
`
`a long felt and long unmet need for the invention, (b) whether the invention
`
`achieved unexpected results, (c) the commercial success of the invention, and
`
`(d) whether the invention was copied or praised within the industry.
`
`33.
`
`I have not seen any evidence of secondary considerations that would
`
`support a determination of non-obviousness of the claimed subject matter in the
`
`’129 patent.
`
`34. Counsel informed me that Google has argued the ’129 patent is not
`
`entitled to the priority date of its provisional applications and that the earliest
`
`possible priority date for the ’129 patent is July 22, 2011, which is the U.S. filing
`
`date of the parent of the ’129 patent.
`
`35. Counsel further told me that if the ’129 patent were entitled to the
`
`priority of its provisional applications, the earliest possible priority date for the
`
`’129 patent would be July 26, 2010.
`
`36.
`
`I have analyzed the prior art and state of the art, and rendered my
`
`opinions relating to obviousness of the claims of the ’129 patent, from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 26, 2010.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, counsel asked
`37.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`me to consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I considered factors such as the educational level and years
`
`of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of
`
`other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology.
`
`38. Counsel told me to assume a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a
`
`specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities
`
`reflected by the factors I discuss above.
`
`39. Taking these factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the ’129 patent would have had either
`
`(a) a master’s or doctoral degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a
`
`similar discipline; or (b) a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, or a similar discipline and at least two years additional relevant
`
`experience. Relevant experience means working in networked computing
`
`systems. Examples of work in networked computing systems could include work
`
`in networked computing device communication and networked computing device
`
`power management.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`40.
`
`I have been a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and at the
`
`University of California, Berkeley since 1986, teaching undergraduate, masters,
`
`and doctoral students. I am very familiar with the types of abilities and knowledge
`
`of the skill level of such people.
`
`41.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`knowledgeable and familiar with the power saving concepts and techniques recited
`
`in the claims of the ’129 patent, as they were common and well-known in July 26,
`
`2010, as I discuss below.
`
`42.
`
`I hold a Ph.D. in computer science, and have been a computer science
`
`professor at Carnegie Mellon University and University of California, Berkeley,
`
`continuously since 1986. On July 26, 2010, I was at least a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`43.
`
`In this declaration, and for all of my opinions herein, I have applied the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 26, 2010.
`
`VII. Summary of Opinions
`44. As set forth more fully herein, it is my opinion that the prior art
`
`renders obvious each of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 of the ’129
`
`patent to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 26, 2010, which I have been
`
`informed by counsel is the earliest effective filing date of the ’129 patent.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, each of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35
`
`of the ’129 patent would have been obvious over Black in view of Nexus One to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at least as early as July 26, 2010.
`
`VIII. Overview of the ’129 Patent
` As part of my analysis, I read and considered the ’129 patent and
`46.
`
`related prosecution history before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The
`
`following overview is not meant to describe my full understanding of the ’129
`
`patent and its prosecution history, but rather to highlight certain general aspects of
`
`the ’129 patent and its prosecution history that may be relevant to my opinions.
`
`47. The ’129 patent describes a “method for reducing traffic in a cellular
`
`network used to satisfy data requests made by a mobile application.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract. For example, the patent relates to managing the amount of traffic
`
`(requests and responses) between a mobile device and remote servers. Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:21-25. According to the patent, one way of managing traffic is to strategically
`
`block and selectively prevent and allow transmissions of outgoing application data
`
`requests to an application server for one or more applications executing on the
`
`mobile device. Ex. 1001 at 8:46-9:5.
`
`48.
`
`I reproduce Fig. 1B below, which depicts a diagram illustrating a
`
`mobile device, remote servers, and a network:
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`
`
`49.
`
`In Fig. 1B, the mobile device (150), via a local proxy (175), delays
`
`certain outgoing transmissions to an application server (11) and expedites other
`
`transmissions to optimize resource consumption by selectively operating the radio
`
`transceiver. Ex. 1001 at 10:18-34; 9:50-55. In some embodiments, the ’129 patent
`
`provides that the local proxy may “accumulate low priority data and send it in
`
`batches to reduce the number of times and/or amount of time when the radio is
`
`powered up.” Id. at 9:50-55. In other words, some data, such as low priority data,
`
`may be prevented from transmission for a period of time to conserve power using a
`
`“batching” process that combines multiple transmissions into a single transmission.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`50.
`
`In the ’129 patent, one way the mobile device chooses when to prevent
`
`transmission of application data transmissions is by prioritizing data based on user
`
`activity. Ex. 1001 at 12:1-24. A user activity module in the mobile device may
`
`“detect and track user activity with respect to applications,” such as detecting
`
`“when an application or window (e.g., a web browser) has been exited, closed,
`
`minimized, maximized, opened, moved into the foreground, or into the
`
`background.” Ex. 1001 at 12:1-7. The device also may detect other user activity,
`
`for example, “observing user keystrokes, backlight status, or other signals via one
`
`or more input mechanisms.” Ex. 1001 at 6:37-39. Based on the detected user
`
`activity, the mobile device adjusts its behavior to optimize resource consumption
`
`by turning the radio on or off based on characteristics of the user activity on the
`
`device or adjusting the power mode of the radio. Ex. 1001 at 12:9-23.
`
`51. Claims 1 and 17 of the ’129 patent are independent. Claim 1 reads:
`
`1. A mobile device which improves network resource utilization
`
`in a wireless network, the mobile device, comprising:
`
`a radio;
`
`user interface;
`
`a memory unit having instructions stored thereon;
`
`a processor configured to:
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`enter a first power management mode, wherein to enter the
`
`first power management mode is based on input from a user;
`
`while in the first power management mode, block
`
`transmission of outgoing application data requests for at least one
`
`application executing in a background of the mobile device and
`
`allow transmission of outgoing application data requests for at
`
`least one application executing in a foreground of the mobile
`
`device;
`
`enter a second power management mode, wherein entry into
`
`the second power management mode is based on a detected
`
`activity status, wherein the detected activity status is based on a
`
`backlight status2 of the mobile device being off;
`
`while in the second power management mode, block
`
`transmission of outgoing application data requests for at least one
`
`application executing in background of the mobile device for a
`
`predetermined period of time.
`
`52. Claim 17 recites a similar device while combining the processor and
`
`memory elements. Ex. 1001 at 40:17-45.
`
`
`2 Counsel instructed me that the claimed “backlight status” should only recite
`“backlight” because the word “status” was removed by Examiner’s Amendment
`and was erroneously printed in the issued patent. Ex. 1002 at 59.
`21
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`53. Claims 2-11, 13, 14, 18-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 depend from
`
`independent claim 1 or 17, and recite additional limitations for the claimed “first”
`
`and “second” power-management modes. Ex. 1001 at 39:26-42:31.
`
`54. A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2013 would have recognized
`
`that claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 of the ’129 patent recite well-
`
`known computer systems and power management techniques implemented with
`
`generic steps and conventional components. The claims do not recite any new or
`
`nonobvious technological features. As addressed in this declaration, all of the
`
`elements of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 are disclosed or would
`
`have been rendered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`’129 patent over Black in view of Nexus One.
`
`IX. Background of the Technology
`In the early 2000s, wireless networks and mobile devices were being
`55.
`
`upgraded from supporting only voice transmissions to also supporting data
`
`transmissions. Ex. 1022 at 1. There was a predicted increase in the number of
`
`packet data transmissions for mobile devices. Ex. 1022 at 1. This increase in
`
`packet data transmissions, however, would require a corresponding increase in the
`
`number and size of radio transmissions by a mobile device, which could lead to
`
`device battery drain. Ex. 1019. There was a recognized need to optimize and
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`conserve the mobile device’s battery power due to the anticipated increase in its
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`data transmissions.
`
`56. At the time, one known way to conserve the device’s battery power
`
`was to manage when the device would transmit data over the wireless network.
`
`Ex. 1019 at 2:23-43. Persons of ordinary skill in the art also knew that packet data
`
`transmissions could be implemented as either “pull” (the mobile device first sends
`
`a packet data request before a remote server provides the requested data) or “push”
`
`(the server sends packet data to the mobile device without first receiving a
`
`request). Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0011]. Wireless networks and mobile devices typically
`
`used well known network communication protocols, including as the Transport
`
`Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP) for both pull and push types of
`
`packet data transmissions.
`
`57. At the time of filing of the ’129 patent known cellular data networks
`
`often supported the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) to transmit and receive
`
`data packets. See Ex. 1023 at 76, Ex. 1019 at 2:3-22, Ex. 1022 at 3, 17-18. GPRS
`
`networks typically support packet data transmissions using standard TCP/IP
`
`protocols. To that end, mobile devices and servers establish a TCP/IP
`
`communication session (an “IP session” or a “TCP/IP session”) to communicate
`
`data packets over the GPRS network. Both the mobile device and server to a
`
`TCP/IP session must tore state information, including (but not limited to) network
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 82
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`addresses, quality of service, maximum packet sizes, and other network
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129
`
`parameters, to communicate over an IP session.
`
`58.
`
`In conventional GPRS networks, the mobile device and server store
`
`their respective state information for an IP session in a Packet Data Protocol (PDP)
`
`context. Ex. 1019 at 2:3-22. Each of the mobile device and server would have a
`
`local copy of the PDP context for storing the state information necessary to send or
`
`receive data pa
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
