IPR2018-01052
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2018-01052
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`——————————
`
`DECLARATION OF JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, PH.D.
`
`(Exhibit 1002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 84
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 2
`II.
`Scope of Opinion ............................................................................................. 3
`III.
`IV. Materials Reviewed and Considered ............................................................... 4
`V.
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 5
`VI. Summary of My Opinions ............................................................................. 11
`VII. Overview of the ’127 patent and Prosecution History .................................. 12
`VIII. State of the Art Prior to the ’127 Patent ........................................................ 21
`IX. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 23
`X.
`Claim Constructions ...................................................................................... 25
`A. Optimize Background Traffic ................................................................ 26
`XI. Overview of Prior Art .................................................................................... 26
`A. Overview of Giaretta ............................................................................. 26
`B. Overview of Backholm .......................................................................... 29
`C. Overview of Lee .................................................................................... 33
`D. Overview of Hackborn ........................................................................... 35
`XII. Ground 1: Claims 33, 38, 41-42, 44, and 48 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Giaretta in View of Lee .......................................................... 36
`A.
`Independent claim 33 ............................................................................. 37
`B.
`Independent claim 42 ............................................................................. 54
`C. Claims 41 and 44 ................................................................................... 54
`D. Claims 38 and 48 ................................................................................... 56
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 84
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`XIII. Ground 2: Giaretta in view of Lee and Hackborn renders obvious
`claims 35 and 45 ............................................................................................ 58
`XIV. Ground 3: Claims 33, 38, 41-42, 44, and 48 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Backholm in view of Giaretta ................................................. 61
`A.
`Independent claim 33 ............................................................................. 62
`B.
`Independent claim 42 ............................................................................. 74
`C. Claims 38 and 48 ................................................................................... 75
`D. Claims 41 and 44 ................................................................................... 76
`XV. Ground 4: Claims 35 and 45 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Backholm in view of Giaretta and Hackborn ................................................ 78
`XVI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 80
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`I, Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D., declare:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1. My name is Justin Douglas Tygar, and I have been retained by
`
`counsel for Google LLC (“Google”) as an expert witness in the above-captioned
`
`proceedings. 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. 9,516,127 (the ’127 patent, Ex. 1001) assigned to Patent
`
`Owner SEVEN Networks LLC (“Patent Owner”). 1
`
`2. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. The
`
`materials that I have 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 4 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`responsive facts or opinions, including documents that may not yet have been
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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
`Since 1998, I have been a Full Professor at the University of
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`9.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science from Harvard University in
`
`1986.
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further set forth in detail in my curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003),
`
`which I hereby incorporate by reference into this section of my declaration.
`
`III. Scope of Opinion
`12. Counsel for Google asked me to provide my opinions and any
`
`relevant facts relating to the validity of claims 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45 and 48 of
`
`the ’127 patent in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,264,868 (“Giaretta”), U.S. Patent
`
`Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0272230 (“Lee”), U.S. Patent 8,280,456 (“Hackborn”) and
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0023190 (“Backholm”). Counsel for Google told
`
`me to assume that Giaretta, Lando, Sengottaiyan, Lin, and Black are prior art to the
`
`’127 patent.
`
`13. This declaration, including the exhibits I cite, sets forth my opinions
`
`requested from counsel.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`IV. Materials Reviewed and Considered
`In connection with my work on this matter, I have reviewed and
`14.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`considered the following documents:
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127 to Nirantar et al. (“the ’127 patent”)
`
`Ex-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,264,868 to Giaretta et al. (“Giaretta”)
`
`Ex-1009
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0272230 to Lee (“Lee”)
`
`Ex-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,280,456 to Hackborn et al. (“Hackborn”)
`
`Ex-1011
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0023190 to Backholm et al.
`(“Backholm”)
`
`Ex-1017
`
`Ex-1018
`
`Ex-1019
`
`Ex-1020
`
`Robin Kravets & P. Krishnan, Application-Driven Power
`Management for Mobile Communication, 6 Wireless Networks,
`263 (2000) (“Kravets”)
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0264396 to Ginzburg et al.
`(“Ginzburg”)
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2007/0238437 to Jaakkola
`(“Jaakkola”)
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0068303 to Hildebrand et al.
`(“Hildebrand”)
`
`Ex-1023
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127 (“File History”)
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0077035 to Li et al. (“Li”)
`
`Ex-1033
`
`15.
`
`I also have relied on my academic and professional experience in
`
`reaching the opinions expressed in this declaration.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`V. Legal Principles
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether the cited prior
`16.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`art teaches or renders obvious the limitations of claims 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45,
`
`and 48 of the ’127 patent from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of March 25, 2013, as I describe in more detail below.
`
`17.
`
`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 ’127 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.
`
`18. 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
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. Counsel informed me that for an invention
`
`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.
`
`19. Counsel for Petitioner has informed me that the information that is
`
`used to evaluate whether an invention was new and not obvious when made is
`
`generally referred to as “prior art.” I Counsel for Petitioner has informed me that
`
`under the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA), for any patent application
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`filed on or after March 16, 2013, which includes the ’127 patent, the definition of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`prior art is based on a “first-inventor-to-file” system. Counsel for Petitioner has
`
`informed me that the prior art includes patents and printed publications that existed
`
`before the earliest filing date of the patent (which I also have been informed is
`
`called the “effective filing date”). Counsel for Petitioner has informed me that a
`
`patent or published patent application is prior art if it was effectively 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.
`
`20. 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.
`
`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.
`
`21. Counsel informed me that in this inter partes review proceeding, the
`
`information that may be evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications.
`
`My analysis, which is set out in detail below, compares the claims to printed
`
`publications that I was told to assume are prior art to the claims.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`22. 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.
`
`23. 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.
`
`24. 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
`
`scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the
`
`patent claim, and any objective “secondary considerations.”
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`25. Counsel informed me that in determining the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, a reference is considered relevant prior art to the ’127 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. Counsel for the Petitioner has informed me Ex-1011
`
`(Backholm) and the ’127 patent share a common inventor. Counsel for the
`
`Petitioner has informed me that under the AIA, an inventor’s own work may
`
`qualify as prior art when the work has been publicly disclosed more than one year
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Counsel for the Petitioner
`
`has informed me that an inventor’s own prior-art work may be used in an
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`26. 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
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`substitution of a known element for another to obtain predictable results, a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`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
`
`solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Counsel informed me that an
`
`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.
`
`27. 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.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`28. 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
`
`ordinary skill in the art can fit the teachings of multiple patents together in an
`
`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.
`
`29. 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
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`may show that it was obvious and therefore unpatentable. Counsel informed me
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`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.
`
`30. 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. I have not seen
`
`any evidence of secondary considerations that would support a determination of
`
`non-obviousness of the claimed subject matter in the ’127 patent.
`
`31.
`
`I have analyzed the prior art and state of the art, and rendered my
`
`opinions relating to obviousness of the claims of the ’127 patent, from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of March 25, 2013.
`
`VI. Summary of My Opinions
`32. As set forth more fully herein, it is my opinion that the prior art
`
`discloses or suggests all of the elements of claims 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45, and 48
`
`of the ’127 patent to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of March 25, 2013,
`
`which I have been informed by counsel is the earliest effective filing date of the
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`’127 patent. In my opinion, the following grounds demonstrate the obviousness of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`the claims of the ’127 patent:
`
`Grounds for Challenged Claims 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45, and 48
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims 33, 38, 41-42, 44, and 48 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Giaretta in view of Lee
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 35 and 45 are unpatentable as obvious over Giaretta in
`view of Lee and Hackborn
`
`Ground 3
`
`Claims 33, 38, 41-42, 44, and 48 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Backholm
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claims 35 and 45 are unpatentable as obvious over Backholm in
`view of Hackborn
`
`
`VII. Overview of the ’127 patent and Prosecution History
`33. As part of my analysis, I read and considered the ’127 patent and
`
`related prosecution history before the Patent Office. The following overview is not
`
`meant to describe my full understanding of the ’127 patent and prosecution history,
`
`but rather to highlight the general aspects of the ’127 patent and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`34. The ’127 patent describes systems and methods for “manipulating the
`
`timing of triggers to optimize usage of resources.” Ex. 1001, ’127 patent, at
`
`Abstract. The triggers are used by mobile applications to schedule tasks.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`35. The ’127 patent explains that “in the context of battery conservation,”
`
`the mobile device can alter the timing of triggers (alarms, timers, or other trigger
`
`mechanisms to perform periodic or scheduled tasks) to conserve resources.
`
`Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 7:60-67, 17:3, claim 33.
`
`36. The ’127 patent provides within each mobile device an “intelligent
`
`alarm manipulator” that is “operational when the mobile device is on battery
`
`power.” Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 19:4-8. The intelligent alarm manipulation
`
`includes an “intelligent alarm manager” (highlighted in red in the annotations to
`
`Fig. 1A-1 below). The intelligent alarm manager tracks triggers from multiple
`
`applications. Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 4:22-24; 17:1-3.
`
`37. Fig. 1A-1 is a diagram illustrating adjusting the timing of activities via
`
`the intelligent alarm manipulator and resource tracker. Here is Fig. 1A-1 with
`
`annotations:
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at Fig. 1A-1 (annotation added).
`
`38. As the ’127 patent explains, the alarm manager may adjust (e.g.,
`
`modify, delay, accelerate, etc.) the timing of the alarms or timers to cause the
`
`alarms or timers to execute at the same time. Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 19:29-32;
`
`see also 18:16-19.
`
`39. As shown in Fig. 1A-1 above, the three different alarms (from APP-1,
`
`APP-2, APP-N) with respective times T+5, T+10, or T+15 are set to execute at
`
`T+15. Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at Fig. 1A-1; see also 19:32-37.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`40. As a result of manipulating the timing of triggers, the triggers from an
`
`email application may coincide with triggers from other applications (e.g., weather
`
`app, sports news app), and the amount of data transmitted or received per
`
`connection may be maximized, number of radio activations may be reduced, power
`
`resources may be conserved, and CPU efficiency may also be increased. Ex-1001,
`
`’127 patent, at 15:12-21, 6:13-17.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, the ’127 patent also discloses “a distributed proxy and
`
`cache system” that “enables traffic optimization.” Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 11:53-
`
`57 (emphasis added); see also Fig. 1D.
`
`42. Fig. 1D illustrates “the logical architecture of a distributed proxy and
`
`cache system.” Here is Fig. 1D with annotations:
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at Fig. 1D (annotation added); see also 11:19-26.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`43.
`
` As shown in Fig. 1D above, the client-side proxy 175 is a component
`
`installed in the smartphone mobile device, which provides traffic optimization
`
`(which I have highlighted in yellow). See Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 11:23-26. Non-
`
`optimized application traffic flow” is highlighted in blue in the annotations to Fig.
`
`1D above.
`
`44.
`
`I reproduce Fig. 1I below with annotations. It shows the non-
`
`optimized application traffic flow and optimized application traffic flow in a
`
`mobile device. Non-optimized application traffic flow (see blue highlight below)
`
`“bypass[es] the client side proxy 175 components and proceed directly through the
`
`operating system layer […] and Network Access Layer to the wireless network.”
`
`Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at 16:4-8, 10-13. Optimized traffic, such as traffic from
`
`App2 (see yellow highlight below), is “redirected from the application to the client
`
`side proxy 175.”
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, ’127 patent, at Fig. 1I (annotation added).
`
`45. Counsel for Petitioner has informed me that Patent Owner alleges the
`
`’127 patent discloses several ways to adjust background traffic so as to conserve
`
`network or mobile device resources. To that end, I have been informed that Patent
`
`Owner alleges that the system may “serv[e] recurrent request from the local cache
`
`[…] instead of allowing those request [sic] go over the network to the service
`
`provider/application host server”; the system may perform “traffic pipelining” and
`
`“delay transmission of data”; and the system may “accumulate low priority data
`
`and send it in batches.”
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`46. Such changes may reduce a mobile device’s usage of network
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`resources. Ex-1001, ’127 patent, 7:63-64. The ’127 patent explains that batching
`
`“avoid[s] the protocol overhead of sending individual data fragments” (Ex-1001,
`
`’127 patent, 10:59-11:1) and “reduce[s] the number of times and/or amount of time
`
`when the radio is powered up (id., 11:8-18).
`
`47. The file history indicates that the original claims Seven Networks
`
`pursued in the ’127 patent during prosecution were directed to other aspects of
`
`power management. See Ex. 1023, File History, at 560-563 (2014-03-24 Claims);
`
`402-405 (2015-07-16 Amendments to the Claims); 300-303 (2015-11-20
`
`Amendments to the Claims); 275-278 (2015-12-07 Amendments to the Claims);
`
`183-186 (2016-03-08 Amendments to the Claims). Counsel for the Petitioner
`
`informs me that those claims were effectively canceled when Seven Networks
`
`amended the claims to their present form. Ex. 1023, File History, at 155-166
`
`(2016-04-26 Amendments to the Claims). The file history indicates that claims 10-
`
`23 are related to “power management via the application of triggers and
`
`wakelocks” while claims 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45, and 48 are directed to different
`
`subject matter related to “traffic optimization on an application-by-application
`
`basis.” Ex-1023, File History, at 132.
`
`48. After the claim amendments made on April 26, 2016, Seven Networks
`
`initiated an interview with the Patent Office. Ex-1023, File History, at 131-132.
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`The following correspondence from the Patent Office was a notice of allowance
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`issued on August 15, 2016. Ex-1023, File History, at 43-56. Claims 33, 35, 38, 41-
`
`42, 44-45, and 48 issued without any substantive rejections. Ex-1023, File History,
`
`at 43-56.
`
`49. Claims 33 and 42 of the ’127 patent are independent. Here is the
`
`language of both claims with differences in italics:
`
`Claims 33 and 42 of the ’127 patent
`[33a] A mobile device, comprising: a
`[42a] A non-transitory computer-
`memory; a processor in communication
`readable
`storage medium
`storing
`with the memory and configured to
`instructions that when executed by a
`processor causes the processor to:
`execute
`instructions stored
`in
`the
`memory to:
`
`[33b] receive a selection from a user
`whether to optimize traffic of a first
`application executing in a background
`of the mobile device;
`
`[42b] receive a selection from a user
`whether to optimize traffic of a first
`application executing in a background
`of the mobile device;
`
`[33c] optimize background traffic of the
`first application;
`
`[42c] optimize background traffic of the
`first application;
`
`[33d] receive a selection from a user
`whether to enter a power save mode,
`where the power save mode is based on
`a battery level of the mobile device;
`
`[42d] receive a selection from a user
`whether to enter a power save mode,
`where the power save mode is based on
`a battery level of the mobile device;
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`[33e] upon selection to enter the power
`save mode, adjust a timing of activities
`of a second application executing in the
`background of the mobile device to
`reduce usage of at least one resource of
`the mobile device;
`
`[42e] upon selection to enter the power
`save mode, adjust a timing of activities
`of a second application executing in the
`background of the mobile device to
`reduce usage of at least one resource of
`the mobile device;
`
`[33f] exit the power save mode, wherein
`the power save mode is exited based on
`a battery level or in response to the user
`directing the mobile device to exit the
`power save mode.
`
`[42f] exit the power save mode, wherein
`the power save mode is exited based on
`a battery level or in response to the user
`directing the mobile device to exit the
`power save mode.
`
`
`
`50. Claim 42 is a “computer-readable medium” claim. Claims 33 and 42
`
`have identical limitations, other than the difference in elements [33a] and [42a].
`
`51. Dependent claims 35, 38, 41, 44-45, and 48 depend from one of
`
`claims 33 and 42. These claims recite common and well-known features in the art.
`
`I summarize them below:
`
`Dependent Claims 35, 38, 41, 44-45, and 48
`
`“wherein the processor is configured to
`execute instructions stored in the
`memory to display an indication of
`battery consumption associated with
`the first application.”
`
`Claims 35 and 45, which respectively
`depend from independent claims 33
`and 42.
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`“wherein to optimize background
`traffic and adjust the timing of
`activities also optimizes the use of
`battery, CPU and memory resources.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`Claims 38 and 48, which respectively
`depend from independent claims 33
`and 42.
`
`“the user selection for optimization of
`the first application occurs via a user
`interface on the mobile device.”
`
`Claims 41 and 44, which respectively
`depend from independent claims 33
`and 42.
`
`
`
`52. A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2013 would have recognized
`
`that claims 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45, and 48 of the ’127 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 33, 35, 38, 41-42, 44-45, and 48 are disclosed or suggested in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`VIII. State of the Art Prior to the ’127 Patent
`53. At the start of the computing era, mainframe computing systems
`
`primarily operated in two possible states (on or off). When the systems were on,
`
`they operated in full-power mode.
`
`54. With the constant source of power, there was little need for power
`
`management at that time. But with the advent of concerns about energy
`
`conservation, and particularly the advent of battery powered devices, power then
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar
`
`
`became more important in designing computer systems. A battery-powered device
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`
`can operat