UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., AND LG ELECTRONICS,
`
`INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01631
`
`PATENT 7,881,902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II (CHUCK EASTTOM)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`

`

`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. IPR2018-424
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,881,902
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II (CHUCK EASTTOM)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................3
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .....................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘902 PATENT .....................................................................................................4
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................................................5
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES ......................................................................................................6
`
`A. Mitchinick ...........................................................................................................6
`
`B. Sheldon ..............................................................................................................8
`
`C. Combining Mitchinick and Sheldon ...................................................................8
`
`D. Combining Tanenhaus with Mitchinick or Sheldon ........................................ 11
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIM ELEMENTS ................................................................................... 13
`
`A. Claim 1 detecting motion by an inertial sensor included in a mobile device . 13
`
`B. Claim 1: determining, by the mobile device, whether the motion has a
`motion signature indicative of a user activity that the mobile device is
`configured to monitor ..................................................................................... 15
`
`C. Claim 5 “using a default step cadence window to identify a time frame within
`which to monitor for a next step; and” .......................................................... 16
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`IX.
`
`APPENDIX A – EASTTOM CV .................................................................................. 18
`
`A. Education ........................................................................................................ 18
`1. University Degrees ........................................................................ 18
`2.
`Industry Certifications ................................................................... 19
`3. Security and Forensics Related Certifications............................... 20
`4. Software Certifications ................................................................. 21
`5. Licenses ......................................................................................... 21
`
`B. Publications ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Books 21
`2. Papers, presentations, & articles. ................................................. 23
`
`C. Patents ............................................................................................................ 25
`
`D. Standards and Certification Creation.............................................................. 26
`
`E. Professional Awards and Memberships ......................................................... 26
`
`F. Speaking Engagements ................................................................................... 27
`
`G. Litigation Support Experience ......................................................................... 30
`1. Testifying Experience .................................................................... 35
`
`H. Professional Experience .................................................................................. 37
`
`I. Continuing Professional Education ................................................................. 40
`
`J. References to my work ................................................................................... 42
`1. Media References ......................................................................... 42
`2. References to publications ........................................................... 42
`3. Universities using my books ......................................................... 48
`
`K. Training ........................................................................................................... 50
`
`L. Technical Skills ................................................................................................ 51
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Uniloc to provide my expert opinions regarding
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,902 (“902 Patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`provide expert opinions regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-18.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`4.
`
`Fort the purposes of an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable meaning.
`
`5.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definitions of dominant axis as “the axis
`
`most influenced by gravity.”
`
`6.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definition of cadence window as “a window
`
`of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step.”
`
`7.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definition of a dominant axis logic to
`
`determine an orientation of a device with respect to gravity, to assign a dominant axis,
`
`and to update the dominant axis when the orientation of the device changes as
`
`“hardware, software, or both to determine an orientation of a device, to assign a
`
`dominant axis, and to update the dominant axis as the orientation of the device changes.”
`
`The petitioner seems to ignore the fact that software, by itself, cannot determine a
`
`dominant axis. Hardware with software/firmware, can.
`
`8.
`
`While the petitioner has made some claims in claim construction that
`
`ignore the actual functionality of the hardware and software involved, for the purposes
`
`of this proceeding I will use the petitioners adopted definitions in performing my analysis
`
`and forming my opinions.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘902 PATENT
`
`9.
`
`The ’902 patent is titled “Human activity monitoring device.” The ʼ902
`
`patent issued February 1, 2011, from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/694,135 filed January
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`26, 2010, and is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/644,455 filed December
`
`22, 2006.
`
`10.
`
`The inventors of the ’902 patent observed that at the time, step counting
`
`devices that utilize an inertial sensor to measure motion to detect steps generally
`
`required the user to first position the device in a limited set of orientations. In some
`
`devices, the required orientations are dictated to the user by the device. In other devices,
`
`the beginning orientation is not critical, so long as this orientation can be maintained.
`
`EX1001, 1:23-30. Further, the inventors observed that devices at the time were often
`
`confused by motion noise experienced by the device throughout a user's daily routine.
`
`The noise would cause false steps to be measured and actual steps to be missed in
`
`conventional step counting devices. Conventional step counting devices also failed to
`
`accurately measure steps for individuals who walk at a slow pace.
`
`11.
`
`According to the invention of the ’902 Patent, a device to monitor human
`
`activity using an inertial sensor assigns a dominant axis after determining the orientation
`
`of an inertial sensor. he orientation of the inertial sensor is continuously determined, and
`
`the dominant axis is updated as the orientation of the inertial sensor changes.
`
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`V.
`
`12.
`
`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 2006 would have been
`
`one with a bachelor’s degree in engineering (specifically computer or systems
`
`engineering), computer science, or related technical area with 2 years of experience
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`related to mobile devices, accelerometers or similar devices. Additional experience can
`
`compensate for a lack of a degree.
`
`13.
`
`I am aware that Dr. Paradiso has a somewhat different view of a POSA.
`
`While I disagree with a few of the nuances of Dr. Paradiso’s definition of a POSA, our
`
`definitions are similar. Even if one adopts his view of a POSA, it would not alter my
`
`opinions.
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES
`
`A.
`
`Mitchinick
`
`14. Mitchinick is well described in its own abstract “This invention provides a
`
`device, and method and system for its use, for monitoring participants in clinical trials so
`
`that participant self-reporting, which is known to be notoriously inaccurate, can be
`
`minimized or eliminated”.
`
`15. Mitchinick is a medical device. Biomedical engineering is an entirely
`
`separate discipline from electrical engineering and computer science. The petitioner’s
`
`expert, Dr. Paradiso, should be well aware of this fact as his alma mater’s Tuft’s
`
`University1 and MIT2 both have biomedical/biological engineering in an entirely different
`
`department. Nothing in the petitioners own description of a POSA makes any mention of
`
`any training or experience in biomedical engineering.
`
`16.
`
`The petitioners description of a POSA states “Bachelor’s degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and/or Computer Science, or equivalent
`
`
`1 http://engineering.tufts.edu/bme/
`2 https://be.mit.edu/
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience working in hardware and/or
`
`software design and development related to MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical) devices
`
`and body motion sensing systems”. Electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`
`computer science, is not biomedical engineering. It is a very different field. There are
`
`many micro-electro-mechanical devices, that are not biological in nature. Furthermore,
`
`body sensing devices can be placed on the body, such as being worn. Nothing in the
`
`petitioners description of a POSA describes a person who would be familiar with medically
`
`implanted devices.
`
`17.
`
`One reason why biomedical/biological engineering is so different from
`
`other engineering disciplines is actually cited by the petitioner in describing Mitchinick
`
`“designed to be affixed to or reside in a cavity of, a participant”. This type of engineering
`
`requires extensive knowledge of biology and medicine, as well as adherence to a wide
`
`range of regulatory requirements. A POSA as defined by the petitioner does not have
`
`these skills and would not be motivated to even read Mitchinick, much less combine
`
`Mitchinick with any other technology.
`
`18.
`
`Furthermore, Mitchinick is not a mobile device. It is a device implanted in
`
`a human being. While the human being may be mobile, the device is not. In fact surgical
`
`procedures would be required to remove the device, making it the antithesis of a mobile
`
`device. This is yet another reason that a POSA as defined by the petitioner would not be
`
`motivated to combine Mitchinick with any mobile device invention.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Sheldon
`
`19.
`
`Sheldon is very well described in its own abstract “method of and
`
`apparatus for pacing a patient’s heart at a pacing rate dependent on patient activity and
`
`posture particularly during stair climbing. A dual chamber, rate responsive pacemaker for
`
`pacing a patient’s heart includes at least one DC accelerometer mounted in the
`
`pacemaker pulse generator for implantation such that the sensitive axis of the DC
`
`accelerometer is sensitive to the effects of gravity during forward lean of the patient
`
`characteristic of stair climbing posture.”
`
`20.
`
`This is also a biomedical device and would be completely outside the
`
`expertise of a POSA as defined by the petitioner. Furthermore, Sheldon is the antithesis
`
`of a mobile device. It is a pacemaker surgically implanted in a human being. Removing it
`
`would require sophisticated surgical techniques. It not only is not mobile, it cannot be
`
`moved.
`
`C.
`
`Combining Mitchinick and Sheldon
`
`21.
`
`The petitioners cited reasons to combine these two patents are inaccurate.
`
`As one example, the petitioner’s first two reasons involve extending battery life:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`This ignores the fact that Mitchinick already has a built in mechanism to
`
`extend battery life:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`23.
`
`The petitioners claim that Sheldon’s sampling would improve Mitchinicks
`
`battery life is peculiar, given that Sheldon samples much more frequently than Mitchinick
`
`and would thus actually diminish Mitchinicks batter life if the two were combined:
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Contrary to the petitioners claim, combining Sheldon with Mitchinick
`
`would actually cause Mitchinick to sample more frequently, draining its battery faster,
`
`and would thus diminish the efficacy of Mitchinick. Not only would a POSA, as defined by
`
`the petitioner have no expertise with either Sheldon or Mitchinick, even an expert in
`
`biomedical devices (which is not the petitioners definition of a POSA) would have been
`
`strongly motivated to avoid combining Mitchinick and Sheldon.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`Combining Tanenhaus with Mitchinick or Sheldon
`
`25.
`
`The petitioner states it would be obvious to combine Tanenhous with
`
`Mitchinick or Sheldon. However, their arguments are predicated on a misunderstanding
`
`of the prior art they cite, and of the ‘902 patent:
`
`
`
`26.
`
`As has already been discussed, Mitchinick and Sheldon are medical
`
`devices. They are in an entirely different field than either Tanenhous or the ‘902 patent.
`
`Biomedical engineering is a separate and distinct field from electrical engineering or
`
`computer engineering. A POSA as defined by the petitioner would have no expertise in
`
`medical devices.
`
`27.
`
`Tanenhouse is in an entirely different field of endeavor, and this is best
`
`expressed in Tenenhous:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The petitioner appears to be opining that all micro-electrical devices are in
`
`the same field, completely ignoring the very different fields involved in the prior art cited.
`
`Not only would a POSA not be motivated to combine Tanenhouse with Mitchinick or
`
`Sheldon, a POSA would not even be familiar with all three given they are in two very
`
`different fields of endeavor.
`
`29.
`
`Furthermore, the specific reasons to combine cited by the petitioner
`
`further ignore the actual nature of the prior art:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Given that Tanenhouse is designed for use in “missiles, missile launchers,
`
`missile support systems” , Sheldon is a pacemaker, and Mitchinick monitors sexual activity
`
`in a human body, it is not even clear that a POSA could combine Tanenhouse with either
`
`Mitchinick or Sheldon without extensive re-engineering. The needs for missile design and
`
`internal biomedical devices are extremely divergent. Whether it is even possible to make
`
`such combinations, it is clear that a POSA as defined by the petitioner would not have
`
`expertise in both missile system electronics, and biomedical devices.
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIM ELEMENTS
`
`31.
`
`Several claims discussed in the petitioner’s brief and Dr. Paradiso’s
`
`declaration stand out as requiring specific commentary. Those claims are discussed in this
`
`section
`
`A.
`device
`
`Claim 1 detecting motion by an inertial sensor included in a mobile
`
`32.
`
`The petitioner claims that Mitchinick teaches this element:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`33. While Mitchinick does have an accelerometer, it is not used to detect
`
`motion. In fact, Mitchinick actually teaches away from motion detection by the
`
`accelerometer, and instead teaches periodic sampling:
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The person who has Mitchinick installed in their body may be in motion,
`
`but that motion will only known if it happens to occur during the periodic sampling. The
`
`movement of the accelerator itself will not trigger Mitchinick to detect motion. In fact,
`
`the person could be in vigorous motion for as long as 20 minutes without Mitchinick
`
`detecting it. This is a completely different approach than the ‘902 patent. It is not
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`surprising that Mitchinick uses a radically different approach than the ‘902 patent, given
`
`that Mitchinick is in a completely different and unrelated field.
`
`Claim 1: determining, by the mobile device, whether the motion has a
`B.
`motion signature indicative of a user activity that the mobile device is
`configured to monitor
`
`35.
`
`The petitioner claims that Mitchinick teaches this element and cites the
`
`following:
`
`36.
`
`The petitioner has pieced together portions of Mitchinick and mis-
`
`represented what Mitchinick actually teaches:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`37.
`
`This excerpt is one example of why Mitchinick is not a mobile device.
`
`Instead it is an implanted medical device. Furthermore, the motion in and of itself does
`
`not determine user activity. That is part of a template that includes other bodily
`
`measurements, not related to motion.
`
`Claim 5 “using a default step cadence window to identify a time frame
`C.
`within which to monitor for a next step; and”
`
`38.
`
`The petitioner states “The combination of Fabio and Pasolini renders this
`
`limitation obvious” claiming:
`
`39.
`
`However, what Fabio actually states is shown here (note that portion
`
`
`
`underlined in red is the portion the petitioner cited):
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`40. What is being describes is a test of the regularity of the individual step.
`
`This is the first validation test. Even if one supposes that “regularity of the individual step”
`
`to be synonymous with “cadence”, this excerpt is not describing updating the “regularity
`
`of the individual step”. This in no way describes updating anything even analogous to the
`
`cadence window. It must also be noted that Fabio only discusses updating with respect
`
`to updating the number of steps, not anything even analogous to the cadence window
`
`
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`41.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that there are
`
`Mitchinick neither renders obvious, nor anticipates the ‘902 patent.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`42.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that there are
`
`Sheldon neither renders obvious, nor anticipates the ‘902 patent.
`
`43.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that a POSA
`
`as defined by the petitioner would not have been familiar with either Mitchinick or
`
`Sheldon.
`
`44.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that even an
`
`expert in biomedical devices (which is not the petitioners definition of a POSA) would not
`
`have been motivated to combine Sheldon and Mitchinick and in fact would have been
`
`strongly motivated not to combine them.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) 25 April 2018
`
`
`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
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`• Master of Science (In progress) University of Texas at El Paso. Majoring in
`systems engineering.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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..
`
`26. Easttom, C. (2018). Network Defense and Countermeasures, 3rd Edition.
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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.
`Int