DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,995,102 AND 6,118,449 IN VIEW OF
`MALAMUD, ANTHIAS, NIELSEN, AND BAKER REFERENCES
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY ............................1
`A.
`Qualifications .......................................................................................2
`B.
`Other Matters........................................................................................9
`C.
`Compensation.....................................................................................10
`D. Materials Reviewed............................................................................10
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art......................................................12
`BACKGROUND OF THE ART ..................................................................12
`A.
`Priority Date .......................................................................................12
`B.
`User Interfaces....................................................................................13
`C.
`Operating Systems and Drivers..........................................................14
`D.
`Cursors and Custom Cursors..............................................................16
`E.
`Annotating Interfaces with “Tooltips”...............................................18
`F.
`Downloading Content from Servers...................................................19
`G. Web Pages, Cursors, and Embedded Objects ....................................24
`THE CHALLENGED LEXOS PATENTS..................................................26
`A.
`Background and General Description of the Lexos Patents ..............26
`B.
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................31
`C.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................31
`1.
`“cursor image” / “initial cursor image” ...................................35
`2.
`“specific image” / “specific cursor image”..............................38
`3.
`“modifying a cursor image” / “modified cursor image”..........40
`4.
`“cursor image data”..................................................................42
`-i-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`“cursor display code”...............................................................43
`5.
`“cursor display instruction” .....................................................44
`6.
`THE MALAMUD, ANTHIAS, NIELSEN, AND BAKER PRIOR
`ART REFERENCES ....................................................................................46
`A.
`Invalidity Standard .............................................................................46
`B.
`Summary of Opinion..........................................................................48
`C.
`Overview of Malamud, Anthias, Nielsen, and Baker ........................50
`1.
`Malamud (Ex.1004) .................................................................51
`2.
`Anthias (Ex.1005)....................................................................55
`3.
`Nielsen (Ex.1006) ....................................................................58
`4.
`Baker (Ex.1007).......................................................................59
`D. Motivation to Combine Malamud, Anthias, Nielsen, and Baker.......63
`GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY OF THE ’449 PATENT..........................66
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, 15, 27, 33, 41, 53, 54, 63, 72, 73, and 82
`Are Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias .............................66
`1.
`Claim 1 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ........66
`2.
`Claim 7 is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ........83
`3.
`Claim 15 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ......84
`4.
`Claim 27 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ......85
`5.
`Claim 33 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ......89
`6.
`Claim 41 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ......89
`7.
`Claim 53 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ......90
`
`-ii-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 54 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....101
`8.
`Claim 63 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....103
`9.
`10. Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....103
`11. Claim 73 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....106
`12. Claim 82 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....107
`Ground 2: Claims 12, 14, 38, 40, 60, 62, 79, and 81 Are
`Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias, and Nielsen...................108
`1.
`Claim 12 is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................108
`Claim 14 is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................109
`Claim 38 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................111
`Claim 40 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................111
`Claim 60 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................112
`Claim 62 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................112
`Claim 79 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................113
`Claim 81 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Nielsen.............................................................................113
`Ground 3: Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 28, 29, 31, 32, 55, 56, 58, 59, 74,
`75, 77, and 78 Are Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker..........................................................................................114
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`-iii-
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias, and
`Baker ......................................................................................114
`Claim 3 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias, and
`Baker ......................................................................................116
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias, and
`Baker ......................................................................................117
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias, and
`Baker ......................................................................................119
`Claim 28 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................120
`Claim 29 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................120
`Claim 31 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................121
`Claim 32 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................121
`Claim 55 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................121
`10. Claim 56 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................122
`11. Claim 58 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................122
`12. Claim 59 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................123
`13. Claim 74 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................123
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`-iv-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`D.
`
`E.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`14. Claim 75 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................124
`15. Claim 77 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................124
`16. Claim 78 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`and Baker ...............................................................................124
`Ground 4: Claims 13, 39, 61, and 80 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Malamud, Anthias, Nielsen, and Baker ...........................................125
`1.
`Claim 13 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Anthias,
`Nielsen, and Baker.................................................................125
`Claim 39 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Baker,
`Anthias, and Nielsen ..............................................................127
`Claim 61 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Baker,
`Anthias, and Nielsen ..............................................................128
`Claim 80 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud, Baker,
`Anthias, and Nielsen ..............................................................128
`Ground 5: Claims 1, 7, 15, 27, 33, 41, 53, 54, 63, 72, 73, and 82
`Are Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and Nielsen..................128
`1.
`Claim 1 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias............129
`2.
`Claim 7 is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias ............147
`3.
`Claim 15 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........148
`4.
`Claim 27 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........149
`5.
`Claim 33 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........152
`6.
`Claim 41 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........153
`7.
`Claim 53 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........153
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`-v-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`F.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 54 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........168
`8.
`Claim 63 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........169
`9.
`10. Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........169
`11. Claim 73 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........172
`12. Claim 82 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........173
`Ground 6: Claims 12, 14, 38, 40, 60, 62, 79, and 81 Are
`Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and Nielsen.........................173
`1.
`Claim 12 is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................174
`Claim 14 is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................175
`Claim 38 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................176
`Claim 40 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................177
`Claim 60 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................177
`Claim 62 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................178
`Claim 79 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................178
`Claim 81 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker, Anthias, and
`Nielsen....................................................................................179
`VI. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY OF THE ’102 PATENT........................179
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`-vi-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 70-73 Are Rendered Obvious by Malamud
`and Anthias.......................................................................................179
`1.
`Claim 70 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....179
`2.
`Claim 71 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....183
`3.
`Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....186
`4.
`Claim 73 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and Anthias ....188
`Ground 2: Claims 70-73 Are Rendered Obvious by Baker and
`Anthias..............................................................................................191
`1.
`Claim 70 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........191
`2.
`Claim 71 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........191
`3.
`Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........192
`4.
`Claim 73 Is Rendered Obvious by Baker and Anthias..........192
`
`-vii-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
`
`1.
`
`My name is Benjamin B. Bederson. I have been retained in the
`
`above-referenced inter partes review proceeding by Ralph Lauren Corporation to
`
`evaluate United States Patent Nos. 5,995,102 (“the ’102 Patent”) and 6,118,449
`
`(“the ’449 Patent”) (collectively, “the Lexos Patents”) against certain prior art
`
`references that predate the earliest possible priority date of June 25, 1997 for the
`
`Lexos Patents. The ’102 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1001 to the Petitioner’s
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the Lexos Patents, and the ’449 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 1002.1 The Petitions are based on the Malamud (Ex.1004),
`
`Anthias (Ex.1005), Nielsen (Ex.1006), and Baker (Ex.1007) references, all of
`
`which are issued patents. I am informed that the Petitioner seeks review of claims
`
`70-73 of the ’102 Patent and claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 27-29, 31-33, 38-41, 53-56,
`
`58-63, 72-75, and 77-82 of the ’449 Patent (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`As detailed in this declaration, it is my opinion that each of the Challenged Claims
`
`is rendered obvious by prior art references that predate the earliest possible priority
`
`
`1 The Lexos Patents share a common specification. For consistency and ease
`
`of reference for the Board across both related IPR Petitions, all citations to the
`
`specification herein will be made to the column and line numbers of the ’102
`
`Patent (Ex.1001).
`
`-1-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`date of the Lexos Patents. If requested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB” or “Board”), I am prepared to testify about my opinions expressed
`
`herein.
`
`A.
`2.
`
`Qualifications
`I hold an M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science from New York
`
`University and an B.S. in Computer Science with a minor in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. As a doctoral student, I received the Janet
`
`Fabri Memorial Award for Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation for my work in
`
`robotics and computer vision. Much of my work during my Ph.D. (building a
`
`portable electronic computer vision system) and afterwards focused on portable
`
`electronic devices and data organization. This includes over a decade of work
`
`building visual user interfaces for mobile devices and starting a company (Zumobi,
`
`Inc.) based on them. I have combined my hardware and software skills throughout
`
`my career in Human-Computer Interaction (“HCI”) research, building various
`
`interactive electrical and mechanical systems that couple with software to provide
`
`an innovative user experience.
`
`3.
`
`Since 1998, I have been a Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Maryland (“UMD”), where I have joint appointments at the Institute
`
`for Advanced Computer Studies and the College of Information Studies (UMD’s
`
`“iSchool”). I was also Associate Provost of Learning Initiatives and Executive
`
`-2-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Director of the Teaching and Learning Transformation Center from 2014 to 2018.
`
`I am a member and previous director of the Human-Computer Interaction Lab
`
`(“HCIL”), the oldest and one of the best-known HCI research groups in the
`
`country.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to becoming a Professor at UMD, from 1995 to 1997, I was an
`
`Assistant Professor in the Computer Science Department at University of New
`
`Mexico. From 1992 to 1994, I was a Research Scientist at Bell Communication
`
`Research. From 1993 to 1994, I was also a Visiting Research Scientist at New
`
`York University. From 1990 to 1992, I was a Research Scientist at Vision
`
`Applications, Inc. From 1988 to 1990, I was a Teaching Assistant at NYU.
`
`5.
`
`I am a co-founder of Zumobi, Inc., a Seattle-based startup that is a
`
`publisher of content applications and advertising platforms for smartphones. I
`
`served as Zumobi’s Chief Scientist from 2006 to 2014. I am also co-founder and
`
`co-director of the International Children’s Digital Library (“ICDL”), a web site
`
`providing the world’s largest collection of freely available online children’s books
`
`from around the world with a user interface aimed to make it easy for children and
`
`adults to search and read children’s books online. I am also co-founder and Chief
`
`Technology Officer of Hazel Analytics, a data analytics company. In addition, I
`
`have since 1993 consulted for numerous companies in the area of user interfaces,
`
`-3-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`including Microsoft, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Sony, Lockheed Martin,
`
`and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
`
`6.
`
`At Zumobi, I was responsible for investigating new software
`
`platforms and developing new user interface designs that provide efficient and
`
`engaging interfaces for mobile platforms including the iPhone and Android-based
`
`devices. For example, I designed and implemented software called “Ziibii,” a
`
`“river” of news for iPhone, software called “ZoomCanvas,” a zoomable user
`
`interface for several iPhone apps, including “Inside Xbox” for Microsoft and Snow
`
`Report for REI.
`
`7.
`
`At the International Children’s Digital Library (ICDL), I have since
`
`2002 been the technical director responsible for the design and implementation of
`
`the web site, www.childrenslibrary.org (originally at www.icdlbooks.org). In
`
`particular, I have been closely involved in designing the user interface as well as
`
`the software architecture for the web site since its inception in 2002.
`
`8.
`
`For more than 25 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`field of Computer Science and HCI, which relates to the design and use of
`
`computer technology with a particular focus on the interfaces between human users
`
`and computers (e.g., user interfaces). At UMD, my research in the area of HCI
`
`relates to the development and understanding of computing systems that are
`
`universally usable, useful, efficient, and appealing, in order to serve users’ needs.
`
`-4-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Following this approach, I have built systems including KidPad (software for
`
`children to collaboratively create stories), Pad++ (software platform to support the
`
`development of structured graphics applications), PhotoMesa (software for end
`
`users to browse personal photos), DateLens (software for end users to use their
`
`mobile devices to efficiently access their calendar information), ICDL (as
`
`described above), and StoryKit (an iPhone app for children to create stories). I
`
`have also studied the use of mobile touch screen devices and design aspects of user
`
`interfaces for touch screen use. KidPad (published in 1997)2 included local tools
`
`that behaved like custom cursors that were loaded from arbitrary “gif” image files.
`
`KidPad was built on top of my Pad++ graphics platform3 which itself included the
`
`ability to download HTML pages and images from web servers. All features of
`
`
`2 Allison Druin, Benjamin Bederson, et al., KidPad: a Design Collaboration
`
`Between Children, Technologists, and Educators, Proceedings of the ACM
`
`SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1997), New
`
`York, NY, USA, 463-470, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/258549.258866
`
`(Appx. G).
`
`3 Benjamin Bederson et al., Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical Sketchpad for
`
`Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, Journal of Visual Languages & Computing
`
`3–32 (March 1996), available at https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.1996.0002 (Appx. H).
`
`-5-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Pad++ were available to any application built using its Application Programming
`
`Interface (API). Since KidPad was built using Pad++, KidPad also had direct
`
`access to the Pad++ API to download HTML pages.
`
`9.
`
`My work has been published extensively in more than 160 technical
`
`publications, and I have given over 100 invited talks, as well as 9 keynote lectures.
`
`I have won a number of awards, including the Brian Shackel Award for
`
`“outstanding contribution with international impact in the field of HCI” in 2007,
`
`and the Social Impact Award in 2010 from Association for Computing
`
`Machinery’s (“ACM”) Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction
`
`(“SIGCHI”). ACM is the primary international professional community of
`
`computer scientists, and SIGCHI is the primary international professional HCI
`
`community. I have been honored by both professional organizations. I am an
`
`“ACM Distinguished Scientist,” which “recognizes those ACM members with at
`
`least 15 years of professional experience and 5 years of continuous Professional
`
`Membership who have achieved significant accomplishments or have made a
`
`significant impact on the computing field.” I am a member of the “CHI
`
`Academy,” which is a collective of individuals who have made substantial
`
`contributions to the field of HCI and are the principal leaders of the field, whose
`
`efforts have shaped the discipline and/or industry, and who have led the research
`
`and/or innovation in HCI. The criteria for election to the CHI Academy include:
`
`-6-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`“(1) cumulative contributions to the field; (2) impact on the field through
`
`development of new research directions and/or innovations; and (3) influence on
`
`the work of others.”4
`
`10.
`
`I have designed, programmed and publicly deployed dozens of user-
`
`facing software products that have cumulatively been used by millions of
`
`consumers. My work is cited in significant patents that are central to several major
`
`companies’ user interfaces, including Sony and Apple. Additionally, I am the co-
`
`inventor of twelve U.S. patents that are generally directed to user
`
`interfaces/experience, with two describing a portable electronic device. These
`
`patents are:
`
`i.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,175,617 entitled “Telephone Line Picture
`
`Transmission”
`
`ii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,204,573 entitled “Two-Dimensional Pointing
`
`Motor”
`
`iii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,642,167 entitled “TV Picture Compression
`
`and Expansion”
`
`
`4 SIGCHI Awards - Election to the CHI Academy,
`
`https://sigchi.org/awards/sigchi-award-recipients/.
`
`-7-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`iv.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,549,114 entitled “Methods and Systems for
`
`Incrementally Changing Text Representation”
`
`v.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,562 entitled “Methods and Systems for
`
`Incrementally Changing Text Representation”
`
`vi.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,707,503 entitled “Methods and Systems for
`
`Supporting Presentation Tools using Zoomable User Interface”
`
`vii. U.S. Patent No. 8,261,211 entitled “Monitoring Pointer
`
`Trajectory and Modifying Display Interface”
`
`viii. U.S. Patent No. 8,819,570 entitled “Systems, Methods, and
`
`Computer Program Products Displaying Interactive Elements
`
`on a Canvas”
`
`ix.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,361,130 entitled “Systems, Methods, and
`
`Computer Program Products Providing an Integrated User
`
`Interface for Reading Content”
`
`x.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,778,810 entitled “Techniques to Modify
`
`Content and View Content on Mobile Devices”
`
`xi.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,020 entitled “Systems, Methods, and
`
`Computer Program Products Displaying Interactive Elements
`
`on a Canvas”
`
`-8-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`xii. U.S. Patent No. 10,019,963 entitled “Systems and Methods for
`
`Adaptive Third Party Content”
`
`11. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appx. A.
`
`Other Matters
`B.
`12. Below are the other legal matters in which I have testified as an expert
`
`at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2017: Expert witness (reports, deposition) for Unified Patents in
`
`MyMail v. Unified Patents in USPTO IPR reexam of US Patent
`
`#8,275,863. [Unified Patents]
`
`2017: Expert witness (report, deposition) for SharkNinja in
`
`Dyson v. SharkNinja. Case #14-cv-00779. (N.D. Illinois).
`
`[Jones Day]
`
`2016: Expert witness (reports, deposition) for Sony in Creative
`
`v. Sony in USPTO IPR reexam of US Patent #6,928,433. [Wolf
`
`Greenfield]
`
`2016: Expert witness (reports, deposition, testimony) for
`
`Comcast in Rovi v. Comcast (ITC 337-TA-1001). [Winston
`
`Strawn]
`
`-9-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2016: Expert witness (report, deposition) for Corel in Corel v.
`
`Microsoft Case #2:15-cv-00528-JNP. (District of Utah).
`
`[Robins Kaplan]
`
`2015: Expert witness (reports, deposition) for BMC in BMC
`
`Software, Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc. Case #2:14-CV-903-JRG
`
`(E.D. of Texas) and USPTO IPR rexamination of US Patent
`
`#5,978,594. [McKool Smith]
`
`C.
`13.
`
`Compensation
`In connection with my work as an expert, I am being compensated at a
`
`rate of $600 per hour for consulting services including time spent testifying at any
`
`hearing that may be held. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work in this case. I receive no other forms
`
`of compensation related to this case. No portion of my compensation is dependent
`
`or otherwise contingent upon the results of this proceeding or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`D. Materials Reviewed
`14.
`In formulating my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the ’102
`
`Patent (Ex.1001), the ’449 Patent (Ex.1002), and their file histories (Exs. 1011 and
`
`1012). In addition to my expertise, I relied on and reviewed the articles and other
`
`materials cited herein and attached as appendices (Ex. 1015):
`
`-10-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Appx. No.
`
`Description
`
`Appx. A
`
`Appx. B
`
`Appx. C
`
`Appx. D
`
`Appx. E
`
`Appx. F
`
`Appx. G
`
`Appx. H
`
`Appx. I
`
`Appx. J
`
`Appx. K
`
`Appx. L
`
`Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson Curriculum Vitae
`
`Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines (1995)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,898,432 (filed Mar. 12, 1997)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,754,176 (filed Oct. 2, 1995)
`
`Volume One: Xlib Programming Manual for Version 11 of the X
`Window System (1992)
`
`CSS2 Specification, W3C Working Draft
`
`Allison Druin, et al., KidPad: A Design Collaboration Between
`Children, Technologies, and Educators, Design Briefings, at
`463-470 (Mar. 22-27, 1997)
`
`Bejamin B. Bederson, et al., Pad ++: A Zoomable Graphical
`Sketchpad for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, Journal of
`Visual Languages and Computing, at 3-31 (1996)
`
`Douglas C. Englebart, et al., A Research Center for Augmenting
`Human Intellect, Fall Joint Comput. Conf., at 395-410 (1968)
`
`Donna L. Hoffman, et al., Internet and Web Use in the U.S.,
`Vol. 39, No. 12, at 36-46 (1996)
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, et al., A Zooming Web Browser
`
`Charlie Kindel, et al., Inserting Objects into HTML, (Mar. 25,
`1996) https://www.w3.org/TR/WD-object-960325.html
`
`-11-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`15.
`
`I am prepared to use any or all of the above-referenced documents,
`
`and supplemental charts, models, and other representations based on those
`
`documents, to support my live testimony in this proceeding regarding my opinions
`
`covering the Lexos Patents. If called upon to do so, I will offer live testimony
`
`regarding the opinions in this declaration.
`
`E.
`16.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am told that the claims of a patent are reviewed from the point of
`
`view of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time
`
`the patent application at issue was first filed. In my opinion, for the purposes of
`
`the Lexos Patents, a POSITA on June 25, 1997 (the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the Lexos Patents), would have held least a master’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field, or hold a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two
`
`years of relevant work experience in the fields of user interface design and
`
`operating systems as they relate to graphical user interfaces.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ART
`
`A.
`17.
`
`Priority Date
`The ’449 Patent issued on September 12, 2000 from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/400,038, filed on September 21, 1999. The ’449 Patent claims
`
`priority to and is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/882,580, which
`
`-12-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`was filed on June 25, 1997 and issued as the ’102 Patent on November 30, 1999.
`
`Additionally, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,111,254 (“’254 Patent”), 6,065,057 (“’057
`
`Patent”), as divisionals, and 7,975,241 (“’241 Patent”), as a continuation, claim
`
`priority to the application leading up to the ’102 Patent. The ’254 Patent issued on
`
`September 19, 2006 and is entitled “System for Replacing a Cursor Image in
`
`Connection with Displaying the Contents of a Web Page.” The ’057 Patent issued
`
`on May 16, 2000 and is entitled “Method for Authenticating Modification of a
`
`Cursor Image.” The ’241 Patent issued on July 5, 2011 and is entitled “System for
`
`Replacing a Cursor Image in Connection with Displaying the Contents of a Web
`
`Page.”
`
`18.
`
`I will use June 25, 1997 as the earliest possible priority date for the
`
`purposes of this declaration and for the overview of the related technology below.
`
`User Interfaces
`B.
`19. A graphical user interface (“GUI”), first demonstrated by Dougless
`
`Engelbart in 1968, is where interactions between humans and computers occur. In
`
`1968, the first large public demonstration of what came to be known as Graphical
`
`User Interface (“GUI”) was made by Dougless Engelbart.5 GUIs offer visual
`
`
`5 Douglas C. Engelbart and William K. English, A Research Center for
`
`Augmenting Human Intellect, Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968 Fall Joint
`
`-13-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`interfaces on display screens that are designed for simplicity and ease of learning.
`
`A common and well-known example of a GUI uses the “desktop metaphor,” where
`
`graphical icons represent computer files and applications on a virtual desktop and
`
`where the user interacts with those icons using a pointing device (e.g., mouse,
`
`touchpad, stylus pen). That 1968 demonstration included what is often considered
`
`to be the first computer mouse and cursor as described in the first page of that
`
`paper: “An SRI cursor device called the ‘mouse’ is used for screen pointing and
`
`selection. The ‘mouse’ is a hand-held X-Y transducer usable on any flat surface.”
`
`C.
`20.
`
`Operating Systems and Drivers
`The operating system (“OS”) is system software that manages
`
`computer hardware and software resources, including display devices and the
`
`graphics displayed on them. One way for the OS to control devices was to use a
`
`“driver” program dedicated to control a device attached to the computer. The
`
`driver provides a software interface to hardware devices. A “display driver”
`
`accepts commands from the OS and generates signals to the display device to
`
`render the desired text or image, including GUI elements. As will be discussed
`
`below, display drivers were but one way that OSs controlled displays that were
`
`
`Computer Conference 395-410, AFIPS '68 (Fall, part I), available at
`
`http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1476589.1476645 (Appx. I).
`
`-14-
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp., Exhibit 1003 Page 22
`
`

`

`part of its system. OSs also used internal functions and other applications to
`
`display images on a screen.
`
`21. When a user moves the mouse, an image onscreen called a “cursor”
`
`moves correspondingly. A cursor’s actual image is typically loaded from an image
`
`file and is drawn by the OS’s chosen display function or application to visually
`
`indicate the cursor’s position on the screen. A single pixel in the cursor, called the
`
`“hotspot,” marks the screen location that a mouse click would effect. While
`
`applications other than the OS may affect the appearance of the cursor, all images,
`
`including the cursor, are ultimately render