`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`CANON U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Inter Partes Review No. 2019-00127
`___________________
`
`
` REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`PAIRED WIRELESS CONNECTION ........................................................... 5
`
`IV. CRYPTOGRAPHIC AUTHENTICATION ................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`TAKAHASHI ................................................................................................11
`
`VI. HIROISHI AND ANDO TEACH A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE ...12
`
`VII. THE COMBINATION OF HIROISHI WITH ANDO OR NOZAKI ..........12
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`No.
`
`Short Name
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`’698 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698 to Singh et al.
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`’698
`Prosecution
`History
`
`Madisetti
`Declaration
`
`1004
`
`Hiroishi JP
`
`1005
`
`Hiroishi
`
`1006
`
`Hiroishi
`Translation
`Affidavit
`
`Prosecution history for U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`Declaration of Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. 2003-60953
`to Hiroishi
`
`Certified Translation of JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2003-60953 to Hiroishi
`
`Affidavit of Translation for JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2003-60953 to Hiroishi
`
`1007
`
`Takahashi JP
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. 2005-303511
`to Takahashi
`
`1008
`
`Takahashi
`
`1009
`
`Takahashi
`Translation
`Affidavit
`
`1010
`
`Nozaki JP
`
`Certified Translation of JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2005-303511 to Takahashi
`
`Affidavit of Translation for JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2005-303511 to Takahashi
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. 2004-96166
`to Nozaki
`
`1011
`
`Nozaki
`
`Certified Translation of JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2004-96166 to Nozaki
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`No.
`
`Short Name
`
`1012
`
`Nozaki
`Translation
`Affidavit
`
`Exhibit
`
`Affidavit of Translation for JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2004-96166 to Nozaki
`
`1013
`
`Hollstrom
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,763,247 to Hollstrom et al.
`
`1014
`
`Ando JP
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. 2003-46841
`to Ando
`
`1015
`
`Ando
`
`1016
`
`Ando
`Translation
`Affidavit
`
`1017
`
`IEEE 2001
`
`Certified Translation of JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2003-46841 to Ando
`
`Affidavit of Translation for JP Patent Application
`Publication No. 2003-46841 to Ando
`
`Bisdikian, An Overview of the Bluetooth Wireless
`Technology, IEEE Communications Magazine
`(Dec. 2001)
`
`1018 Bluetooth v1.1
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System,
`Version 1.1 (Feb. 2001)
`
`1019
`
`Margalit
`
`1020
`
`Montulli
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0141586
`to Margalit et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0189349
`to Montulli et al.
`
`1021
`
`District Court
`Order
`
`Order Granting Canon’s Motion to Dismiss in
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Canon USA, Inc.,
`No. 4:17-cv-05938 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
`
`1022 Madisetti CV
`
`Curriculum Vitae for Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`1023
`
`Anderson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,636,259 to Anderson et al.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`No.
`
`Short Name
`
`Exhibit
`
`1024
`
`IEEE 2004
`
`Narayanaswami et al., Expanding the Digital Camera
`Reach, IEEE Computer Magazine (Dec. 2004)
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Hunter
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0005915 to Hunter
`
`Kagle
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,149 to Kagle
`
`1027
`
`Jakobsson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,574,455 to Jakobsson
`
`1028
`
`Kalajan
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,639,943 to Kalajan
`
`1029
`
`HTTP/1.1
`
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1,
`https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html
`(1999)
`
`1030
`
`Method
`Definitions
`
`HTTP/1.1 Method Definitions,
`https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-
`sec9.html (1999)
`
`1031
`
`MobShare
`
`Sarvas et al., MobShare: Controlled and Immediate
`Sharing of Mobile Images (Oct. 2004)
`
`1032
`
`ACM
`
`1033
`
`1107 IPR
`Motion for
`Joinder
`
`1034
`
`N/A
`
`1035
`
`1107 IPR
`Motion for
`Joinder Reply
`
`ACM Multimedia 2004: Final Program,
`http://www.mm2004.org/acm_mm04_FinalProgram.htm
`(October 2004)
`
`IPR2019-01107 Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`
`Board’s Email Authorization for Canon to File a
`SurReply re GoPro/Garmin’s Motion for Joinder in
`IPR2019-01107
`
`GoPro and Garmin’s Reply In Support of Their Motion
`for Joinder in IPR2019-01107
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`No.
`
`Short Name
`
`Exhibit
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`Phonesnews
`Article
`
`Phonesnews.com March 2007 Issue
`
`Vochin
`Bluetooth
`
`Old Bluetooth Is Dead, Long Live Bluetooth 2.1 +
`EDR!, www.softpedia.com, Aug. 2, 2007
`
`Foley
`Bluetooth
`
`Michael Foley, Ultra-low-power Bluetooth: the new
`wireless frontier, www.pcworld.idg.com, Oct. 18, 2007
`
`NIST
`Bluetooth
`
`Scarfone & Padgette, Guide to Bluetooth Security:
`Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards
`and Technology, Sept. 2008
`
`1040
`
`Foley Canon
`Deposition
`
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Foley, Ph.D. in Canon
`U.S.A., Inc. v. Cellspin, Inc., IPR 2019-00127, Oct. 3,
`2019
`
`1041
`
`Foley
`Panasonic
`Deposition
`
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Foley, Ph.D. in
`Panasonic Corporation of North America v. Cellspin,
`Inc., IPR 2019-00131, Sept. 19, 2019
`
`1042
`
`Madisetti
`Deposition
`
`1043
`
`Madisetti
`Reply
`Declaration
`
`1044
`
`Myers
`
`Deposition Transcript of Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D. in
`Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Cellspin, Inc., IPR 2019-00127,
`Oct. 3, 2019
`
`Declaration of Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Myers, A Taxonomy of Window Manager User
`Interfaces, IEEE (1998)
`
`1045
`
`Nyberg
`
`WIPO Publication No. 2010/023506
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Dr. Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“Canon”) in connection
`
`with this proceeding. I previously submitted a declaration in support of Canon’s
`
`Petition challenging the invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698 (the “’698
`
`Patent”), and I previously gave a deposition based on the opinions set forth in that
`
`declaration. I understand that my prior declaration was submitted as Exhibit 1003
`
`and my deposition transcript is being submitted as Exhibit 1042.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide this declaration in support of Canon’s
`
`Reply. In particular, I have been asked to respond to arguments raised in the
`
`Patent Owner Response (“POR”) filed by Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin”) and the
`
`corresponding declaration of Dr. Michael Foley. I am being compensated for the
`
`work that I perform in this matter at my consulting rate of $550 per hour. My
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of the matter.
`
`4.
`
`The information contained in this declaration is true and accurate to
`
`the best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`5.
`
`Paired Wireless Connection. I understand that Cellspin and Dr. Foley
`
`set forth a construction of the term “paired wireless connection” that requires a
`
`“bidirectional communications link between devices which provides encrypted
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`data exchange between the devices, and the communication link can be
`
`disconnected and reconnected without having to repeat pairing or authentication.”
`
`POR at 23. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`agreed that a “paired wireless connection” in the context of the ‘698 Patent must
`
`include the requirements of “encrypted data exchange” and “a communication link
`
`that can be disconnected and reconnected without having to repeat pairing or
`
`authentication.” A POSITA would understand that these are optional rather than
`
`mandatory features of a paired wireless connection, including a paired wireless
`
`connection established using Bluetooth. For example, the Bluetooth standard
`
`describes three encryption modes, one of which does not encrypt data exchanged
`
`between devices. Ex. 1039 at 21 (“Encryption Mode 1—No encryption is
`
`performed on any traffic”). Bluetooth also supports ad hoc or temporary pairing
`
`arrangements where the devices do not need to establish a link that can be
`
`disconnected and reconnected without having to repeat pairing or authentication.
`
`Ex. 1018 at 150 (discussing semi-permanent and temporary link keys).
`
`6.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have understood that
`
`the ‘698 Patent encompasses pairing arrangements using technologies other than
`
`Bluetooth. The specification states, “The method and system disclosed herein is
`
`realized with, but not limited to Bluetooth communication protocol. Wireless
`
`protocols, for example, Zigbee(R) protocol, WibreeTM protocol, Ultra-Wide Band
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`(UWB) protocol, and other wireless protocols for wireless personal area networks
`
`may be employed to accomplish the tasks of the method and system disclosed
`
`herein.” Ex. 1001 at 9:45-51. Claim 19 states, “wherein the short- range paired
`
`wireless connection is one of a Bluetooth paired wireless connection, a Wi-Fi
`
`paired wireless connection, and other personal area wireless networking
`
`technologies that use pairing.” Id. at claim 19. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would read these disclosures and understand that the patent and claims are not
`
`limited to a paired connection using Bluetooth, but instead covers pairing
`
`relationships with a variety of wireless technologies. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that these pairing relationships do not require
`
`“encrypted data exchange” or a permanent link that is “disconnected and
`
`reconnected without having to repeat pairing and authentication” as set forth in
`
`Cellspin’s construction.
`
`7.
`
`Reading the term “paired wireless connection” in the context in the
`
`‘698 Patent, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the term to encompass an association between two devices that allows
`
`for two-way communication over a wireless connection. As noted above, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the ‘698 Patent is not limited
`
`to Bluetooth pairing. Rather, the patent aims to cover all forms of wireless pairing,
`
`including those that use Zigbee, Wibree, UWB, and other wireless protocols. A
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that what all these forms
`
`of pairing have in common is that they establish an association between devices,
`
`which allows for two-way communication over a wireless connection. I explained
`
`this point in my deposition, and it is consistent with how others in the field
`
`describe pairing as a general matter. Ex. 1042 at 18:8-17; Ex. 1045 at 10 (“[T]he
`
`terms ‘association’ and ‘pairing’ are used interchangeably herein and refer to the
`
`establishment of a wireless communications session between two devices.”). From
`
`this starting point, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`pairing can be implemented in numerous ways, using a variety of optional features.
`
`For example, the ‘698 Patent describes a passkey-based mechanism that is optional
`
`in version 2.1 + EDR of the Bluetooth specification. Ex. 1001 at 3:60-4:25; Ex.
`
`1039 at 18. Other forms of pairing use detailed key exchange techniques. Ex.
`
`1045. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Cellspin’s
`
`construction recites two of these optional features—namely, encrypted data
`
`exchange and a permanent link that can be “disconnected and reconnected without
`
`having to repeat pairing and authentication.” But he or she would not consider
`
`these features to be required in all forms of pairing, or otherwise to define the term
`
`pairing as it is used in the Bluetooth specification.
`
`8.
`
`Graphical User Interface. I understand that Cellspin’s construction
`
`for the term “graphical user interface” includes the requirements of “icons, menus
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`and other visual indicator (graphics) representations” that are “manipulated by a
`
`pointing device such as a mouse, trackball, stylus, or finger on a touch screen.”
`
`POR at 23. It is also my understanding that Cellspin has relied on this construction
`
`to argue that two of the prior art references discussed in my opening declaration—
`
`Hiroishi and Ando—do not include GUIs. The basis for this argument seems to be
`
`that Hiroishi and Ando teach input to a graphical field using a keypad or keyboard.
`
`In my opinion, a construction that excludes this type of device from having a GUI
`
`is inconsistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understood the term “graphical user interface.” Devices that
`
`use a keyboard or keypad to manipulate graphical elements—such as inputting data
`
`into a graphical field or selecting drop down list and menu items—were considered
`
`GUIs to those of skill in the art. Ex. 1044 at 17. Similar to Hiroishi and Ando,
`
`there were devices available in December 2007 that used keypads and keyboards to
`
`input text or numerical values into a graphical field, such as Blackberry devices or
`
`laptops running Windows. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that these devices include a GUI.
`
`III. PAIRED WIRELESS CONNECTION
`
`9.
`
`I understand that Cellspin argues Hiroishi and Hollstrom do not
`
`disclose a “paired wireless connection.” POR at 31, 51. I further understand that
`
`this argument is based on Cellspin’s proposed construction for “paired wireless
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`connection,” which requires encrypted data exchange and a permanent connection.
`
`Accordingly, I will respond to Cellspin’s argument in two respects.
`
`10. First, under the plain and ordinary meaning, Hiroishi and Hollstrom
`
`disclosed a paired wireless connection for the reasons set forth in my opening
`
`declaration and deposition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98, 228; Ex. 1042 at 14:5-19:17. As
`
`shown in Figures 1 and 5, Hiroishi discloses an association between a digital
`
`camera and cellular phone that allows for two-way communication over a wireless
`
`connection, using Bluetooth as an example. Ex. 1005 at Figs. 1, 5. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have recognized
`
`this as a “paired wireless connection” as the term is used in the context of the ‘698
`
`Patent. Hollstrom discloses a similar configuration, also using Bluetooth as an
`
`example. Ex. 1003 ¶ 228; Ex. 1013 at 5:58-67, 6:29-39.
`
`11. Second, it is my opinion that even under Cellspin’s construction of the
`
`term “paired wireless connection,” Hiroishi and Hollstrom render the challenged
`
`claims obvious. Hiroishi and Hollstrom both disclose Bluetooth as a mechanism
`
`for establishing a wireless connection between a digital camera and cellular phone.
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0066]; Ex. 1013 at 5:58-67. These teachings would have led a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to use Bluetooth pairing to implement the systems
`
`disclosed in the references, including Bluetooth pairing that used encrypted data
`
`exchange and a permanent connection. It cannot be disputed that Bluetooth pairing
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`was a well-known and highly predictable mechanism for implementing such
`
`systems at the time of the alleged invention. Bluetooth had an installed base of
`
`more than a billion devices at the time, and industry working groups had developed
`
`highly detailed specifications and profiles for establishing paired connections
`
`between Bluetooth-enabled devices. One of these profiles called the Basic
`
`Imaging Profile (“BIP”) published in July 2003, instructs persons of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to use Bluetooth for the same configuration as described in Hiroishi and
`
`Hollstrom, as well as the ‘698 Patent: transferring image data from a digital camera
`
`to a mobile phone, which then transmits the image data to a third-party over a
`
`network.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2023 at 13-14.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`12.
`
`I understand that Cellspin and Dr. Foley rely on the fact that the BIP,
`
`states the use of pairing is “left to the implementer’s discretion” when pushing and
`
`pulling images to and from a Bluetooth device. Ex. 2023 at 16. In my opinion,
`
`this statement confirms that it would have been obvious to use Bluetooth pairing.
`
`The phrase “implementer’s discretion” confirms that pairing was a design choice
`
`when using Bluetooth for image push or image pull, and because pairing was such
`
`a well-known and widely used feature of Bluetooth, there would not have been any
`
`unexpected results arising from a paired connection between a camera and phone.
`
`Furthermore, the BIP specification states “it is highly recommended that pairing be
`
`a prerequisite” when using the automatic archive feature. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have followed this recommendation in order to comply with
`
`the BIP specification and leverage the research that went into creating it. In my
`
`opinion, that is direct motivation to use Bluetooth pairing.
`
`13. A POSITA would also have readily appreciated the benefits of
`
`encrypted data exchange and a permanent connection that can be disconnected and
`
`reconnected without having to repeat pairing or authentication. First, these are
`
`both design choices within the Bluetooth specification, so it would be routine to
`
`use them, without any unpredictable results. Ex. 1039 at 16, 21-22. The Bluetooth
`
`specification provides explicit instructions for how to implement these features, so
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`in incorporating the features into Bluetooth enabled devices like those disclosed in
`
`Hiroishi and Hollstrom. Id. Second, the basic motivation for using encrypted data
`
`exchange would be to add more security to files exchanged between devices. For
`
`example, if the mobile phones and camera disclosed in Hiroishi and Hollstrom are
`
`used to exchange sensitive or confidential files, then encrypted data exchange
`
`would be highly beneficial to protect against attacks. Third, the basic motivation
`
`for using a permanent connection that can be disconnected and reconnected
`
`without having to repeat pairing or authentication would be to improve user
`
`experience. Ex. 1036 at 8-10; Ex. 1018 at 150. Rather than having to reconnect
`
`each time he or she wanted to exchange data, a user of the devices in Hiroishi or
`
`Hollstrom could maintain a permanent connection using this optional feature of
`
`Bluetooth. Id.
`
`IV. CRYPTOGRAPHIC AUTHENTICATION
`
`14.
`
`I understand that Cellspin argues a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have been motivated to use cryptographic authentication between the
`
`digital camera and cellular phone in Hiroishi and Hollstrom. POR at 34, 54. I
`
`disagree for the reasons set forth in my opening declaration and deposition
`
`testimony. I further note that Cellspin’s argument appears to be based on the fact
`
`that cryptographic authentication was an optional feature of Bluetooth 2.1 +EDR.
`
`Ex. 2018 at 1273. This version includes Security Mode 4, which offers three
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`options: an Authenticated Link Key that establishes cryptographic authentication;
`
`an Unauthenticated Link Key that establishes encryption but not authentication;
`
`and No Security. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that the first option is the safest, and therefore would have been
`
`motivated to use it in situations where secure data transfer was important, such as
`
`sending photographs of sensitive content from a digital camera to a cellular phone.
`
`At a minimum, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`these were three design choices that would have been obvious to try depending on
`
`the application for which the Bluetooth connection was used. Because the
`
`mechanism for establishing the security connection was so well-established, there
`
`would not have been any surprising or unexpected results associated with the
`
`options.
`
`15.
`
`I also note that cryptographic authentication was a feature for three of
`
`the four “association models” in Bluetooth version 2.1 +EDR, Security Mode 4.
`
`Ex. 1039 at 18. These association models describe basic ways to connect two
`
`devices. The models known as Numeric Comparison, Passkey Entry, and Out of
`
`Band all provide for authenticated link keys, and therefore cryptographic
`
`authentication. By providing these models, the Bluetooth specification encouraged
`
`implementers to use cryptographic authentication.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`V. TAKAHASHI
`
`16.
`
`I understand that Cellspin has argued the system disclosed in the
`
`Takahashi reference generates a different media file when it adds the user ID to the
`
`filename of an image file. In my opinion, this is not how a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would interpret Takahashi or the basic technology underlying file
`
`creation and renaming. Takahashi discloses adding the user ID the existing
`
`filename without creating a new or different file. Id. (“In the mobile phone 1,
`
`when an image data is transmitted to the image storage server 4, the user on the
`
`image storage server 4 side is specified by including the user ID in the file name of
`
`image data.”). And as a general matter, when a filename is modified, the file itself
`
`does not transform into a different file. For example, a file will have a unique
`
`MD5 hash based on its contents. That MD5 hash will not change simply because
`
`the filename is changed because the filename is not part of the MD5 algorithm.
`
`17. Moreover, even if changing the filename somehow changed the file
`
`itself, the claimed invention would still be obvious. Takahashi discloses that it is
`
`beneficial to include user identifying information along with an image file. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this teaching could
`
`have been implemented in a variety of ways, including by changing the filename or
`
`by incorporating the user identifying information into another file.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`VI. HIROISHI AND ANDO TEACH A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Cellspin argues Hiroishi and Ando do not disclose a
`
`graphical user interface. POR at 43, 48. I disagree. Based on a review of the
`
`figures in these references, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
`
`recognized that they disclose graphical user interfaces:
`
`
`Ex. 1005 (Hiroishi) at Fig. 7
`
`
`Ex. 1015 (Ando) at Fig. 2
`
`
`
`19. As shown, these references use keypads and keyboards to input data
`
`into a graphical field of image. This was a common implementation of a graphical
`
`user interface as was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`VII. THE COMBINATION OF HIROISHI WITH ANDO OR NOZAKI
`
`20.
`
`I understand that Cellspin argues a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have combined Hiroishi with Nozaki or Ando because “in Hiroishi, the
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`photos are deleted from the camera once they are transmitted to the phone.” POR
`
`at 49-50. I disagree with this argument.
`
`21. As set forth in my opening declaration, Hiroishi discloses the desire to
`
`delete images and associated files from the digital camera, while both Nozaki and
`
`Ando disclose mechanisms for fulfilling that purpose. Reading these disclosures, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it a simple substitution to
`
`use Nozaki’s or Ando’s deletion mechanism in place of Hiroishi’s. There would
`
`not have been any unexpected or unpredictable results because Hiroishi would still
`
`work as expected by allowing the image data to be deleted after it is transferred.
`
`22. Moreover, as I explained in my opening declaration, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the deletion mechanisms
`
`disclosed in Nozaki and Ando would have provided increased flexibility in terms
`
`of allowing a user of the mobile phone to select exactly which images and
`
`associated files to delete from the digital camera. This improved flexibility would
`
`have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
`
`Hiroishi with those of Nozaki and Ando.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`23.
`
`I hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Madisetti Reply Declaration
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Date: _____________________ By: ________________________
`Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
