`
`)
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`)
`Issued: September 27, 2016
`)
`Application No.: 12/910,706
`Filing Date: October 22, 2010 )
`
`For: System and Method for Data Management
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF KENDYL A. ROMÁN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 9,454,748
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I, Kendyl A. Román, make this declaration. All statements herein made
`
`of my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 years of age and otherwise competent
`
`to make this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing
`
`this declaration, the opinions herein are my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by counsel for Petitioners as an expert witness in
`
`the above proceedings. I previously submitted a declaration signed January 21, 2019
`
`(Ex. 1005). My original declaration describes my background and qualifications,
`
`my understanding of the legal standards for patentability, my description of the state
`
`of the prior art, my overview of the patent, and my overview of the prior art. I have
`
`been asked to further provide my opinion about certain statements and analyses
`
`provided by the Board in its Institution Decision as well as certain statements and
`
`analyses provided by Dr. Samuel Russ regarding the state of the art of the technology
`
`described in U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“’748 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) and on the
`
`patentability of this patent.
`
`3.
`
`In addition to the documents I considered in forming my opinion in my
`
`original declaration, I have also reviewed and considered the following in
`
`preparation of this declaration, as well as any other cited reference or document in
`
`this declaration: Institution Decision (August 7, 2019); Patent Owner’s Response to
`2
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (October 25, 2019); Declaration of Dr. Samual Russ
`
`(October 25, 2019). I offer the following analysis in response to the foregoing
`
`documents.
`
`II. Claims 1 and 19-22 in view of Barbosa in View of the Knowledge of a
`
`POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`In my original declaration, I expressed my opinion that Barbosa in view
`
`of the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious Claims 1 and 19-22. See Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶¶ 121-168. Below I provide further discussion in support of this opinion.
`
`A. Versions of the Java® Programming Language
`5.
`The Patent Owner’s Response attempts
`to
`
`limit Barbosa
`
`to
`
`implementations using the Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition (J2ME) because wireless
`
`devices at the time were purportedly so limited. (Resp. at 12.)
`
`6.
`
`However, as I stated in my original declaration, Java was merely one
`
`example of an object-oriented programming language available to a POSITA at the
`
`time of Barbosa, as reflected in Barbosa. I did not limit my opinion to solely Java 2
`
`Platform, Micro Edition (J2ME), and in my opinion, a POSITA at the time of
`
`Barbosa would also not have been so limited.
`
`7.
`
`By way of example, I stated in my original declaration as follows:
`
`“Barbosa discloses that ‘[c]omputer program code for carrying out operations of the
`
`present invention can be written in an object-oriented programming language such
`3
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`as Java….’ [Barbosa] at 12:45-51. A questionnaire (e.g., downloaded code modules,
`
`templates, and/or programs) written in an object-oriented programming language
`
`such as Java would have included an index, an instruction, or a command that can
`
`represent something else such as a question, answer, or operation. Therefore,
`
`Barbosa discloses a tokenized questionnaire.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 126 (emphasis added).
`
`8.
`
`I further opined that, “[f]or example, Barbosa discloses that the
`
`‘computer program transmitted from the [server]’ can be ‘in the form of a JAVA
`
`applet.’ Ex. 1002 at 12:14-18.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 131 (emphasis added).
`
`9.
`
`I further opined that a “POSITA would have understood that the Java
`
`programming
`
`language
`
`is a programming
`
`language
`
`that provides device
`
`independency—it runs irrespective of the particular hardware or operating system
`
`of any given device.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 132.
`
`10. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, I opined that “knowledge
`
`on how to program applications for mobile devices using programming languages
`
`such as Java or C++ to provide location-based services, also reflect the appropriate
`
`level of skill at the time of the claimed invention.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 104 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`11. Thus, rather than being limited solely to the disclosures of Java 2
`
`Platform, Micro Edition (J2ME), it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to
`
`a POSITA at the time of Barbosa to apply known techniques used by Java (Version
`4
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`1), Java 2 Standard Edition, and Java 2 Enterprise Edition to wireless devices once
`
`those devices’ then-limited computing power improved.
`
`12.
`
`I note that Java was originally written for use with handheld devices
`
`and was run on handheld devices as early as 1992, approximately ten years before
`
`the priority date of the ‘748 Patent. An example of James Gosling’s expectation of
`
`running Java on handheld devices can be found in the video located at: Gosling,
`
`James; Forrest, Craig; Frazier, Al; Frank, Ed; Haughton, Patrick; Palrang, Joe;
`
`Payne, Jon; Sheridan, Mike; and Warth, Chris “The Star7 PDA Prototype”, James
`
`Gosling
`
`/ Green Project demonstration video
`
`(1992)
`
`(available
`
`at,
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg8OBYixL0).
`
`B.
`The Java® Programming Language and GPS Coordinates
`13. Next, the Patent Owner argues that receiving GPS information can only
`
`be accomplished via a Java Native Interface. However, this is contradicted by the
`
`near-contemporaneous development of Java Specification Request 179 (JSR-179).
`
`14.
`
`JSR-179 is a Java Application Programming Interface that “produces
`
`information about the present geographic location of the terminal to Java
`
`Applications.” Ex. 1019 at 1.
`
`15. Work on JSR-179 began at least as early as March 2002, as evidenced
`
`by the JSR-179 document and other publicly available information. Id. at iii; see also
`
`5
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020 at 1.
`
`16. This API was designed for J2ME, and allowed for determination of the
`
`device’s location “using any possible location methods, for example, satellite
`
`methods like GPS . . . .” Id. at 1, 5.
`
`17.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA at the time of Barbosa would have
`
`recognized that there was no fundamental impediment to applets receiving GPS data,
`
`and that all that would be required to achieve this is an update to the API.
`
`18.
`
`In fact, this actually occurred shortly after the earliest possible priority
`
`date of the ’748 Patent.
`
`C.
`19.
`
`Java® Applets and Handheld Computers at the Time of Barbosa.
`I note that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Russ, cites column 12, lines 14-
`
`18 of Barbosa and opines that “when Barbosa mentions sending a template in
`
`combination with a Java ‘applet’ to a receiving device, it must necessarily be
`
`speaking of sending the template to a desktop or laptop device since applets were
`
`not a part of standard Java in 2000.” Ex. 2006 at ¶ 77.
`
`20. However, Barbosa itself refutes Dr. Russ’s opinion. Barbosa describes
`
`an embodiment where the users (field assessors) are equipped only with handheld
`
`devices as they make field assessments around a geographic area: “Assessors
`
`equipped with handheld devices are assigned/deployed to specific positions of the
`
`affected environment.” Barbosa, 11:63-12:32 and 12:2-3. Barbosa does not
`6
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`describe or suggest that these field assessors are equipped with any non-handheld
`
`devices. Barbosa states: “At their respective positions, assessor are provide a
`
`template from the remote server 1302 comprising unique/updated instructions for
`
`their respective assessment of the position (e.g., data collection instructions). The
`
`template may operate in combination with programs resident in the handheld
`
`computer or may be accompanied by a computer program transmitted from the
`
`se[r]ver (e.g., in the form of a JAVA applet).” Barbosa at 12:11-18 (emphasis
`
`added). Barbosa thus makes clear that the field assessor’s handheld device receives
`
`the Java applet. This is consistent with a POSITA’s familiarity at the time, prior to
`
`the filing of the Barbosa patent in September 2001, with Java applets for mobile
`
`devices. For example, the Bandera patent that I separately discussed in my original
`
`declaration and discuss further in this declaration, filed in January 1999, describes
`
`“a JAVA® applet 40 running within a mobile Web client.” Bandera, 8:63-9:12.
`
`21.
`
`It is not clear what Dr. Russ intends by his statement that “applets were
`
`not a part of standard Java in 2000.” The use of Java applets for mobile devices was
`
`well-known in 2000, and a POSITA would have readily understood Barbosa’s
`
`teaching to describe that the field assessor’s handheld device receives a Java applet.
`
`III. Claim 7 in view of Barbosa and Falls.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In my original declaration, I expressed my opinion that Barbosa in view
`
`of Falls renders obvious Claim 7. See Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 172-185. Below I provide
`7
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`further discussion in support of this opinion.
`
`D.
`
`23.
`
`“Automatically Transferring said Designed Questionnaire to at
`Least One Loosely Networked Computer.”
`I have further considered the limitation of Claim 7 requiring
`
`“automatically transferring said designed questionnaire . . .” As explained below, it
`
`is my opinion that Barbosa discloses the claimed automatic transfer. Further, such
`
`automatic transferring would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the
`
`alleged invention in light of the express teachings of Barbosa.
`
`24. As I stated in my original declaration, Barbosa discloses an interactive
`
`environment that allows two-way communications between a remote device and a
`
`server, including automatic synchronization and automatic information transfers.
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 176-177. Further discussion in Barbosa confirms that Barbosa
`
`specifically describes transferring questions to remotes automatically.
`
`25. For example, Barbosa describes a method for automatically distributing
`
`inventory tracking/ordering information (i.e., inventory status questions) to a remote
`
`device. Barbosa at 11:29-40. Barbosa states, “The technician may coordinate
`
`inventory needs with the company automatically using this method . . . ” Id. at 11:39-
`
`40 (emphasis added). More specifically, this disclosure teaches automatic
`
`transferring of an updated questionnaire (here, inventory status questions) to
`
`remotes; by automatically providing updated inventory tracking questionnaire to the
`
`8
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`remotes, Barbosa’s system ensures “that no more inventory than is needed is taken
`
`to the field.” Id. at 11:29-40. In addition, it would have been obvious to transfer
`
`the updated inventory questions to the remote device “automatically” in light of this
`
`disclosure of Barbosa so as to ensure efficiency in the communications, i.e., “so that
`
`no more inventory than is needed is taken to the field.” Id.
`
`26. As another example, Barbosa teaches that a “worker’s handheld device
`
`(or device assigned to the worker for the shift) may be synchronized 901 with a
`
`server to receive an updated template containing tasks for the worker at the
`
`beginning of every work shift.” Id. at 10:32-42. A POSITA would appreciate that
`
`the disclosed synchronization process for transferring the updated template to be an
`
`automatic process; such automatic communications ensures that workers are
`
`provided the appropriate “daily input” and to ensure “that [completed tasks] are not
`
`repeated (wasting time) and that unfinished task[s] are addressed . . .” Id. at 10:59-
`
`67. Further, it would have been obvious to transfer the updated or template
`
`questionnaire automatically to the workers at the beginning of every work shift to
`
`efficiently track the desired workflow as a project progresses, as Barbosa teaches.
`
`See id.
`
`27. Additional disclosure of automatic transferring of questions to remote
`
`network devices is found in Barbosa at column 11, lines 53-62 and column 12, lines
`
`11-32. In both of these examples, checklists used for data collection are updated and
`9
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`synchronized across remote devices. Again, a POSITA would understand that such
`
`updating/synchronization of the template/questionnaire is done automatically, given
`
`Barbosa’s express teaching regarding the importance of coordinating among remote
`
`users in the field. Id. at 11:55-62. Likewise, transferring such information
`
`automatically would have been obvious to skilled artisans so as to ensure real-time
`
`coordination of efforts, a key concern addressed by Barbosa. See id.
`
`E.
`
`28.
`
`“Making Available via the Internet Any Responses Transferred to
`Said Central Computer in Step (e).”
`I have also further considered the limitation of Claim 7 requiring
`
`“making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer
`
`. . . .” As explained below, it is my opinion that Barbosa discloses the claimed use
`
`of the Internet. Further, using the Internet in the claimed manner would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention in light of the express
`
`teachings of Barbosa.
`
`29. As I stated in my original declaration, Barbosa discloses making
`
`responses available via the Internet. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 185. Further discussion in
`
`Barbosa confirms that Barbosa specifically describes the claimed use of the Internet
`
`to make responses available.
`
`30.
`
` Barbosa discloses an environment in which the remote commuters
`
`communicate with enterprise severs via the Internet. Barbosa, 7:12-22 (describing
`
`10
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`use of the Internet to communicate between client and remote devices); 7:37-56 (“…
`
`Information may be obtained from a server 58 located at the user’s enterprise, or
`
`from other network 55 resources available to the user (e.g., Web pages
`
`provided/obtained over the Internet). …”), 12:55-58 (connecting remote computer
`
`via an Internet Service Provider). Using the Internet for such communications
`
`between centralized servers and remote devices was extremely common by
`
`Barbosa’s 2000 filing date.
`
`31. Using the disclosed Internet/Web-based environment, Barbosa teaches
`
`various workflows in which responses to a template of questions are transmitted to
`
`a central server, and then those response are distributed by the central server to other
`
`remote devices over a network, e.g., via the Internet. Id. at 10:36-55 (distributing
`
`updated status information received from handheld devices); 11:52-62 (distributing
`
`checklist responses received from handheld devices); 12:8-18 (distributing
`
`assessment responses received from handheld devices); 7:12-22 (disclosing use of
`
`the Internet to communicate between a central server and client devices). This
`
`distribution of responses among different users allows for efficiencies in data
`
`collection and coordination of efforts. Id. at 10:60-67; 11:58-62. Through Barbosa’s
`
`disclosure of a web/Internet-based architecture, a POSITA would understand that
`
`the disclosure of Barbosa encompasses a central computer using the Internet to make
`
`available the responses received from one remote device in the form of updated and
`11
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`synchronized information provided to the other handheld remote devices, consistent
`
`with Claim 7’s required use of the Internet.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, it would also have been obvious to a POSITA at the time
`
`of the alleged invention to use the Internet—which even at that time was the largest
`
`and most ubiquitous network in the world—to send responses from other users, e.g.,
`
`in multi-user environments. This use of the Internet to disseminate a user’s
`
`responses would facilitate the real-time coordination of resources, as discussed
`
`throughout Barbosa. See, e.g., id. at Abstract, 11:55-11:62.
`
`IV. Claim 7 in view of Hancock and Falls.
`
`33.
`
`In my original declaration, I expressed my opinion that Hancock in
`
`view of Falls renders obvious Claim 7. See Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 234-246. Below I provide
`
`further discussion in support of this opinion.
`
`A. “Automatically Transferring said Designed Questionnaire to at
`Least One Loosely Networked Computer.”
`I have further considered the limitation of Claim 7 requiring
`
`34.
`
`“automatically transferring said designed questionnaire . . . .” As explained below,
`
`it is my opinion that Hancock discloses the claimed automatic transfer. Further, such
`
`automatic transferring would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the
`
`alleged invention in light of the express teachings of Hancock.
`
`35. Hancock teaches transferring questions requesting a user’s location, as
`
`12
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`well as questions regarding other location-based selections. See Ex. 1005 at ¶ 208.
`
`These questions are transferred automatically, and Hancock describes each of its
`
`preferred embodiments of Figs. 13-22 as an “automatic location system.” Hancock
`
`at 23:30-34 (emphasis added). For instance, Hancock describes, in the context of
`
`Fig. 20, an “automatic location data collection” process in which there is an “endless
`
`loop” in which a server continuously asks the client for updated location
`
`information.
`
` Hancock, 31:65-32:27.
`
` Hancock explains
`
`that
`
`the server
`
`“automatically determin[es] the location of the client. In one embodiment, the client
`
`automatically advises the server of its current location via a transmission of an
`
`electronic data packet or ‘handshake’ upon connection. The server uses this
`
`information to perform a database query to retrieve information that is customized
`
`for the particular location.” Hancock at 3:9-15. A POSITA will appreciate that this
`
`“handshake” is used to automatically transfer a query to the client device requesting
`
`its location, and Hancock makes clear that questions and answers regarding a user’s
`
`locations are exchanged automatically. Id. at 3:9-15; 31:65-32:27, and 3:56-58
`
`(“Current location data can be automatically provided by a variety of ways.”).
`
`36. Hancock also teaches further location-specific questions may be
`
`automatically transferred. For example, Hancock teaches a user interface
`
`application with location-based questions provided via a web-browser. Hancock at
`
`26:30-60. In connection with that application interface, Hancock teaches
`13
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`automatically transferring location-based questions used to “formulate a subsequent
`
`on-line database query.” Hancock at 28:49-56. Further location-based questions
`
`may be automatically transferred so as to allow the user to refine or “drill-down”
`
`database queries. Id. at 28:66-29:10. Hancock further teaches automatically
`
`transferring, via its application, questions related to user preferences that are
`
`“entered one time and are not changed for every database query to minimize input
`
`requirements.” Id. at 30:1-9. Given Hancock’s teachings of “automatic location data
`
`collection” and its automatic transmission of location-based questions (i.e., over a
`
`web-based interface or application), a POSITA would appreciate that Hancock
`
`discloses claim 7’s “automatically transferring” limitation.
`
`37.
`
`In addition, such automatic transferring would have been obvious based
`
`on Hancock’s teachings. As noted, Hancock describes each of its preferred
`
`embodiments of Figs. 13-22 as an “automatic location system.” Hancock at 23:30-
`
`34. In addition to its express discussion of an “automatic” system, Hancock makes
`
`clear that reducing user interaction with its system is a key consideration of its
`
`invention, given the mobile nature of the client devices. Id. at 3:41-45
`
`(“cumbersome” and “dangerous” user inputs); 3:65-67; and 1:29-38 (noting safety
`
`concerns for substantial user input). For example, it would have been obvious to
`
`modify the method of Figure 18 to remove any user prompts before questions are
`
`transferred so as to avoid “dangerous” user interaction. Id. at 3:42-45. Because
`14
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`automatically transferring questionnaire information would reduce a user’s need to
`
`interface with Hancock’s software, a POSITA would appreciate that the claimed
`
`automatic transfer is at least obvious in light of the teachings of Hancock as such an
`
`automated transfer would enable tailored, location-based information with minimal
`
`user interaction.
`
`B.
`
`38.
`
`“Making Available via the Internet Any Responses Transferred to
`Said Central Computer in Step (e).”
`I have also further considered the limitation of Claim 7 requiring
`
`“making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer
`
`. . . .” As explained below, it is my opinion that Hancock discloses the claimed use
`
`of the Internet. Further, using the Internet in the claimed manner would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention in light of the express
`
`teachings of Hancock.
`
`39. Hancock discloses an environment that makes extensive use of the
`
`Internet, as illustrated by Figure 13. In Figure 13, Hancock discloses a portable
`
`computing device 1302, as well as a primary server 1314 and enhanced servers 1315
`
`that are connected via the Internet 1318. Hancock, Fig. 13; 24:38-49. As Hancock
`
`explains, “A primary server 1314 is coupled to the Internet 1318. The primary server
`
`1314 is used to interface with the portable-computing device 1302 as described
`
`below. . . . A plurality of enhanced servers 1315 are connected to the Internet 1318.
`
`15
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`The enhanced servers 1315 provide location specific data to the portable-computing
`
`device 1302.” Id.
`
`40.
`
`In operation, the portable device constructs a datapacket that includes
`
`its responses to the questions provided by Hancock’ system. Id. at Fig. 17 at 1707,
`
`1708 and 31:11-19. That datapacket is sent to the primary server 1314. Id. at 31:20-
`
`21. The responses are extracted from the datapacket by primary server 1314 and are
`
`parsed into a database query. Id. at 31:22-23. The primary server 1314 then
`
`identifies the Internet “address [URL] for an enhanced server [1315] that can satisfy
`
`the customer’s database query.” Id. at 31:50-53; 31:24-36. The database query,
`
`reflecting the customer’s responses, is then sent to the enhanced server 1315 via the
`
`Internet using the appropriate URL. Id; see also Fig. 13 (illustrating Internet
`
`connection between servers 1314 and 1315). This act of making the user’s responses
`
`available via the Internet to the enhanced servers 1315 meets the claim limitation-
`
`at-issue, and the enhanced servers 1315 are programmed to accept and respond to a
`
`user’s location identifier and other responsive information from the user, as reflected
`
`by the database query. Id. at 31:32-36. By disclosing a central computer (here, the
`
`primary server 1314) making available the user’s responses to enhanced servers
`
`1315 via the Internet, a POSITA would appreciate that Hancock discloses the
`
`claimed subject matter of claim 7.
`
`41. Finally, it would have been obvious based on the teaching of Hancock
`16
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`to make the responses received by the central server available via the Internet.
`
`Hancock states that the “Internet 1318 is used in a preferred embodiment of the
`
`present invention due to its wide use and availability.” Id. at 25:1-3. Hancock further
`
`states, “An advantage of the present invention is that users can benefit from the
`
`virtually unlimited storage capacity and real-time updates of the Internet 1318.
`
`Because the Internet 1318 is used in a distributed fashion to provide users with
`
`customized location related information, the information provided to users can be as
`
`detailed as desired.” Id. at 32:32-40. Consistent with Hancock’s touting of the
`
`Internet for its wide use and distributed nature, it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to make responses received by the central server available via Internet so
`
`as to permit other devices on the Internet (like the disclosed enhanced servers) to
`
`provide additional, detailed information responsive to a user’s query. See id.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`42. The findings and opinions set forth in this declaration are based on my
`
`work and examinations to date. I may continue my examinations. I may also receive
`
`additional documentation and other factual evidence over the course of this litigation
`
`that will allow me to supplement and/or refine my opinions. I reserve the right to
`
`add to, alter, or delete my opinions and my declaration upon discovery of any
`
`additional information. I reserve the right to make such changes as may be deemed
`
`17
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`necessary.
`
`43.
`
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be filed
`
`as evidence in a contested case before the PTAB of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be subject to cross-examination in the
`
`case and that cross-examination will take place within the United States. If cross-
`
`examination is required of me, I will appear for cross-examination within the United
`
`States during the time allotted for cross-examination.
`
`44.
`
`I hereby declare 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 knowledge that willful
`
`false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed this 15th day of January 2020, in Sunnyvale, California.
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`Kendyl A. Román
`
`18
`
`Petitioner’s Ex. 1018
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,454,748
`
`