IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`)
`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
`
`
`
`)
`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
`
`
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
