Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`Issue Date: April 23, 2013
`
`Title: Transmission of Status Updates Responsive to
`Status of Recipient Application
`
`DECLARATION OF SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, PH.D.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1 
`A.  Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 1 
`B.  Materials Considered ............................................................................ 4 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 5 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 8 
`A. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 8 
`IV.  THE ’236 PATENT ...................................................................................... 10 
`A.  Overview of the Specification ............................................................ 10 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 17 
`V.  APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS ........... 18 
`A. 
`Brief Summary of Prior Art ............................................................... 18 
`1. 
`References for Grounds 1-2 (Claims 1, 10, 15, 18) ................. 18 
`(a)  Haave [Ex. 1003] ........................................................... 18 
`(b)  Chu [Ex. 1004] ............................................................... 22 
`(c)  Haley [Ex. 1005] ............................................................ 25 
`References for Grounds 3-4 (Claims 5, 15, 17 and 18) ........... 27 
`(a)  Owens [Ex. 1006] .......................................................... 29 
`Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 10, 15 and 18 Based on
`Haave .................................................................................................. 32 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 32 
`(a) 
`“transmitting status messages using a first message
`transmission mode;” (Claim 1[a]) ................................. 40 
`“upon determining that the recipient application is
`actively processing status updates, transmitting
`status messages using a second message
`transmission mode, the second message
`transmission mode being different from the first
`message transmission mode.” (Claim 1[b]) ................... 44 
`-i-
`
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`(b) 
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 48 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 50 
`(a) 
`“a mode selector configured to determine whether
`a recipient application is actively processing status
`updates and to select a message transmission mode
`based on whether the recipient application is
`actively processing status updates;” (Claim 15[a]) ...... 51 
`“a message generator configured to generate status
`messages and to cause transmission of status
`messages from the mobile communications device
`to a recipient application using the selected
`message transmission mode” (Claim 15[b])................. 56 
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 58 
`4. 
`Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 10, 15 and 18 Based on
`Chu ..................................................................................................... 61 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 61 
`(a) 
`“transmitting status messages using a first message
`transmission mode;” (Claim 1[a]) ................................. 77 
`“upon determining that the recipient application is
`actively processing status updates, transmitting
`status messages using a second message
`transmission mode, the second message
`transmission mode being different from the first
`message transmission mode.” (Claim 1[b]) ................... 82 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 92 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 93 
`(a) 
`“a mode selector configured to determine whether
`a recipient application is actively processing status
`updates and to select a message transmission mode
`based on whether the recipient application is
`actively processing status updates;” (Claim 15[a]) ...... 94 
`
`(b) 
`
`(b) 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(b) 
`
`“a message generator configured to generate status
`messages and to cause transmission of status
`messages from the mobile communications device
`to a recipient application using the selected
`message transmission mode.” (Claim 15[b]).............. 100 
`Claim 18 ................................................................................. 103 
`4. 
`D.  Grounds 3-4: Obviousness of Claims 5, 15, 17, and 18 .................. 104 
`VI.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .... 121 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 123 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`I, Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`1.
`I am the Chief Executive Officer of Experantis LLC, a technology
`
`consulting company. I am also the Dean of the Mobility Center of Excellence at the
`
`International Institute of Digital Technologies. Previously, I was the Executive Vice
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer of SourceTrace Systems, Inc., a technology
`
`and services company enabling the delivery of secure remote electronic services
`
`over landline and wireless telecommunications networks.
`
`2.
`
`I received my bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1995. I received
`
`my master’s degree in Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) in 1997, and my doctorate in Computer Science from MIT in
`
`2001. I received a certificate of completion for an executive education program on
`
`global leadership from Harvard University in 2011. My doctoral dissertation at MIT,
`
`entitled “Composable System Resources for Networked Systems,” which involved
`
`networked client architectures and systems, was selected as one of the top inventions
`
`in the history of MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science. This invention is
`
`showcased in a time capsule at the Museum of Science in Boston, Massachusetts.
`
`3.
`
`In 2011, I was named a Young Global Leader. This honor, bestowed
`1
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`each year by the World Economic Forum, recognizes and acknowledges the top
`
`leaders—all below the age of 40—from around the world for their professional
`
`accomplishments, commitment to society, and potential to contribute to shaping the
`
`future of the world. In 2016, I was appointed to the World Economic Forum’s expert
`
`network as an expert in technology and innovation, and I advise world leaders on
`
`issues related to technology and innovation.
`
`4.
`
`From 1997, I was the Entrepreneur-in-Residence at FidelityCAPITAL,
`
`the venture capital arm of Fidelity Investments. In 1999, I founded and served as
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Satora Networks, which
`
`developed tools and technologies for building appliances and services for the
`
`Internet using wireless and other technologies to extend it beyond the desktop.
`
`5.
`
`In 2001, I joined Bluestone Software’s Mobile Middleware Labs as a
`
`Senior Engineer developing applications and systems infrastructure for enterprise
`
`Java/J2EE, Web services, and enterprise mobile solutions. After the completion of
`
`Hewlett-Packard’s (“HP”) acquisition of Bluestone, I became a Senior Member of
`
`the Technical Staff at HP’s Middleware Division. I was responsible for architecting
`
`and developing the company’s next-generation Web services platform for enterprise
`
`as well as mobile environments, known as the Web Services Mediator.
`
`6.
`
`I was part of the Expert Group that developed the JSR-00172 J2ME
`
`2
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`(Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition) Web Services Specification, the worldwide
`
`standard for mobile Web services. I am the co-author, with James Webber, of the
`
`book “Developing Enterprise Web Services: An Architect’s Guide” (published by
`
`Prentice-Hall in 2004). This book has been adopted by over 100 universities and
`
`colleges around the world and has been translated or reprinted in numerous countries
`
`around the world.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive experience in architecting, developing, optimizing,
`
`deploying and managing complex computing systems, including mobile computing
`
`systems and messaging based systems, throughout the world. I have architected and
`
`developed mobile and distributed computing systems, including hardware and
`
`software for these systems. As part of supporting multiple devices and form factors,
`
`I have extensive experience with a number of relevant technologies, including HTTP
`
`and HTML (among other web technologies), and with the design and creation of
`
`client and server software, devices, and systems, as well as user interfaces that allow
`
`users to send, receive, access, and view content distributed on the web, including
`
`text and multimedia such as images.
`
`8.
`
`I have been an invited speaker at conferences throughout the world,
`
`including the 2003 Automated Software Engineering Conference, the 2003 and 2004
`
`International Multiconference in Computer Science & Computer Engineering, the
`
`3
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`2004 IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications,
`
`and the 2004 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce, and e-
`
`Service. I served as the General Chair for the 2004 International Symposium on Web
`
`Services and Applications. I also have served as a columnist on mobile and
`
`enterprise software systems for a number of IT magazines, including Java Boutique
`
`and Dataquest.
`
`9.
`
`I have attached a more detailed list of my qualifications as Exhibit A.
`
`10. Experantis is being compensated for my time working on this matter at
`
`my standard hourly rate plus expenses. Neither Experantis nor I have any personal
`
`or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding, and the
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this IPR and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`11. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education
`
`and experience in the field of computer systems, as well as the documents I have
`
`considered, including U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2 (“’236 patent”) [Ex. 1001] and
`
`its prosecution history. The ’236 patent states on its face that it issued from an
`
`application filed on December 23, 2009 and claims priority to provisional
`
`application filed on April 8, 2009. For purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed
`
`4
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`April 8, 2009 as the effective filing date for the ’236 patent. I have cited to the
`
`following documents in my analysis below:
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2 to Michael S. Brown et al. (filed Dec.
`23, 2009, issued Apr. 23, 2013) (“’236” or “’236 patent”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,171,187 B2 to Luther Haave (filed Aug. 19, 2002,
`issued Jan. 30, 2007) (“Haave”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,016,508 to Lon-Chan Chu et al. (filed July 2, 1997,
`issued Jan. 18, 2000) (“Chu”)
`1005 Excerpts from E. Phil Haley, Over-the-Road Wireless for Dummies
`(2006) (“Haley”)
`1006 Excerpts from Mike Owens, The Definitive Guide to SQLite (2007)
`(“Owens”)
`1007 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,149,704 B2 to Anthony G. Martin et al. (filed
`January 25, 2002, issued December 12, 2006)
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12.
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’236 patent should be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is April 8, 2009. I have also been
`
`advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, the following factors may be considered: (1) the types of problems
`
`5
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations
`
`occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active workers in the field; and (4) the
`
`educational level of the inventor.
`
`13. The ’236 patent states that “[t]he present application relates generally
`
`to status updates transmitted from a mobile communications device, and in particular
`
`to location updates transmitted from a mobile communications device to a recipient
`
`application.” (’236, 1:15-18.) In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of April 2009 would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in software
`
`engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with
`
`at least two years of experience in software application development, including
`
`development of systems or applications for messaging involving mobile devices (or
`
`equivalent degree or experience). A person could also have qualified as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such
`
`as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience or (2) less formal
`
`education and more technical or professional experience in the fields listed above.
`
`For example, acquired as part of the person’s basic computer education and/or
`
`experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a working knowledge
`
`about generating or collecting data, such as location information, at a mobile device
`
`6
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`and transmitting information, such as that data, from the device to remote recipients.
`
`The ’236 patent acknowledges that devices and systems providing such functionality
`
`were already known and in use:
`
`[M]odern mobile communications devices support a large variety of
`data-enabled applications, including applications that utilize data
`generated or collected at the mobile communications device. This may
`include, for example, applications that are aware of the location of the
`mobile communications device. Taking advantage of these capabilities,
`users of mobile communications devices are increasingly mobile and
`social.
`
`(’236, 1:21-28.)
`
`14. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my more than 20 years of experience in computer science,
`
`my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer
`
`or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and
`
`my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues, co-workers, and employees, both
`
`past and present.
`
`15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’236 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of April 2009.
`
`7
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`16.
`I understand that under the legal principles, claim terms are generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. I further
`
`understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
`
`term not only in the context of the particular claim in which a claim term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed by counsel that the patent specification, under the legal
`
`principles, has been described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim
`
`term, and is thus highly relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I
`
`understand for terms that do not have a customary meaning within the art, the
`
`specification usually supplies the best context of understanding the meaning of those
`
`terms.
`
`18.
`
`I am further informed by counsel that other claims of the patent in
`
`question, both asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to
`
`the meaning of a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently
`
`throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim an often illuminate the
`
`meaning of the same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a
`
`8
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence may also
`
`be consulted in construing the claim terms, such as my expert testimony.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`
`proceedings, a claim of a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction
`
`standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S.
`
`district court (which I understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction
`
`standard), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`9
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`IV. THE ’236 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Specification
`22. The ’236 patent states that it “relates generally to status updates
`
`transmitted from a mobile communications device, and in particular to location
`
`updates transmitted from a mobile communications device to a recipient
`
`application.” (’236, 1:15-18.)
`
`23. The ’236 patent states in the “Background” section that “modern
`
`mobile communications devices support a
`
`large variety of data-enabled
`
`applications,” including “applications that are aware of the location of the mobile
`
`communications device.” (’236, 1:21-26.) The patent asserts that “[t]ransmissions
`
`from the mobile communications device over a wireless communications system
`
`consume resources that would be desirable to conserve,” including device battery
`
`power and network bandwidth. (’236, 1:29-36.) According to the ’236 patent, “[t]o
`
`conserve resources, a solution for efficient transmission of status updates from
`
`mobile communications devices would provide an advance in the field.” (’236,
`
`1:37-39.) The patent states that it “describes arrangements which enable a mobile
`
`communications device to transmit status updates efficiently over a wireless network
`
`to a recipient application.” (’236, 3:7-9.)
`
`24. An embodiment of the system for transmitting status updates from a
`
`mobile communications device according to the ’236 patent is illustrated in Figure
`
`10
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`1 from the patent:
`
`mobile
`communications
`device
`
`status message
`
`recipient application
`
`
`(’236, Fig. 1 (annotations added).) Referring to Figure 1, the patent states that
`
`
`
`“system 160 includes a mobile communications device 110 adapted to transmit (as
`
`shown by arrow 135) a status message 100 over a wireless communications network
`
`105 to a recipient application 250 running on a recipient mobile communications
`
`11
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`device 120.” (’236, 5:44-49.) I have annotated Figure 1 above to highlight three
`
`aspects of the system: (1) mobile communications device 110; (2) recipient
`
`application 250; and (3) status message 100.
`
`25. The ’236 patent broadly describes the mobile communications device
`
`as “hav[ing] a variety of sizes, shapes, and features.” (’236, 24:37-38.) “For
`
`example, a mobile communications device 110 may be (or be a part of) a smart
`
`phone, wireless router, relay, laptop computer, tablet computer, GPS-enabled
`
`device, Navigation System, wireless mobile tracking device or any other device
`
`which may transmit information via a wireless network 1200.” (’236, 24:38-43.)
`
`26. The ’236 patent similarly describes the recipient application in broad
`
`terms, stating that “[a] recipient application may be any software, hardware,
`
`component, or collection of components that processes status updates from a mobile
`
`communications device and generates an output based on the status updates.” (’236,
`
`2:55-58.) Thus, although the recipient application 250 is depicted in Figure 1 as a
`
`component within another mobile communications device 120, the ’236 patent
`
`makes clear that “the recipient application 250 may exist in one or more servers, one
`
`or more mobile communications devices, a personal computer, or a combination of
`
`one or more machines operable to run components of a recipient application 250.”
`
`(’236, 7:9-13.)
`
`12
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`
`27.
`
`In terms of functionality, the recipient application, in one example, is a
`
`“location application that processes location updates from a mobile communications
`
`device,” such as a mapping application that may “generate an output comprising a
`
`map displayed on a screen that shows the current location, and optionally, the
`
`historical location, of a moving device.” (’236, 4:35-43.) The patent states that “this
`
`type of recipient application may be used in a variety of situations, e.g., police may
`
`track the location of squad cars, distribution companies may track the whereabouts
`
`of delivery vehicles, business or government agencies may track the location of
`
`mobile employees, or parents may track the location of children.” (’236, 4:43-49.)
`
`28. As to the status messages, the ’236 patent does not provide any
`
`particular detail regarding their format or the communications protocol used to
`
`transmit them. The patent states that “[s]tatus messages, such as status message 100,
`
`may contain a plurality of status updates 101 such as status updates 101A, 101B,
`
`101C and 101Z.” (’236, 5:50-53.) In the example where the recipient application is
`
`a location application, the patent states that “each status update 101A, 101B, 101C
`
`and 101Z may be a location update and may comprise, for example, any one or more
`
`of a longitude, latitude, relative position, absolute position, altitude, velocity,
`
`timestamp, or other location information collected by a location module in the
`
`mobile communications device 110.” (’236, 5:56-63.)
`
`13
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`
`29. The ’236 patent states that the recipient application 250 has various
`
`states of operation. For example, “[a] recipient application that is producing an
`
`output around the same time that it is processing the status updates is said to be
`
`actively processing the status updates.” (’236, 2:58-61 (underlining added); see also
`
`’236, 7:16-19.) In contrast, “a recipient application 250 that is simply collecting and
`
`storing the status updates without producing an output soon thereafter is not actively
`
`processing the status updates and is called a non-active recipient application.” (’236,
`
`7:22-26; see also ’236, 3:1-6 (“The non-active recipient application may be, for
`
`example, an application running as a background process, an idle application, or a
`
`recipient application that is not launched, or any other component that is not
`
`producing an output soon after receiving the status updates.”), 7:26-43.) The ’236
`
`patent states that, in order to conserve resources, “the mobile communications device
`
`utilizes different message transmission modes based on the activity of the recipient
`
`application—i.e., whether or not the recipient application is actively processing
`
`status updates.” (’236, 3:10-13 (underlining added).) The ’236 patent states:
`
`The different message transmission modes may implement different
`amounts of delay between status messages and number of the status
`updates included in each status message. In one implementation, the
`mobile communications device may automatically select a different
`message transmission mode when the mobile communications device
`determines that the recipient application is actively processing status
`
`14
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`
`updates. By selecting between different message transmission modes,
`the mobile communications device is able to conserve resources during
`times when the recipient application is not actively processing the status
`updates.
`
`(’236, 3:13-24.)
`
` Two example
`
`transmission modes, “conservative” and
`
`“accelerated,” are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3:
`
`
`(’236, Figs. 2 & 3.) The ’236 patent describes these modes as follows:
`
`
`
`the mobile
`transmission mode,
`In a conservative message
`communications device may conserve resources by increasing the delay
`between status messages and by increasing the number of status updates
`in each status message. As a non-limiting example, the conservative
`
`15
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`
`message transmission mode may be useful when a non-active recipient
`application will process status updates at some point in the future for
`historical status. During the times when a recipient application is
`actively processing the status updates for greater accuracy of current
`status, the mobile communications device may operate in an
`accelerated message transmission mode. The accelerated message
`transmission mode may have less delay between transmissions of status
`messages and may include fewer status updates in each status message.
`As a non-limiting example, a status message in the accelerated message
`transmission mode might include only one status update.
`
`(’236, 3:59-4:8.)
`
`30. The ’236 patent states that it “describes several ways in which the
`
`mobile communications device may determine that the recipient application is
`
`actively processing status updates”:
`
`the mobile communications device
`In various embodiments,
`determines whether the recipient application is actively processing or
`not actively processing by one or more of: observing an indication in a
`synchronized database; receiving an unsolicited request message from
`the recipient application; receiving an unsolicited indication from an
`infrastructure element; soliciting and receiving an indication from the
`recipient application; or soliciting and receiving an indication from an
`infrastructure element. Moreover, in some embodiments, the mobile
`communications device may determine that the recipient application is
`not actively processing after a defined period has elapsed since the most
`
`16
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`
`recent indication that the recipient application is actively processing
`was received. In some embodiments, the mobile communications
`device may use a timestamp in a synchronized database, request
`message or indication to determine if the recipient application is
`actively processing status updates.
`
`(’236, 3:24-43; see also ’236, 11:44-12:7 (disclosing “non-limiting examples” of
`
`ways that the mobile communications device may determine whether the recipient
`
`application is actively processing status updates).)
`
`B.
`The Challenged Claims
`31. This Declaration addresses claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’236
`
`patent. Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`1. A method in a mobile communications device that transmits status
`messages to a recipient application, each status message including at
`least one status update, the method comprising:
`transmitting status messages using a first message transmission
`mode; and
`is actively
`the recipient application
`that
`upon determining
`processing status updates, transmitting status messages using a
`second message transmission mode, the second message
`transmission mode being different from the first message
`transmission mode.
`
`(’236, 29:44-54.) Independent claim 15 is similar in many respects to claim 1 but
`
`recites a “mobile communications device” instead of a method. I will address all of
`
`17
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,236 B2
`
`the challenged claims in my detailed analysis in Part V below.
`
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS
`32.
`I have reviewed and analyzed the prior art references and materials
`
`listed in Part I.B above. In my opinion, the claims of the ’236 patent are rendered
`
`obvious based on the following prior art:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`References
`Haave (Ex. 1003)
`Chu (Ex. 1004) and Haley (Ex. 1005)
`Haave and Owens (Ex. 1006)
`Chu, Haley, and Owens
`
`Claim(s)
`1, 10, 15, 18
`1, 10, 15, 18
`5, 15, 17, 18
`5, 15, 17, 18
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I am informed by counsel that each of the references cited in the
`
`grounds above qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims because each reference
`
`