`Patent No. 8,510,407
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., and
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2019-01279
`Patent No. 8,510,407
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
`DOCTOR EARL SACERDOTI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2007
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Earl Sacerdoti, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1)
`
`I am submitting this declaration in response to PETITIONER’S
`
`REPLY, Case IPR2019-01279 Patent No. 8,510,407 (the “Reply”). This
`
`declaration supplements the earlier declaration that I submitted in this
`
`matter. (Declaration of Doctor Earl Sacerdoti, Ph.D., Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, Exhibit 2004 (“Sacerdoti Declaration”))
`
`2)
`
`The Reply incorrectly and without justification that Figure 13
`
`from the ‘407 Patent “is merely a bulleted list of attributes and connotes no
`
`particular structure.” (Reply at 3). However, the ’407 patent describes Figure
`
`13 as a data structure. “FIG. 13 illustrates a data structure for a NIM
`
`definition, stored in the NIM application server's template database or user
`
`profile database;” (3:63-65, emphasis added) One of skill in the art would
`
`understand that, when identified as a data structure, Figure 13 would indicate
`
`a hierarchical data structure in which the alleged “bulleted list” is understood
`
`to indicate that the indented, bulleted elements were attributes of each NIM
`
`definition (identified by the value of the “IDENTIFICATION” element) that
`
`stored values specifying the FRAME, MENU, and CONTROLS that defined
`
`each NIM.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`3)
`
`The Reply states that the following sentence from the ‘407
`
`Patent is limited to just one embodiment: “NIMs are extremely flexible,
`
`because the definition of the NIM is content, rather than compiled code.”
`
`(21:48-50) However, I believe it is a broad general statement about NIMs
`
`and their definitions. One of skill in the art would understand that the “one
`
`embodiment” in the paragraph cited in the Reply suggests alternative
`
`embodiments which employ description languages that are alternative to
`
`XML to define a NIM, rather than alternative embodiments in which the
`
`definitions of NIMs are compiled code.
`
`4)
`
`The Reply also asserts incorrectly and without justification that
`
`the assertion in the specification that a NIM definition can be distributed as
`
`an XML blob demonstrates that a NIM definition could be executable. The
`
`’407 patent states, “The NIM definition is therefore fairly small in size
`
`(~2K), and is therefore easily distributable as an XML file or Blob (binary
`
`large object) which is communicated using the same mechanisms (HTTP/
`
`HTTPS requests) as regular Web pages.” (33:59-63) The Reply states, “But
`
`this example also fails to support Patent Owner’s narrow construction as the
`
`example includes not only an XML file but also a binary large object, which
`
`might contain any binary content, including executable code.” (Reply at 4)
`
`In suggesting that a blob may contain any binary content, I believe that the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`authors of the Reply mis-parsed the phrase “an XML file or Blob” to mean
`
`“either an XML file or a Blob”. One of skill in the art would parse the phrase
`
`as “an XML file or an XML Blob.” My opinion of the correct parsing of the
`
`phrase as “an XML file or an XML Blob” is supported by the only other
`
`reference to a Blob in the ’407 patent, approximately 35 lines below the
`
`phrase in question, which refers explicitly to an “XML Blob containing the
`
`NIM definition.” “When users share NIMs or NIM packs, their home NIM
`
`application generates a [] share module, which may for example be an XML
`
`Blob containing the NIM definition or Sharepack modules shared. The
`
`shared NIM XML is then sent to, and saved in, the Sharelink database
`
`(78 of FIGS. 1 and 24).” (34:26-30) I further note that the Reply’s parsing of
`
`the phrase in question is not supported by expert testimony. Thus, while a
`
`Blob data type may in general contain executable code, the entirety of the
`
`specification makes clear that the Blob cited in the Reply encodes XML, not
`
`an executable program.
`
`5)
`
`The Reply additionally asserts without justification or support
`
`of expert testimony that the specification discloses embodiments that
`
`describe NIM templates that are executable. “Second, Patent Owner’s
`
`construction should also be rejected because it attempts to exclude disclosed
`
`embodiments that describe NIM templates that are executables, …” (Reply
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`at 5.) The Reply identifies two alleged descriptions of executable code.
`
`Neither identified description refers to a NIM template that is executable
`
`code.
`
`6)
`
`The first example of an allegedly executable NIM template
`
`cited by the Reply is a “second executable module” mentioned in the
`
`Summary of the Invention. (3:8-10) Having read the specification, one of
`
`skill in the art would recognize that the “second executable module” is
`
`embedded in a paragraph that summarizes the method further described in
`
`detail in the Detailed Description of the Invention and sketched in Figure 11.
`
`It summarizes four steps, each carried out by an executable module
`
`operating on the client computer, required to provide a NIM to a client
`
`computer. “The apparatus of the invention includes a computer readable
`
`memory to direct a computer to function in a specific manner. The computer
`
`readable memory includes a first executable module to identify a definition
`
`of a Networked Information Monitor (NIM). A second executable module
`
`defines a NIM frame for the NIM using the definition. A third executable
`
`module retrieves content for the NIM. A fourth executable module places
`
`the content in a N[I]M viewer defined by the frame.” (3:4-12)
`
`7)
`
`The specification provides a full description of these steps,
`
`carried out in the identical sequence, in conjunction with Figure 11. That
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`figure shows the four steps summarized in the Summary of the Invention
`
`and detailed in the Detailed Description of the Invention. Figure 11 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`8)
`
`The specification details the four steps as follows: 1: Identify a
`
`definition of a NIM: “After logging in (step 240) the user clicks on the name
`
`of a NIM, and the client parser application 38 sends a request including the
`
`NIM_ID of the NIM definition, to the applications server 50 via the
`
`transmission channel 44 (step 241).” (20:8-12) 2: define a NIM frame for the
`
`NIM using the definition: “After the user is logged in and has clicked on the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`NIM, the applications server 50 retrieves the NIM definition from the NIM
`
`template database 74 using the NIM ID, in step 242, and provides it to the
`
`client 20 in step 243. The client 20 receives the NIM definition from the
`
`applications server 50 in step 244, and the client parser application 38
`
`creates a frame in the display of the user interface 42 in step 245.” (20:18-
`
`24) 3: retrieve content for the NIM: “In step 246, the client 20 requests the
`
`necessary content elements 94 stored at the URLs identified in the NIM
`
`definition from the corresponding content server 82.” (20:24-27) 4: place the
`
`content in a NIM viewer defined by the frame: “The content server 82
`
`transmits the content 94 in step 247, and in step 248 the client parser
`
`application 38 places the content in the viewer, which is enclosed by the
`
`frame, allowing the user to preview the NIM.” (20:27-30)
`
`9)
`
`One of skill in the art would readily recognize that the steps
`
`detailed above are the same ones summarized in the Summary of the
`
`Invention. These steps are performed by the client parser application which
`
`is resident on the client computing device. “When the user clicks on the
`
`name of a collected NIM (step 253) the client parser application 38 creates a
`
`frame in the display 42 of the user interface 40 in step 254.” (21:19-21)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`10) My belief that the “second executable module” is a component
`
`of the client parser application, not the NIM template, is supported by the
`
`fact that the second executable module is never described as a template.
`
`11)
`
`As the citations above and Figure 11 make clear, the “second
`
`executable module” is a component of the client parser application, and
`
`hence it is distinct from the NIM template read by the client parser
`
`application. They also make clear that that the “second executable module”,
`
`as a component of the client parser application, must be resident on the
`
`client computer before the NIM template is transmitted from the server over
`
`the network responsive to the transmitted request. Hence, the “second
`
`executable module” cannot be the NIM template.
`
`12)
`
`The second example of an allegedly executable NIM template
`
`cited by the Reply is the NIM definition module. “In a second example, the
`
`specification describes additional modules that define a NIM, i.e., modules
`
`that are NIM templates. The specification describes these NIM templates as
`
`“NIM definition modules” …” (Reply at 5-6.) No justification for this
`
`assertion is offered in the Reply; its assertion appears to be based on an
`
`incorrect assumption that “module” means “executable code”.
`
`13)
`
`One of skill in the art would understand that the term “module”
`
`is not limited to executable code. The specification of the ’407 patent is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`consistent with this understanding. For example, the Share module of Fig 24
`
`is not executable.
`
`14)
`
`As discussed above with respect to Figure 13, one of skill in the
`
`art would understand that Figure 24 indicates a hierarchical data structure in
`
`which the indented items were accessible elements of the element from
`
`which they were indented. So, for example, “Creation date” could be
`
`retrieved from the Share Module, “Look and Feel” could be retrieved from
`
`the NIM Definition Module, and “NIM Definition Module 1” could be
`
`retrieved from the Sharepack module.
`
`15)
`
`The Reply also asserts that Petitioner’s infringement
`
`contentions in the related district court action conflict with a NIM template
`
`not being executable. This is incorrect. It is known in the current art that
`
`downloading an app from an app store to a mobile device does not entail
`
`directly downloading an application. In making its argument, the Reply
`
`appears to assume that an executable application is downloaded when
`
`“downloading an app.” One of skill in the art would understand that
`
`“downloading an app” is shorthand for downloading an app package from a
`
`server (an “app store” such as the Lenovo App Explorer) and the subsequent
`
`installation on the client device of the corresponding app defined by the app
`
`package. An app package (such as an .appx file downloaded to a Lenovo
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Yogabook) is known in the art to be a hierarchical data structure that can
`
`include code elements, picture elements (such as icons or emoji), string
`
`elements (such as names, screen titles or captions, messages, or other text to
`
`be presented by the mobile app), and other elements such as URLs. The
`
`Reply thus wrongly equates “download an app” with “download a file that is
`
`an executable program.” Hence, the Reply’s assertion that the infringement
`
`contentions require an alternative claim construction is false.
`
`16) For my efforts in connection with the preparation of this
`
`declaration I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate for this type
`
`of consulting activity. My compensation is in no way contingent on the
`
`results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned
`
`patent.
`
`17)
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
`
`and correct.
`
`
`
`Sworn to this 18th day of September, 2020 in Alamo, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`id 952mm:
`
`
`
`____________________________
`
`
`
`10
`10
`
`